You are right… but… personally the program took XX hours for Candidate 1, YYY hours for Candidate 2 etc.
CFAI can calculate two different average numbers - for passes and losers.
Instead, CFAI calculates only one general average.
It’s like Joh and Jim went to rob a bank when they both were 20 years old. Jim was shot by police and Joh got 20 years in prison. Upon Joh’s reliese he and Jim were on average 30 years old, lol. That is what happens when you put together two unrelated groups, just re-read St. Session 3 from Level 2.
Last year I passed and had a very long correspondence with CFAI concerning the study hours. Ask their Mr Horan, he today is a vice-president if I remember his title right.
Ok - but what do you expect them to say re the study hours? It’s a guide and a guide only. OF COURSE some people will require more time, others less. I studied engineering at school and at the risk of being a douche I found level 2 reasonably straight forward and put in less than 300 hours. Level 3, for me was much harder as I’m much weaker on essay based responses. Put in 400-500 hours.
Some people need to drop the BS on their references about nationalities/races/countries! Who says that if they are posting and/or living in Russia mean they are Russian? Even if it is, who says all Russian drink Vodka? Who says that living in HK means that I am a HKer? Stop your labeling BS!
As with the 300 hours thing, I don’t have an opinion as to whether CFAilure’s claim is right or wrong but I simply think many people don’t/can’t read! Yes Sherlock, we all know 300 hours is a guidance and that naturally means some might spend more and some might spend less (and I have seen both types of people around me gaining their charter status) BUT that IS NOT what CFAilure was saying (at least according to his/her letter).
The point is whether 300 is a fair guidance to people signing up a deal that may continually require their money and time and other efforts! If of all candidates that signed up for the exam, around 50% managed to pass with c.300 hours’ study, then I personally consider 300-hour as a fair guidance. If however, if people who already perform top 20% during the exam require 500 hours’ study, then this guidance might not be as appropriate.
As for people that argued you were given the LOS and the books and you signed up for it and you knew what is in it… Isn’t this similar to those super complicated structure/leveraged products that were sold to investors? yes they signed up for those products but at the very least, they need to be given a fair assessment of the products’ benefits and risks! By simplying promoting the benefits and downplaying the risks is not what best practices suggest!
I can’t comment on whether the 300 hours’ thing is a fair or non-fair gudiance as I don’t have enough data to reach a reasonable conclusion BUT at least I think CFAilure’s WERE NOT suggesting that everyone should only spend 300 hours to pass the exam! So, STOP PATRONAISING.
so, lemme get this straight. op wants some more clarity on why his a.m. responses were given such mediocre marks. do we have access to the a.m. questions now? if so, op, why don’t you recreate the test environment, write your responses to the a.m. questions, and then scan / post them for us to react? in december, when we get the guideline responses, they can serve as a final judge of accuracy.
it seems like a lot of what the op writes isn’t interpreted as what the op intends to convey. which, of course, could present some issues given the level iii exam format. but that’s making a huge assumption that the op’s forum posts are similar in style & content to his a.m. responses (which may or may not be true).
i believe we’re all (to some extent) gluttons for punishment if we’ve made it this far in the journey. it takes a good amount of intellect & dedication to pass each level of this exam; the 53% pass rate is for those who have already made it past level ii, which is no easy task. and of those candidates who bested level ii & studied 327+ hours for level iii, only 53% passed? sign me up!
i think if the pass rates were a lot higher there would be a lot less prestige associated with the designation, and this forum’s community would be quite different. actually, this forum probably wouldn’t exist, if the pass rates were a good deal higher. nothing to rant & rave about
for some of us, lower pass rates equate to greater interest and more prestige.
one last note: the world is full of opaque rejections. when you apply to colleges / jobs and get rejected by some, they usually don’t provide clear and concise reasons as to why they passed on your candidacy. and reaching out to these organizations to seek more clarity may even exacerbate the situation. just saying …
Side note, idk why so many people feel like failing people is CFAI being greedy. Their annual dues are $275, and registration starts at $650. Assuming most people will give up after 2 or 3 failures, but will keep paying dues to CFAI wouldn’t passing people really be what CFAI would do if they were trying to get as much money as possible and didn’t care about the integrity of the exam.
Are you saying that the CFAI should somehow know the amount of hours each individual person needs to pass and provide custom advice to them on their study workload? Are you saying they shouldn’t provide guidance at all?
I can’t quite figure whether there’s half a point hidden in your angst ridden politically correct rant.
To answer your question straight: I don’t have a view on what CFAI should/would/should not/would not do on this particular topic. I put my thoughts on what I read from some pathetic arguments in this particular post.
To eloborate on that: Do not put words in my mouth.
I accept individual opinions whether I agree with it or not. Even from those that added value by clarifying that the 300 hours gudiance means some spent more and some spent less.
I’'ll add my two cents - I found the whole process efficient and very professional. There’s ample help available from 3rd party study providers if you need it. I get that it’s a lot harder for non-English speakers on the AM section and I sympathise with the guys who’ve put the effort in and failed but we can’t pin that on the CFAI.
This situation reminds me of when I was living in the UK and drove a guy to take his driving test. He failed (it was his third attempt) and decided to call the government agency in charge of motor vehicle licensing and insist that the instructors were biased because he was from Northern England (we were in Chelmsford, which is near London). I think the gutwrenching pain of failing these exams can really get to a person; and after seven failures I can imagine how discouraging that would be. I think CFailure’s reaction is the “denial” stage of grief. I think, however, if you’re going to send a letter like that, you should probably let it sit for a few days and read it over again.
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.
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.
I expect them to say that Level 2 and Level 3 is a full time study program for a semester. And people who pass put in on average 450-550 hours, n people in the survey of XX people reported of more than 550.
Let me be clear: I never meant the Charter must be a easy business. Never! Pass rates may be low, but CFAI must tell us beforehand what all that study means.
For instance, many sober working in the industry people I know do not regist for full time study programs just because they cannot afford to leave their jobs but sat for CFA Exam once or two times after putting like decent 10 hours a week of preparation since… since… like it’s not a full time program… and 300 hours… perhaps I can reach it with less… if CFAI delivered the truth of hour those people would never entered the program - and would save for themselves a lot of time and effort.
I put in less than 300 hours for each level, passing all three consecutively, reading every word of every CFAI book. I did not study finance either. If it takes you more than 300 hours, you don’t know how to study for an exam of this caliber. Or, maybe you don’t know how to eat, exercise and take care of your body/mind properly.
