OK so I passed Level II, and am quite happy. I am however, disappointed at the fact that CFAI refuses to publish the MPS and the actual results of candidates. I believe all candidates (particularly those hard-working ones that didn’t manager to get through) deserve to know their exact grade, and not some vague ranges of their scores. CFA dedicates a decent chunk of their text (and exam) testing ethical values and corporate governance that promote transparecy as one of their most cherished values. CFAI should practice what they preach, including the exact method of determining the MPS. This way, candidates would not have to question CFAI’s integrity. It gives the perception of conflicts of interest among other issues. Giving mere “Bands” does not achieve this. The solution is quite simple. Publish the MPS, the cadidate’s score, and the method of determining MPS. We need to get some petition going on here…Ethics my a**
Nah, people would start writing their scores on their resumes. This exam is tough enough without people regarding their scores like GMATs.
yeah i agree . . . and people were filing serious lawsuits who had more $$$ than the cfa inst. could spend on legal fees when they failed but were close
I agree that people writing their scores on their resumes seems pretentious. But doesn’t someone on say, the Dean’s List in university deserve to advertise their performance on their resume. Seeing that only about 10% overachieve on the exams might not make that much of a difference anyways. And if they posted the MPS and exact score, there wouldn’t be any need for lawsuits. I don’t know, I may be wrong. It just seems like the ethical thing to do.
Well… they have disclosed already how the MPS is determined. So at least that’s taken care of. I personally don’t see the need to disclose more information. The performance bands was a nice touch (and properly omitted for those who passed).
I agree with those who say that the score should not be shown. At the end of the day, CFA isn’t a level playing field like an MBA/school program. Candidates taking the CFA are at various stages of their lives (some of family/kids) and can’t spend as much time than say a much younger candidate can. Also, some candidates have extremely demanding jobs, some don’t. Passing the CFA is a certification that you’ve read/studied what an analyst needs to know, much like a driver’s license (albeit a fcuking sweet license). I really doubt its an accurate measure of intelligence. Now obviously, the average candidate has above average intelligence. But a lot has to do with dedication.
I agree - scores shouldn’t be shown, especially the MPS. Some people are doing this fulltime, others are paying people to give one-to-one tuition. It’s not a level playing field. As for the MPS, it doesn’t help any candidate as it’s retrospective and if people start thinking that all you need is 70% (like CFAI and various course providers suggest) then it creates the false expectation that 70% is enough. Well, it might not be. During my L1 study I continually got between 69-71 in my practice exams. But I treated it like that wasn’t going to be enough. I needed to make sure I hit 80% (which I’ll never know if I did). I guess the way to treat this “70%” figure is to say that is what you get when it’s a tough exam…a minimum score. If everyone targets 70%, the cluster around that figure is bigger and the MPS goes up anyway.
Agree with previous poster. There’s no need to disclose the score. Either you pass or fail, that’s enough. I don’t even see any reasons why CFAI should show the how you perform if you *fail* (the band thing). One sinister look at it is to tempt you to pay for the re-marking if you are in band 10. But of course I’m wrong because such an ethical institution like CFAI would never even dream to do that
When we started prep for L1 we didn’t care how we got the results, as long as we got the PASS result… The reason we feel our exact marks should be given to us is because we have put in such a lot of work into it. And we want a breakdown and acknowledgement of our hard work…very understandable. But we went into this knowing that we will not get the exact results…the 200 - 300 hours or so spent makes us feel as if we deserve more.
Im pretty sure the CFA does not want the actual score to become the important metric rather than simply earning the charter. The second everyone knows the scores, the CFA charter itself becomes diluted as potential employers can now say one needs to have scored above a certain level to be considered. In those instances, having the CFA designation does nothing for you unless you did REALLY well.
caspian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Im pretty sure the CFA does not want the actual > score to become the important metric rather than > simply earning the charter. The second everyone > knows the scores, the CFA charter itself becomes > diluted as potential employers can now say one > needs to have scored above a certain level to be > considered. In those instances, having the CFA > designation does nothing for you unless you did > REALLY well. Good point
I know, thats why I made it.
I also prefer the stark “Pass” or “Fail” with no shades of grey. Actual scores would muddy the waters in a way that would be of little value and actually pretty destructive. Would you expect scores are comparable between: 1) A candidate with a family, demanding job and not even working in finance who passed on the first attempt, Or 2) A candidate with a less demanding job, who passed after several attempts after taking all sorts of courses and tutoring etc, with little-to-no outside family demands etc? Yeah, I think it would pretty silly to even attempt to equate those two results in terms of who did “better”. However, both candidates have demonstrated performance to a certain level. The current system is great: A pass is a pass, a charterholder is a charterholder. None are “first” amongst equals.
Unless one is an MD and the other is an intern.
Very true JDV! That will show up on the rest of the resume!
Pardon me, but you signed on to certain rules. If you don’t like them, don’t sign on:). I like pass and fail. I feel the introduction of the bands is a good thing.
Lumiere_1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pardon me, but you signed on to certain rules. If > you don’t like them, don’t sign on:). I like pass > and fail. I feel the introduction of the bands is > a good thing. Well I signed on to the rules but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize some of them. I also need the designation for my work. I also disagree with the way CFAI released their results this year. But for me its a question of principle. I agree with the “None are first amongst equals”. If you pass, you put in the effort period. What I am questioning in this thread though, is the issue of TRANSPARENCY, not performance. Even though CFAI is a credible institution, there should be some metrics to guarantee that the scores are determined properly without any sort of bias. One of these metrics should be disclosure. For example, would you trust a company that gives you a set of ranges for its results? And I’m NOT saying that CFAI is not an ethical institution or criticizing all its rules. But I have a lot of friends who are retabulating (and probably will waste the $100).
I agree that there should be some transparency about the grading process, setting the MPS, etc… I don’t know how sending you a grade would help that, but having a few webpages detailing the procedures would really help. Having been there, I can completely assure you that the process is very meticulous, professional, and well conceived (except Angoff). I have no idea why they keep something secret that they should be proud of.
I’d agree more with Joey than with Tito. Disclosing the MPS would be nice, of course, but I can see why they wouldn’t want to open the floodgates. Most certainly, candidates will then start to question why, for example, last yr the mps was 65 but this yr it’s 68 and how unfair that is when they’ve scored 67 and thus have failed. So, yes, make the process more transparent, absolutely. But should the results be as much, I’m sorry, but i can’t sign on to that. As for how they unofficially released the results on saturday–yes, that’s unfortunate. But odds are you would not have found out about it unless you read AF on saturday or early sunday. And then again, your score would not have changed anyway. If anything, they went above and beyond in releasing results ahead of schedule with 100% accuracy. Businesses get extra money for achieving such things!!