Dude, you failed. It’s your fault not the institute’s. Either study harder next year and learn to give the answers they want or quit and move on with your life. It’s that simple.
ok, I’ll tell the people who started their career in incombank (if you old enough to remember the one) that they did not make it in finance.
Since you’re conveniently avoiding a previous post, I’ll bump it to remind you:
It’s an awkward moment to ask… but - did you read what I wrote above? If you did read, please show me the place where I asked for study guidence / amount of time for my own studying / ideas how to get through the exam and… your opinion?
Remember, please, that CFAilure is Russian. Russians are extremely hard-headed (about as bad as Koreans) and with these people facts don’t penetrate already-formed opinions. Fact: CFAI says it takes 300 hours, more or less. Fact: CFAilure won’t accept that this position actually is the answer to his dissent that CFAI isn’t disclosing how long it “really” takes. It takes 300 hours, more or less. That’s how long it really takes.
Hard-headed, I tell you . . .
Let me tell you the whole story: I am old enough to remember that once upon a time the amount of hours stated by CFAI on its website was 100 hours. Later on that grew to 150, 200, 250 and slid to ‘candidates report’… more or less…
Too bad you’re focusing much on this required time issue when the real problem for many people out there is AM grading. Because the former is not an issue at all, it’s absurd and won’t change anything. Good luck on the letter tho
we are taking different scope. I care more abou the people who may join and may not join the cfa program - I want them to have all the required infomation beforehand.
you are focusing on the problems of current candidates.
but the both of issues are important, imo
Nah, not true
I can’t believe we’re still arguing about why the CFAI has wronged society so much simply because they posted a “our candidates report studying for 300 hours” comment.
I also can’t believe this has now lasted 9 pages.
why did you feel the need to simplify this from just looking at cash flows? Everyone here can (or should be able to) analyze this based on candidates giving up, charter holders no longer paying, and a discount rate (and I guess some grading and administrative costs).
and you certainly shouldn’t have incorrectly simplified it, and spend extra time on it, this is why people are saying your just mad that you were not good enough, it’s this demonstrated lack of cummunication skills. You can ignore it now but your first post had a lot discussing how it’s impossible that you scored as low as they say you did, and yet everyone can see you struggling to communicate here.
also what are you really looking for for the hours estimate (most candidates report 300 hours but those that struggle find this to be inadequate)?
Why do you assume 300 hours is not enough, that’s seems about correct for me. Your calculation involved 2 readings, how do you know that the majority of successful candidates didn’t just read it once (I only did once)?
PS if you are just trolling, well played, this symphony of repressed anger and flawed reasoning has been nothing short of genius
I think that we should sue the candidates. They’re obviously lying in their reporting.
Agree. It must be a huge orchestrated conspiracy with the sole purpose to mislead future candidates and so they will fail.
+1
No way.
It is not the ‘candidate report’ issue. It is the lack of transparency of CFAI.
What do I mean?
There is no way they do not have assessment for learning. Every practicioner or academic specialist who ever tought anything knows what I am talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessment_for_learning
To put it simple, you can take the 6 books and make a ride to the nearst college or university. Ask a professor there if he was teaching that 3500 pages how much time ould he assess for students (in terms of hours of learning or academic points). And that is what I mean.
I did not find anyone in academics who told that 3500 for a semester is a part time study.
You are a moron… I hope you never pass for the Charter’s sake…
[/quote]
+1
[/quote]
Dude, if you expect me to deteriate to your level - you are wrong…
[quote=“Ron_Swanson”]
You are missing the point. I read AF from 2005 and never heard of anyone whose result has been changed after appeal on AF.
My point in the letter to Paul Smith is by no means my personal result. I could be a total zero in finance, the band zero candidate. Assume even that I did not write answers on AM and handed them some Swinburne sonets instead. Does that mean they can show “less than 50%” mark for me and declare I am down? What is the reason my answer on AM was rejected? Handwriting? Perhaps. They did not understand my reply? Could be. Understood me well but I did not know the materail. Goes. But if CFAI has been preaching on any transparency, why didn’t them execute it by themselves? Just showing me the reason for rejecting the question in AM, for a minute?
Just send a reminder to Paul Smth.
Well, that is exactly the point: if CFAI would put it in bold on its website that the learning hours assesment has been made for native english speakers only, one review of readings only and no practical test AND that candidates who need the study material to be reviewed need 150% more time - well, I would say they made a proper disclosure.
Dear moderator, please consider deleting or moving this thread somewhere else, because it has nothing to do with CFA L3 Exam. Creator of this thread claims that he wants to deter potential entrants into CFA Program - even if you find this thread suitable for AF it still does not have to do anything with CFA L3 Exam forum.