Except it doesn’t require a single bit of decision making. Just blunt stamina.
ttee22, I’m not arrogant, just saying my observation.
Charter is respected as long as standards to get it will be high enough, I know few guys who passed and whom I can really trust my money to manage, but thinking about other ones Im horrified And would never give them even 1 penny to invest 
Long story short, now Its getting clear for me that not every CFA charterholder has same skills and abilities, which is kind of weird for me as I thought that CFA sets standard for all of us.
anyway its take it or leave it world where one can change nothing.
Dubinator, sounds like you are still a young kid. Think about the two ways your statement will be perceived
By the people who have passed : you are diminishing the effort they have put in to pass the exam.
By the people who have failed: basically you are telling these people that they are either dumb or didnt put in enough effort.
So think about the logical responses you would get before saying something, what benefit can you really get?
A lot of educational systems around the world teach a lot of this stuff in college and high school . This gives them a leg up in these exams however knowledge != wisdom. You are not getting the CFA charter without the 4 years of relevant experience, just remember that.
If you had at least rephrased your discussion around how you found the exam a little too easy and its consequential impact on the charter, this would have been a better post.
Just my $0.02
You’d be surprised.
Anyway, that wasn’t the point.
Goalrush, so I should change my opinion to please passed and failed candidates?
Deleted by Author.
You must be the oracle of money management I’ve heard so many things about!!!
I know a decent amount of Charterholders and not one of them is a dumb***…they’re all pretty sharp in general and specifically in finance.
I also know some very bright people, in general and in finance, that couldn’t make it through all 3 levels. Or, at least, gave up before they made it through all three levels.
I don’t know one person who I consider to be a dumbass or incompetent in finance who has the Charter. Some dumb***** I know have tried but all have failed.
So…from my personal experience, getting the Charter is a pretty good indicator that you know your ***** in finance and are a hard worker.
Topperharley,
this is the point, one can be kind of Okay, skip material here and there - and still pass, its a big LOL if charterholder doesn’t know for example how to price basic derivative just because he skipped those topics and CFAI still let him pass.
Would you look, no im not oracle of money management but Im investing my time in something that has only reputational value which in long term will be destroyed by such pass rates.
That sounds a lot like the attitude of someone who celebrates other peoples failures. I’d hate working with you.
Nothing to celebrate. passing should be based on skill not on luck, if you are thinking otherwise you better go to another thread and troll there
Two things for you:
-
What is your suggestion to improve the value of the charter? I know some people think that you shouldn’t be able to pass (regardless of overall score) with any section <50- I personally think that is a bit rough but could live with it.
-
General observation- the charter is not meant to imply that you are better than anyone who doesn’t have it, rather, it’s to show that you have attained a certain level of knowledge of the investment world. If the goal of the CFA Institute is to better the industry by educating as many people who have (or will have) input into the investment world as possible, it’s definitely not to create an “upper echelon” of investment professionals that is so difficult that only people who are of a certain IQ, ability, or background can get there. If that’s all you were looking for, perhaps you should have looked at a top-tier MBA program.
I would say candidates (including me) who will score below lets say 30% in one one section should not be allowed to pass
This might be the most douchey thread started not just here at Analyst Forum, but anywhere on the Internet.
Sounds like you are advocating for pop quizzes amongst charter holders with repercussions for failing. Are you suggesting an ibanking analyst who creeps by Level I or II is inferior to a corporate finance analyst working 9-5 and passed with superior marks? I’m not sure of your role, but these exams tell a small part of the overall story of a person’s ability. Maybe you are amongst the superior analysts at your firm with similar commitments and experience, but these test scores are far from indicative of ones ability to do their job or generalization comparisons across firms.
The way I see it, you wasted more time than I. That is, unless you retained the information better. First time passes on LI and LII over here as well.
I think there are very few people who score <30 in a section and pass L2.
You’re literally the coolest person ever for passing L2. All others before you surely don’t deserve to have passed.
Go to a bar, and tell all the chicks you see that you passed L2… Then report back to me with how many of them actually give a ****.
Everyone is dogging the OP because of the tone of his/her post (which I agree is a bit rude) but I think that while this topic is taboo, it’s worth discussing. It’s a well known fact that the number of candidates is increasing every year and the quality of test prep packages is improving as well. I see nothing wrong with discussing ways to make the process more challenging.
The three water cooler suggestions I have heard- curious to hear everyone’s thoughts:
- Limit the number of times you can “not pass” an exam before you have to go back to the prior level. Personally, I think the number of people who successfully complete all three levels while failing an individual exam more than three times is such a small group, it’s not worth worrying about.
- Make <50% in any section an automatic fail. I think this is a bit extreme, but can see the logic behind it. You’re supposed to be well rounded and well prepared, and getting <50 makes a pretty strong case that you really don’t understand that topic. It would really suck to not pass L1 because you got <50 in AI.
- Make CE a requirement for active membership. I am actually quite surprised that CFAI has not gone down this road already.
I miss the days when trolls hung out under bridges.