Is it true the institute is out to penalise users of schweser notes: Compare the Q & A for Reading 34, question 20 (CFa text) with what Schweser says: Schwesers says having CEO and Chairman as different roles is an effective corporate governance practice. CFA says it is not a required attribute of an effective corporate governance policy cos there are disagreements. Of course we take CFA’s position but where does that leave us users of Schwers stuff??? may grace abound…
There is no disagreement there. It is not REQUIRED that the CEO and Chairman roles are separated, but it is good corporate governance policy to do so. There are often differences between what is required, what is recommended, and what looks good from an analyst’s perspective.
The CFAI didn’t’ write the Schweser material so why blame them??? This is silly to me. You read Schweser alone and you take some chances. Overall the material is very thoughtfully prepared. What is with this conspiracy theory stuff? Nor do I believe those who think that the CFAI actually tries to design questions to take advantage of such discrepancies as you point out. They have plenty of material and challenges to tackle and wouldn’t waste their time with such a bag of dirty tricks. Why does everyone here assume that it’s “CFAI vs. Test Prep companies”? Even the CFAI would have to admit that prep classes are an essential part of most candidates study plan. They do not administrate their own classes, but instead rely on the free market to devise them. Why, oh why, would they be out to get those companies and the candidates who use them?
More so historically, when only a small % of candidates actually bought the CFAI materials and more focus seemed to be on 3rd party prep classes - yes there would be motivation there to say “we test what is in the official materials not a slimmed down bullet-point version”. Would they act on that motivation - yes, and they’ve done it by making the materials compulsory. Does the institute meet secretly at night in a cellar somewhere with hoods and burning torches etc. to plot the next TB assault? Probably not, but it would be cool if they did. Agree with Mcleod, the CFAI materials also state that it is effective and is recommended - just not required.
thanks McLeodi81 for the clarification…between what is required and what is just good pracitce. Unfortunately I could not get that clearly from Schweser…thanks once again … …but plylon…thanks any way for your perspective…the thoughts I expressed were more to think aloud and say have the trend of questioning so changed that if one relied on prep notes alone then one will be ‘penalised’…one will miss some points etc etc? …but your response seems rather too spirited…? well …in the same spirit …erm… erm …erm may i ask: did I expressly blame CFAI for the Schwerser notes or just expressed a thought in a manner to elicit a response/assistance, clarification contribution etc …which I think I got from McLeod 81…You seem to have a lot up your sleeves already and perhaps this 'in-the-midst-of-stuff-thought-of-a-level-two-er has only triggered them: did I talk about a conspiracy theory? are you sure every one here assumes its a CFAI and TEst PRep Provider war? Are you sure it is in the plan of CFAI to RELY (emphasis mine) on the forces of free market to provide prep classes for candidates?..are you sure I said in my post that CFAI is out to get companies and candidates who use prep providers stuff? I certainly think your response was toooo spirited for the thought expressed. I respect your views anyway and thanks any way. McLeod81…I take note there is a difference between what is required and what is recommended as just a good practice although it is as though Schweser bunches them together. …by the way plyon, are you a level two-er? you come across like a strong lawyer in court… hahahahahahah(laffs)
Yeah, gee, how dare them “penalizing” people by testing on the included CFAI material they always said they would. If schweser CFA prep material takes a contrary stance to the official testable CFA material, blame schweser for penalizing, not CFAI. Same thing happened last year, people blamed CFAI for their big scheme where they tested on the LOS points and covered Treynor-Black. Schweser’s the one to blame for providing test prep materials that didn’t cover the damn LOS’s adequately. I’m with Pylon on this, way too much CFAI is scheming undertones out there. Additionally grace grace, all it takes is a look at the first line of your post and the subject to see that you did indeed draw an us verse them line in the sand. So you could erm…erm…erm stop talking.
grace grace Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > …but your response seems rather too > spirited…? well …in the same spirit > …erm… erm …erm may i ask: did I expressly > blame CFAI for the Schwerser notes No doubt many of my responses here, as elsewhere, could be characterized as such. However, as to whether you expressly blamed the CFAI, I would simply point to your subject heading and let others be the judge of that.
thank plyon, black swan et all …i rest my case.
plyon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The CFAI didn’t’ write the Schweser material so > why blame them??? This is silly to me. > Right > > You read Schweser alone and you take some chances. > Overall the material is very thoughtfully > prepared. > Right > > What is with this conspiracy theory stuff? No need to start labeling. > Nor do > I believe those who think that the CFAI actually > tries to design questions to take advantage of > such discrepancies as you point out. They have > plenty of material and challenges to tackle and > wouldn’t waste their time with such a bag of dirty > tricks. > I don’t know about that. CFAI has acted pretty oddly about the study providers. The letter CFAI wrote to everyone a few years ago justifying the low pass rate by pointing the finger at study providers was bizarre (a search on AF should find it) and is exhibit A. > Why does everyone here assume that it’s “CFAI vs. > Test Prep companies”? Because they have a long history of bashing study providers in really in-your-face ways (exhibit A above), back-handed ways (all the smears of Allen Resources for dubious marketing claims), and suspicious ways (Treynor-Black). > Even the CFAI would have to > admit that prep classes are an essential part of > most candidates study plan. CFAI does like prep classes and would certainly approve of one using Schweser study notes. > They do not > administrate their own classes, but instead rely > on the free market to devise them. Why, oh why, > would they be out to get those companies and the > candidates who use them? For the same reason that my high-school teachers hated Cliff Notes (do those still exist?). CFAI absolutely does not object to using Schweser as an adjunct to a solid study plan meant to learn the material. They absolutely object to using study notes as a shortcut to learning the material and they think that anybody who is just using Schweser is taking a shortcut. I think the limit of what they would do to express that distaste is significantly higher than you think. The certainly didn’t mind failing an extra 5000 candidates or something to express it a few years ago.
According to John Harris, June 2008 exam is already prepared in July 2007 (13 months before the exam). CFAI has no idea what Schweser is writing in their notes.
I can’t help but agree with CFAI regarding singularly using Schweser materials like Cliff notes as a way to pass the exam. In fact, I don’t agree with treating the CFA designation as a series of tests rather than a learning process. And I think curbing such behavior prevents the dilution of the significance of the letters “CFA”. I lead a study session with another candidate several weeks ago that promptly turned into a tutoring session and (paraphrasing as accurately as I can remember), I was told: “I just want to become a CFA and work in finance because I heard people in finance make alot of money.” She went on to say, “I don’t like the CFAI books because I don’ t have alot of finance experience and they confuse me with all that unnecessary finance background details in the text and questions where as Schweser just sticks to formulas and summaries.” I commented that she should realize that after the tests come the “unnecessary finance background details” associated with a career in finance. We were covering FSA and these are actual questions I had to field from this L2 candidate who had relied solely on Schweser, “what is the sec.” “what is a 10K.” “what is a statement of stockholder’s equity / retained earnings”, and I had to explain the equation assets = liab + equity to her. It was frustrating to see all this from an L2 candidate who should rightfully be expected to lead the field in finance.
To expand on that - 10 yrs or more ago everyone taking this exam had been in finance awhile. I’ve been amazed to see the declining sophistication with which some people begin the process. There was someone on AF awhile ago who literally asked what “equity” meant.
Oh but “… from an L2 candidate who should rightfully be expected to lead the field in finance.” -Say what?
I stand behind it, especially as you said, in the past candidates were more experienced with a strong financial backgorund. I would expect CFA charterholders to be viewed as leaders in the financial world, CFA was intended to be a mildly prestigious designation.
I think at some point the CFAI is going to increase the difficulty of the exam to preserve attractiveness of the designation.
I’d prefer if they just mandated you get 2 years experience applicable before you take it, finish the rest of the experience later, that would fix the whole problem. A similar thing happened to the CPA several years ago after SOX increased demand for accountants, the market got flooded so the CPA increased the credit requirements so that now alot of accountants need a 5th year. Again, I’d prefer a real experience prereq.
cfaboston28 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to John Harris, June 2008 exam is > already prepared in July 2007 (13 months before > the exam). CFAI has no idea what Schweser is > writing in their notes. I’ve heard him say this, but at that point, CFAI also knows what will be in THIER 2008 curriculum, so they could easily come up with a few high heaters for the exam. Which I am expecting.
Isn’t July 2007 only 11 months before June 2008?
There is no way they are finalizing that exam 11 months before giving it. In July, CFAI is all about getting the exams graded. I’ll bet the lead time is closer to 1 month.
“Does the institute meet secretly at night in a cellar somewhere with hoods and burning torches etc. to plot the next TB assault?” Does a cow moo? 