Easy for me to say this now, but I think CFA should make level 1 a lot tougher and level 2 a little bit tougher. Seeing some of the people who have passed with questionable scores has sort of killed the appreciation I had for passing. Again, no offense to the people who failed but I am just wondering if any other people who passed feel the same way. I also want to add that I am not even sure I deserved to get the good scores I got or to pass. I don’t think studying 3.2 months while working should have been doable, specially when you take a couple week break inbetween. The designation would gain from increasing the difficulty of its exams. I would support this stance EVEN if my scores decreased significantly and I failed.
i’m a little bit against people getting <50 in ethics and passing… but that’s just me
floater Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i’m a little bit against people getting <50 in > ethics and passing… but that’s just me Why? That doesn’t make them unethical just because you don’t makes sense of the tricky questions. It just means they know their $hit on the topics that really matter.
Kamilio, couldn’t agree with you more about making the exam tougher, but there’s something in the world called “tact”, and that being said, today’s prolly not the day to be posting this thread. Just saying, I passed, but it’s kinda dick for the three time failers to see someone calling for the exam to be tougher - if you really felt this way, you should’ve posted this after the exam but before the results.
Exactly. It’s highly unlikely that being able to regurgitate some arbitrary rules on ethics made up by the CFAI strongly correlates to ethical behavior in real life situations.
I thought we are required to pass the Ethics component of the exam in order to pass?
Doing well in ethics just means you were able to get through some really tough questions that were meant to confuse and and trick you. Some people are more quantitative. Others can’t follow the stupid storylines.
I think relatively few level II takers would dispute that the level II exam was difficult. I don’t take offense to Kamilio’s comment, but it does risk marginalizing the efforts of those who passed this time around. Also, the score matrix only tells us so much. Consider two people, both who scored 50%>X>70% in Equity; one candidate scores 51%, the other 69%. There’s a lot of give in these ranges, so to me, a pass is a pass.
“I think relatively few level II takers would dispute that the level II exam was difficult.” Not to split hairs, but I didn’t think that it was difficult; I thought that it was easy but tricky - if you knew what the question was asking I thought the exam was very straighforward and fairly easy (easier than any Book 6 or Book 7 Schweser exam). The “difficulty” was in determining what the exam was asking for, IMHO.
skillionaire Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kamilio, couldn’t agree with you more about making > the exam tougher, but there’s something in the > world called “tact”, and that being said, today’s > prolly not the day to be posting this thread. > > Just saying, I passed, but it’s kinda dick for the > three time failers to see someone calling for the > exam to be tougher - if you really felt this way, > you should’ve posted this after the exam but > before the results. + 1 million! Easy for Kamilio to say. Dude barely passed (only has 7 posts in total on this forum) and now he’s giving advice. What a douchebag!
eltia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought we are required to pass the Ethics > component of the exam in order to pass? I am living proof that this is not the case… I understand where Kimilio is coming from but it is difficult for me not to take a little offense at it…I studying my ass off from September through May for this thing and thought it was very difficult. Best, TheChad
i dont think u wld post this if u failed. be more sensitive to ppl on this board that tried hard but didn’t make it this time!
Keep in mind that a lot ppl who take CFA have full time jobs. The point is not to make certain amount of people to pass but see if they can grasp basic financial and accounting theories and concepts, it’s not like you pass CFA and that means you are qualified to be a portfolio manager. It just shows that you have required aptitude towards learning and you are serious about your career development. You want tough exam? Set a goal of 0.01% percentile on GMAT/LSAT/MCAT/GRE and knock yourself out. That’s not the point of CFA exam.
TheChad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > eltia Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > I am living proof that this is not the case… So… who is the father? O_O
steph96 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > floater Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > i’m a little bit against people getting <50 in > > ethics and passing… but that’s just me > > > Why? That doesn’t make them unethical just > because you don’t makes sense of the tricky > questions. It just means they know their $hit on > the topics that really matter. i’ve seen some stories of pretty unethical stuff on this forum… thats why i think they need to be tougher on ethics… there are a lot of people going through the program that I wouldn’t want managing my money you’re right though - they need to actually test ethics rather than reading comprehension
NoLife, I think that the CFAI has to balance making the exam “reasonable” for people to pass while stil trying to maintain the integrity and distinction that the charter provides - I agree with Kamilio that I’d like the pass rates to be a lot lower at all levels, but today’s not the day to be having that discussion.
i agree with people who are saying that ethics should be important. the problem is that CFA ethics test questions are RETARDED. so even tho i managed to get a 50-70 in ethics [i figured i got a \<50] i dont take such great pride in it or feel like a more ethical person, i just feel like i was able to somehow win a retarded game of bingo
CFA=NOLIFE Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You want tough exam? Set a goal of 0.01% > percentile on GMAT/LSAT/MCAT/GRE and knock > yourself out. That’s not the point of CFA exam. why would ANYONE set a goal of getting 0.01% percentile?
If they tested tact and timing, the OP would certainly find the exam MUCH harder. Maybe the exams should be tougher, maybe not, but making a comment like that on a day like this is simply in poor taste.
- In a perfect world I would have waited a couple of weeks and that is my mistake. 2. I didn’t just barely pass, I passed with flying colours (to whoever made that comment). I have been a long time lurker on this website and it is a great forum for people to get help, but me not having posted often has little to do with me passing or failing. 2. I didn’t post this to be condescending to those who failed. As I clearly stated, I do not even feel like I deserved to pass since I don’t feel like I put in the necessary time. 3. We’re all big boys. Everyone who failed will come back stronger next year and pass (if they work hard). I am just looking at the big picture of what is best for the designation. Sorry if I offended those who failed, that’s really not my goal here. I am certain those of you who are dedicated will pass it with flying colours next time around.