A drastic move like that would damage the credibility of the institute. They can only make adjustments to the difficulty level over time.
bromion Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 10% for level 3? So only a handful of the select > group get to pass? Yeah, great idea. Will never > happen. =================================================== you dont want every tom dick & harry who are still wet behind their ears getting through L3 do you?
I am in the minority I guess, but I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Employers pay for experience. If you don’t have experience, passing the exams is not worth that much to you. This automatically helps preserve the value of the charter without tweaking the pass rates.
Its only logical that passrates continue to decline. Nobody wants the CFA charter to become the series 7. I would suspect (and hope) that in the long term, passrates for all 3 levels will be south of 30%.
I would be unhappy for anything more than 10-15% for L3 in long run
“I would suspect (and hope) that in the long term, passrates for all 3 levels will be south of 30%.” Right now I hear it is roughly 10% of people who begin the program finish it. Why would you want it to be more competitive than that? .3 * .3 * .3 = .027. So by your approach, about 3% of candidates who start the program would finish it without failing once. I personally would not be interested in such a program, and I doubt many people would. This is a rediculous debate…
But if you keep it low,there will be ressentment from managers because it will be hard for them to pass. Therefore, they will quickly dimiss the exam and other test will emerge. Actually, I feel anytime I talk to someone about the CFA, I need to define what CFA means. SO there is a PR problem and marketing right there. Because there are a lot of MDs and Engineers do not mean the value of the profession is degrading. Ppl migh actually afraid of your title. I beleive that it way more difficult to pass the CFA exam than complete any MBA in the world. Still, an MBA has stronger sound.
I look at the pass rate thing kind of like owning bonds…you want interest rates to go down so that the value goes up. however if you don’t own but are thinking about it you want rates to go up for opposite reasons When I get my Charter I will want rates to go down, but in the meantime I want rates to go up (for a holding period that ends first Sat of June 09)
Not to offend anyone (because this is not meant to be taken that way) Just study harder - if you are prepared the outcome will take care of itself Can’t argue over it because it won’t change the end result
IMHO, i am not sure a lower passing rate is constructive, even though i have passed all 3 levels. i found CFA studying a rather humiliating experience - you study like crazy, sacrificing yourself and your loved ones for few months few years; you learn the concepts that may not be all too relevant to your chosen career path; you are asked rather idiotic questions on the exam that dont test much of what you learned (may be 10%?) and THEN you see lowered scores year after year… those passing in the 70s/80s didnt have to put any of that work so not many of those who have taken it before you fully appreciate how hard it became, and all of it is for the title that is inferior to MBA… I kept wondering why I was doing it - it started out with curiousity of trying out level one and than this damn ambition of not failing until you make it… so really some of the remarks here seem rather arrogant, i would not want scores going down any more, it is already too brutal - we are all in the same boat and good luck to those who failed to keep spirit up and pass next time, while material hasnt changed too much and something is still fresh in the memory…
djmalone, I passed and I couldn´t read the last 3 questions in the morning,. I passed the three levels in a row and from my point of view pass rates are high enough.
Do you have sex once in a while or is this self masturbation all you need?
No offense, but why blame the system when you should be blaming yourself? Nobody promised you an exam identical in length to the previous one nor did anyone promise that the pass rate would be 70% (or whatever you feel is reasonable). You studied enough to be in the top 60th percentile and your bet backfired. If the pass rate was higher than expected do those who studied in excess of the minimum passing grade get a refund on the extra time they spent? If you want to guarantee a pass then get 100%; if you think something below that is “acceptable” then you are taking a personal gamble that it will be sufficient. As for not finishing the written section in time, you are better off than thousands of candidates with English as their secondary or tertiary language. You already have an advantage going in and you are still complaining?
yes - now i am ticked, i passed, i obviously spent too much time studying, i want the refund!
This reminds me of the story I just read about the Little League team that was disbanded because their 9 year old pitcher threw so hard the other teams refused to play against him. A good pitcher, just like a 53% pass rate, is adversity. When faced with it, you have two choices: dig your heels in, grit your teeth, and do what it takes to pass, or cower under the pressure and look for excuses to blame for your failure. Those parents should be embarrassed that they taught their kids the latter. 53% means you just need to be in the top half. I certainly don’t think that is too much to ask. Sure, once you get to L3 it means you are dealing with a very select group as it is, but I still like to think I can be in the top 50% of the room. If I’m not, I don’t deserve to pass on that day. Plain and simple. If I would have failed I would have been disappointed - in myself, not the CFAI - but I would have dusted myself off and tried again next year. The pressure was always on me because I knew if I failed I would shoulder 100% of the blame. I wouldn’t try to pass it on to anyone else. Then again, maybe the fact that this is my thought process is the reason I didn’t fail in the first place…
it’s rational that the pass rates will drop over the years. the program is getting more difficult.
Slash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it’s rational that the pass rates will drop over > the years. the program is getting more difficult. Yeah, finance is continually evolving, adding more derivatives and options, creating new ways of structuring deals. So either the test gets harder and the pass rates go down, or they add LEVEL 4!
eliapa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IMHO, i am not sure a lower passing rate is > constructive, even though i have passed all 3 > levels. > > i found CFA studying a rather humiliating > experience - you study like crazy, sacrificing > yourself and your loved ones for few months few > years; you learn the concepts that may not be all > too relevant to your chosen career path; you are > asked rather idiotic questions on the exam that > dont test much of what you learned (may be 10%?) > and THEN you see lowered scores year after > year… those passing in the 70s/80s didnt have > to put any of that work so not many of those who > have taken it before you fully appreciate how hard > it became, and all of it is for the title that is > inferior to MBA… > > I kept wondering why I was doing it - it started > out with curiousity of trying out level one and > than this damn ambition of not failing until you > make it… > > so really some of the remarks here seem rather > arrogant, i would not want scores going down any > more, it is already too brutal - we are all in > the same boat and good luck to those who failed to > keep spirit up and pass next time, while material > hasnt changed too much and something is still > fresh in the memory… ================================================ I hate it when people do not value what they have, these are the kind of people who should e weeded out of the program in the first place no one forced you to make the so called “SACRIFICE” you did it because you wanted the charter and now that you have got it you are making it sound humiliating
I agree with a lot of premise but the thing is, you can never use old exams you down loaded off their site and did in your underwear at home as a proxy for the aggregate exam experience. The test, like the actual piece of paper and questions, in my view is about 50% to 75% of the experience: your studying skills, exam prep etc., etc., THe rest is the drive in, the stress, did you sleep the night before. Willy
A trader I know from a BB once said to me, “Don’t get the CFA, anybody can get it if they study for it. I say you can learn more from reading the Economist” But again, this trader’s boss told me, “Get the CFA, since even though the materials are not advanced, it shows your commitment in the area, and will help you long term. We need wise quantitative guys, but also look for diligent people who were (briefly) exposed to many areas.” I got the impression that the CFA is rarely recognized for the actual material learned. Hoestly speaking, I’m an analyst, but don’t find the CFA material to be thorough enough to give someone the “edge” at work. I feel that while the (currently high or low, whichever you think) pass rate is not such the problem, but a potential problem, in my IMHO is the level of material that the program teaches you. Programs like CQF and FRM, I think, gives you more skills/edge yet they are less common and hence less recognized. So the best scenario: more difficult test, reasonably high passing rate. Just my thoughts…