jrumph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a lot of whining going on in here > > I’m in my early twenties and went 3/3, but didn’t > just “blow off” my job while studying. I worked > on average 60+ hours/week during the whole > process, plus went into work an hour early and > stayed two hours late everyday to study. I put in > anywhere from 5 (winter/early spring) to 10 (late > spring) hours on each weekend day on my own time. > I had over 50,000 flight miles YTD when I took the > test, so I had to do a lot of studying on planes, > in hotels, etc - not to mention all the wasted > time that goes along with travel. > > Don’t forget it is the twenty somethings that do > much of the grunt work in the office - stuff that > we just can’t “blow off” to study. The rule of > thumb here is the lowest guy on the chain is the > first one in the door in the morning and the last > one out at night. I think it would have been much > easier to study if I were more senior level and > had more discretionary time. it’s impressive what you did. i agree. you should be proud of it. but throw in some children and family obligations…(like my man mwvt). it’s no cakewalk, my friend. by the way. i think i’m mistaking you for someoen else. did you not fail level 1 once?
I will take the level 3 next june and I dont mind if the pass rate would be 45-50% for good. It would improve credibility of the designation.
jayjay77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cross1000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The CFAI should follow a similar format to the > > CA…no work experience, no acceptance. > > > > The requirements of a unversity degree is too > low > > and has to be stopped. > > > > That way they can give a fair exam instead of > > these crazy changes and lack of disclosures > every > > year trying to limit the amount of designations. > > > Trying to “weed” out all the people flooding > the > > CFA designation in hopes of finding a job one > day > > because they have nothing better to do after > > university. > > > > There are many people working in the industry, > who > > work 12-15 hour days, run a family, and try to > > study for an exam that is like a dice roll at > the > > end of it all. While a majority of the people > > passing now are not even working in the field > and > > think writing these exams is like a winning > > lottery ticket. > > I completely agree with this. Don’t know if this > is correct but a few older CFAs have told me that > you used to have to get accepted into the program > first based on work experience and then take the > exams. Now anyone can take the exams and only > after you pass all three do they look at your work > experience. What will happen to all these people > who pass all three exams but have no relevant work > experience? > > Plus the timing of the exam is horrible. April > 15-May15 is basically earnings season. Why not do > the exam July 1 or at least offer all levels twice > year! It’s not accurate. I’ve been a regular member since April 07 (between passing LI and LII). They grandfathered in 3 years vs 4 years work experience for those that initially registered before '05 or something like that, but you had to apply for membership before July 07.
I don’t think anyone should be surprised to see a lot of frustration being aired out on this board in the short-term. There are a lot of people that have put their life on hold and made a lot of sacrifices for a test that lacks transparency and consistency. I don’t think that claim is up for lot of debate - at least not with me. First, you can’t see the subjective marks on your essay to protest and the volatility of recent pass rates shows a lack of consistency. The major variable is this process is time. Everyone’s circumstances are different. There are plenty of folks that overcome a lot of obstacles and some that just can’t for whatever reason. The bottom line though at the office - it doesn’t matter what was going on - you either passed or failed. I see a lot of people that want lower pass rates to improve the credibility of the designation. I take the opposite view. I could care less if the pass rate is 75% every year. I don’t want the test to be easy but if 75% bust their arse with 300+ hours on a yearly basis and hit a defined MPS, so be it. Why should there be a limit? I’m not for lowering the bar but I’m not for raising it depending on the number that clear the previous standard. Nearly every person I have worked with has walked out of the exam with a great deal of uncertainty - of course they have all passed at some point - but my question if there is little correlation between a person’s confidence in the material and the results of the exam, what is the point? This sums up my Level II experience. I remember a slide in the Schweser seminar in which a candidate e-mailed the instructor right after the exam with “I had no idea what was going on in the afternoon, I guessed on so many of the questions, I know I failed.” My seminar instructor followed that slide with “and he later e-mailed me that he passed the exam.” Right now, the senior managers that passed long ago might have trouble understanding why their analysts are having such a hard time. Like they are going to admit or recognize the test was ‘easier’ back then. The people that pass now are thinking they did something a lot more difficult than their boss. The material is not hard in isolation but its the combo of the breadth and emphasis on minutiae and the grading on the morning session has gotten tougher and I have been at this level long enough to see the progression. I will carry some ill will to the CFA for the rest of my life but the rant is part of my therapy and necessary to reach the point where I can get back on that horse.
shoc5235 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Right now, the senior managers that passed long > ago might have trouble understanding why their > analysts are having such a hard time. Like they > are going to admit or recognize the test was > ‘easier’ back then. The people that pass now are > thinking they did something a lot more difficult > than their boss. The material is not hard in > isolation but its the combo of the breadth and > emphasis on minutiae and the grading on the > morning session has gotten tougher and I have been > at this level long enough to see the progression. Good post - I can particularly relate to this part. I don’t like that the exam is more difficult but there is also less respect for it from management.
cfasf1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- . i think i’m > mistaking you for someoen else. did you not fail > level 1 once? Nope, went 3/3. Started with L1 Dec '06.
congrats, man. that’s awesome… i am mistaking you for someone else.
emarkhans Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jayjay77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cross1000 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The CFAI should follow a similar format to > the > > > CA…no work experience, no acceptance. > > > > > > The requirements of a unversity degree is too > > low > > > and has to be stopped. > > > > > > That way they can give a fair exam instead of > > > these crazy changes and lack of disclosures > > every > > > year trying to limit the amount of > designations. > > > > > Trying to “weed” out all the people flooding > > the > > > CFA designation in hopes of finding a job one > > day > > > because they have nothing better to do after > > > university. > > > > > > There are many people working in the > industry, > > who > > > work 12-15 hour days, run a family, and try > to > > > study for an exam that is like a dice roll at > > the > > > end of it all. While a majority of the > people > > > passing now are not even working in the field > > and > > > think writing these exams is like a winning > > > lottery ticket. > > > > I completely agree with this. Don’t know if > this > > is correct but a few older CFAs have told me > that > > you used to have to get accepted into the > program > > first based on work experience and then take > the > > exams. Now anyone can take the exams and only > > after you pass all three do they look at your > work > > experience. What will happen to all these > people > > who pass all three exams but have no relevant > work > > experience? > > > > Plus the timing of the exam is horrible. April > > 15-May15 is basically earnings season. Why not > do > > the exam July 1 or at least offer all levels > twice > > year! > > It’s not accurate. I’ve been a regular member > since April 07 (between passing LI and LII). They > grandfathered in 3 years vs 4 years work > experience for those that initially registered > before '05 or something like that, but you had to > apply for membership before July 07. By older I mean people who got the charter in the 80s-90s such as my boss. This is what he told me and he has been a CFA since the early 1990s if not longer.
jrumph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a lot of whining going on in here > > I’m in my early twenties and went 3/3, but didn’t > just “blow off” my job while studying. I worked > on average 60+ hours/week during the whole > process, plus went into work an hour early and > stayed two hours late everyday to study. I put in > anywhere from 5 (winter/early spring) to 10 (late > spring) hours on each weekend day on my own time. > I had over 50,000 flight miles YTD when I took the > test, so I had to do a lot of studying on planes, > in hotels, etc - not to mention all the wasted > time that goes along with travel. > > Don’t forget it is the twenty somethings that do > much of the grunt work in the office - stuff that > we just can’t “blow off” to study. The rule of > thumb here is the lowest guy on the chain is the > first one in the door in the morning and the last > one out at night. I think it would have been much > easier to study if I were more senior level and > had more discretionary time. jrumph – congrats!! definitely agree for people actually in industry you do much more work at the lower levels and have much more flexibility at higher levels.
33 years old 3/3 and I was a high C, low B student in undergrad (which is basically meaningless in the real world) Commute 20 miles each way every day. 2 kids: 1 child just turned 3, other is 1 1/2. VP of a bank with a deteriorating loan portfolio that requires extensive monitoring. Moved to new state and changed jobs 2 times during studies. If I had failed any of the levels, I’d have made no excuses. Would have taken full responsibility.
So you are 33 and went 3/3 and one of your kids just turned 3. Not bad, not bad at all
Wow, there are 89,000 charterholders worldwide. I think most people are in the US. Is the weight of the charter higher in foreign countries? Singapor, China? "CFA Institute expects the majority of those candidates who passed the Level III exam will become CFA charterholders later this year, bringing the number of charterholders worldwide to more than 89,000. " “Those who passed the Level III exam − 7,720 candidates” will become potential charterholders. http://www.cfainstitute.org/aboutus/press/release/08releases/20080819_02.html
If you can’t get above 60% on a test you shouldn’t pass it.
i’m a little sick of the “i have to work” or “i have kids” excuses. Do you think the rest of us are unemployed? if you can’t devote enough time to study DON’T SIGN UP FOR THE EXAM.
Now that’s really cool Jimmy! On which year did you receive the designation, please??
I disagree with the notion that one should be “in the industry” in order to write the exams. You still have to have four years work experience to be a CFA charterholder anyway, so why the fear? Also, one should automatically not assume that those “out-of-industy” folks necessarily have “time on their hands” - Lots of them work stupid hours and have family obligations and having the werewithal to study for and pass these exams is as deserving of respect of anyone else passing. If they ultimately accrue the necessary work experience and obtain the charter, good for them. It is a competitive world, and protectionist policies don’t serve the greater good.