You are right, people are different and are placed in different situations. But the number of pages in the books is the same. And the number of minutes to read one page (on average) is the same as well. So an assessment of hours to read the material should be done. Of cause, cfai is not responsible for candidate’s inner monsters. They should give the assessment of clear study time.
I think CFAilure has a point…of sorts.
As Andrew Holmes said a few times during the class I took with him….The CFA exam has become much more difficult as the years continue to pass. And the more difficult test means that it requires a lot more time for candidates to study and prepare for the exam. I’ve got about 800-900 hours into the exam, a few more than 300, and I’m not done yet.
The material at level 3 is easier than level 2, but the written portion is a mystery. That is what CFAilures point is. Why not demystify the exam grading process so that candidates can have a fair shot at passing.
I’ve had two failed shots at Lv3, and I don’t know why I’ve failed? Arguably my handwriting is very messy and I’ve tried hard to improve it. But it remains similar to the handwriting of a DR. Unreadable at times.
And so, without any feedback, I don’t know the exact reason why I’m doing so bad at the written. Maybe at least they can have a few identifiers/feedback for students.
Exactly my situation, this is the second time i fared badly in Essay. Ofcourse I am doing something wrong, but how to identify it?. My full time job ensures that i can’t take any outside guidence and I have to study on my own. With no clue on the approach to essay section, i am left wondering whether this degree is meant for me
Feedback like
-
Wrong answer - Provide a scale as is currently done <50%, 50-70%, >70%. This would allow the test taker to know that they just blew the answer.
-
Unreadable answer or No answer provided - A Symbol, “X”, or “0%” to identify a problem with penmanship, language, or unreadable, answer provided in wrong area.
This would give candidates some feedback and remove the “black box” sort of mystery from the written portion. It’s really not fair to fail a person because of their handwriting. After all, this isn’t an English or writing exam. And this test is taken worldwide.
Exactly… this would be very helpful
The original poster is clearly exaggerating but it is very lame how all the people that passed this year are now taking a defensive (re: CFA) and meanwhile offensive (re: poster) approach. May I remind all of you of your fukkin drama in the past 2 weeks (re: error messages and WHATNOT!).
if you had passed, yet scored completely off from what your expectations were on each topic area, as in getting over 70% on stuff you thought you did bad on and getting below 50% on stuff you think you aced …would you have sent a letter bitching about the lack of transparency in grading ??? i think not !
and guess what most people get surprised at how they performed or underperformed on each topic area upon seeing the results regardless of whether they passed or not ! all you need to do is put yourself at a comparative advantage performance-wise so that you are part of the 50% that do pass
the fact that you are actually questioning how you are to go about preparing for the exam to this day and wondeirng how much time is needed to prepare for it is proof that you dont know what the hell you are doing and are just taking random shots at it. In fact you failing so consistently should be the comfort you need that there is no glitch in the system
The fact you said that means you read nothing of what I wrote.
I can’t believe I’m still reading this.
Quit that reading or keep silence, lol )))
CFAilure is like QQQbee reincarnated.
ConvexPayoff:
-
I believe that CFAI prohibits discussing any exam related questions, except the ones that they release.
-
As I mentioned earlier, nothing in this life is error free; people do tend to make mistakes. Whoever wants their exams to be reviewed again can pay an additional fee.
-
I know a couple of people who spent much less time than you did and passes all exams on the first try; however, they have photographic memory, which not so many people do. According to NYSSA instructor O. Nathan Ronen, CFA he needed to study around 400 hours to pass the test.
-
You cannot re-train an adult to change his/her handwriting because it is more or less automated process.
Hah I was JUST thinking this as your post scrolled into view…
Perfectly stated.
You are a moron… I hope you never pass for the Charter’s sake…
Take some accountability.
You were not prepared for the exam. Either you didn’t put in the time to study, or you’re not smart enough to pass the exams. It is not CFAI’s fault, it is your fault. If you don’t like it, quit the program. They never made you start.
My world will never be the same. You opened my mind. Thank you, my friend. You are… you are… the love…
For the 27th time on the thread: it is about the integrity and values, not me. Listen, I send that letter to Paul Smith. He has ny real name, candidate number etc. Do you really think I have a choice of not quitting? 
It’s not about me. I’m done. It’s all about the future generation of candidates. Got it?
I still don’t understand. The CFAI releases the findings of their survey which gives average hours studied per candidates. You seem to not like how they present the information, and maybe the CFAI could drilldown between passing and failing candidates, but these numbers are very subjective: first, candidates who participate in the survey are under no oath to tell the truth and secondly (and relating to me), many candidates don’t know the exact number of hours they study for each exam (I honestly probably could only get it within a range of 50 hours with some confidence). Also, your argument that people read at about the same rate is wrong, and besides the point. It really doesn’t matter how fast you read; what matters is how fast you understand the concepts and can apply them to problems. This varies drastically among candidates, and when coupled with each candidate’s experience related to exam material, study hours will become even more deviated. My point is this: study hours provided by candidates in surveys isn’t accurate and I would imagine that the data would find relatively large variations from the mean given the sample size. What is of greater value is objective information: the number of pages, the number of study sessions, the number of LOS, etc. which is readily available with just a little bit of analysis. Candidates can then take this objective information and apply it to their own study habits and background to estimate how many hours are needed for them personally. This information should go into the overarching cost-benefit analysis every candidate should do to see if the CFA program is worth it. If candidates do not take the time to do this proper analysis before beginning the Chartered Financial Analyst Program, that is kind of telling about how likely it is that they’re going to succeed in completing the program. I’ll take it one step further: any prospective candidate who doesn’t do this simple analysis before they start the program shouldn’t succeed.
CFAilure, and others who agree with him… here are parts of what i wrote in reply to another thread on AF, and i think some of it is applicable here…
i felt the same way last yr after failing Band 9. however, having spent another 7 grueling months studying and learning the material 10 times better than i did last yr, and fortunately passing, i no longer agree. there are many reasons why the CFAI will never do this, or even present it as a valid idea for them to discuss. 1) as much as it may help one “learn” from their mistakes, if you have learned anything from going through the prior Levels, the CFAI doesn’t want you to learn from your mistakes, they want you to KNOW the information inside and out, rather than “knowing the correct answer to a question.”… 3) the CFAI doesn’t want to teach you how to learn this material, or teach you how to study this material. some argue that the CFA Charter is the most prestigious accomplishment in the industry - it is for those who have the perseverance and acumen to learn, problem solve, and set themselves apart. the CFA program is not a “course,” where they want to teach you information and you to pass a test - giving out prior yr’s exams and your answer booklet, in order to give those an oppty to “learn from their mistakes” with only dilute the very prestige that most strive to attain by tackling the program (and won’t help much in the long run when pass rates remain the same but you need to score in the 80s to pass because the average Joe has a leg up on those who inherently have what is takes to pass).
failure is not an option, but considering your name on AF is CFAilure, i get the feeling you subconsciously are continuously setting yourself up for failure. if you, or anyone on here, tells themselves that you WILL NOT fail next yr, you won’t. come November, if every single day your goal is to know more than you did the day prior, and you are giving every ounce of your being to PASS this Level 3 exam, you will NOT fail. if you spend 5-6 months putting in the TIME but not the EFFORT , you will fail. Success is a mentality. Those who succeed do not make excuses or have a plan B. I told myself this was my last go at a CFA exam. By April, I was “ready” for the exam, but I spend the entire rest of that month and all of May putting in even MORE EFFORT because there was no way i was failing this thing. I even finished the PM session in 2 hrs…as others were leaving, I spent the last hr reviewing everything i did because THERE WAS NO WAY I WAS COMING BACK TO THAT TEST CENTER. So, quit all this BS, have that same mentality, and you will be a Charterholder a yr from now!
CFAilure: Maybe you should ask Mr. Putin to use his extensive US spy network to persuade CFAI to change its policies? It could be even a better idea to ask him to calls the CFAI CEO directly to discuss this issue. Just joking.
I agree with this – I also had the same mentality and experience with Level III.
RE: As I told in the letter: if for pm is not ok to conceal the real return of portfolios on a certain mandate, the same way for cfai is not ok to conceal the amount of time for preparation.
Let me get this straight again: this whole angst and letter to head of CFAI is all about the “integrity” of CFAI in not telling you/disclosing broadly the actual precise time it takes to study for the LIII exam?
As someone earlier noted, CFAI does tell you: 300 hours, more or less.
If you are a total idiot, it might take you more time; if you are an MIT engineer with a portfolio management background at Fidelity or Barrow Hanley or Templeton, it *might* take you less time.
Didn’t you learn about bell curves and standard deviation in LI and LII? The 300 hours is the CFAI average – you or anyone else might be one or more standard deviations around the average.
Why would you waste Smith’s time arguing this point? Help us understand why you think any “integrity” is involved in quoting an average and then qualifying that average by saying that candidates (depending upon their own circumstances) may spend more or less time studying than the average. Seems to me like CFAI has presented a fair and reasonable statement which withstands analysis and certainly hold up under your “critique.”
I hope Smith has better things to do than to reply to your letter other than a secretarial cut-and-paste from the standard “reply to candidate who thinks our policies were unfair” file.