asdffdsa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i agree – i am also finished, pass or fail. i was > so diappointed with the exam this year that i > cannot imagine retaking it. hopefully i passed, > because it would be nice to have the charter, but > i don’t think it’s worth putting myself through > that again. plus they have two different tests for different set of ppl and then they grade them on the same curve…pisses me off completely
equity_research_nds Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > asdffdsa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > i agree – i am also finished, pass or fail. i > was > > so diappointed with the exam this year that i > > cannot imagine retaking it. hopefully i passed, > > because it would be nice to have the charter, > but > > i don’t think it’s worth putting myself through > > that again. > > > plus they have two different tests for different > set of ppl and then they grade them on the same > curve…pisses me off completely they will have different mps for the two versions.
MellonC00 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >… the complexity of > the exam questions (not the actual materials) are > now reaching impossible levels In other words, if the questions > (again, I’m referring to the questions) was too > complex to a point where the questions became > incomprehensible, everyone would end up guessing > the answer, I stopped commenting on these posts, until I read yours, honestly if you think the questions were “complex”, you’re probably not in the right field (don’t take it personally). The questions were incomprehensibly easy, straightforward, with not one single idea outside of the readings or the end-of-chapter problems. Many people here probably agree with me but prefer to stay quite and let the whining go on. If you want to know what’s a real shame, it’s the reputation this Charter is getting while passing people who have no more than a casual knowledge of the material. The only fair thing to do at this stage would be for them to publish the scores.
Several of the ego-defence mechanisms coming out above. You guys need to grow up a little. If they delivered precisely what you expected, that would make things rather straightforward, wouldn’t it?! If you don’t know what reverse-cash-and-carry is, for example, do you OBVIOUSLY deserve the designation? It seems to me that you may have overstudied the test and understudied the material. I echo the sentiment that I could have studied half as much and probably only lost an additional 3-6% or so, but so what? Had I known that before, I would have worked just as hard, because a) 3-6% could be decisive and b) I learned something from it.
The Rick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would also be in favor of a 2-day test. There > is just not enough time to adequately test the > level 3 material. Few people are really going to > master all possible concepts. The luck factor > plays heavily in which topics they covered > relative to what you mastered. I went back > through my notecards right after the test. It was > so depressing to see the topics I labored over for > hours on which not a single question was asked, > yet something less important like reverse cash and > carry is featured. > > I think CFA material is good and that it’s a good > program, but I don’t think the testing process is > a good judge of candidate knowledge or skill any > more. Why would speed be emphasized over > comprehensiveness? Also, I feel that an in-depth > analysis of the sample size of tested material > would prove to be statistically insignificant. > > A 2 day test would suck, but it would suck far > less than repeating a level on which you are > competant in reality but not in CFAI world. And to make it worse, the LOS for cash and carry was “identify and explain,” not “calculate.” The idea that cash and carry commodity arbitrage would be AN ENTIRE AM question is ridiculous beyond belief. And to make it really worse … NO OPTIONS at all, which people acutally use for hedging and portfolio management in our actual era. NO ONE, NO ONE, NO ONE scours the markets anymore for cash and carry arbitrage in liquid commodities. It’s absurd and as outdated as asking about the old, old days way before any of our times when you could arbitrage by buying a pound for $1.50 in London and sell it for $1.54 in Frankfurt. Ridiculous.
mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MellonC00 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >… the complexity of > > the exam questions (not the actual materials) > are > > now reaching impossible levels > > In other words, if the questions > > (again, I’m referring to the questions) was too > > complex to a point where the questions became > > incomprehensible, everyone would end up > guessing > > the answer, > > > > I stopped commenting on these posts, until I read > yours, honestly if you think the questions were > “complex”, you’re probably not in the right field > (don’t take it personally). The questions were > incomprehensibly easy, straightforward, with not > one single idea outside of the readings or the > end-of-chapter problems. Many people here probably > agree with me but prefer to stay quite and let the > whining go on. > > If you want to know what’s a real shame, it’s the > reputation this Charter is getting while passing > people who have no more than a casual knowledge of > the material. The only fair thing to do at this > stage would be for them to publish the scores. > If you want to know what’s a real shame, it’s the > reputation this Charter is getting while passing > people who have no more than a casual knowledge of > the material. True :(. Exam was a joke in terms of complexity. What made it hard was time limits. That is not my idea of how to make exam hard. You can make 1 grade algebra hard by forcing you to solve 100 equations in under a minute.
mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MellonC00 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >… the complexity of > > the exam questions (not the actual materials) > are > > now reaching impossible levels > > In other words, if the questions > > (again, I’m referring to the questions) was too > > complex to a point where the questions became > > incomprehensible, everyone would end up > guessing > > the answer, > > > > I stopped commenting on these posts, until I read > yours, honestly if you think the questions were > “complex”, you’re probably not in the right field > (don’t take it personally). The questions were > incomprehensibly easy, straightforward, with not > one single idea outside of the readings or the > end-of-chapter problems. Many people here probably > agree with me but prefer to stay quite and let the > whining go on. > > If you want to know what’s a real shame, it’s the > reputation this Charter is getting while passing > people who have no more than a casual knowledge of > the material. The only fair thing to do at this > stage would be for them to publish the scores. Actually, I do agree. And you misunderstand the complaint totally with your continued above-it-all mentality. It’s not the questions were “complex,” which they kind of were, kind of weren’t. It’s that the questions were focused too much on tangential topics and more importantly that the AM was too much jammed in for the time and the PM was too easy. The average time for completion of AM was probably over the three hours alloted (when you take into account the unanswered questions) and the average time for completion was probably at most 2:30 for the PM. That leads to random outcomes. When you combine intentional focus on tangential topics (and cash and carry arbitrage defines the term “tangential”), with the poor time allotment, you get the kind of scores we saw last year where the AM scores were way too low to really distinguish good candidates from average ones. No one likes to spend this much effort on an exam and have random chance play this much of a factor. (You should really get over yourself with the lectures by the way. I’ve smoked every section on LI and LII over 70% and probably passed this thing too (though the AM got me), and I still agree with the essence of the complaints people have.)
emarkhans, the problem with CFAI is the way they teach material and the way the phrase questions. For instance: I can teach you what call options are, put options are and then ask you “Please devise a strategy which would earn a retun if expected vol > implied vol” And you would think hard and come up with straddle. CFAI just doenst understand the difference between understanding material and memorizing material. And that is sad
> And you misunderstand the complaint totally with > your continued above-it-all mentality. I don’t believe I misunderstood the complaints, they resolve around two lame arguments: 1 - Exam was too long: That’s only true if you did not practice enough of these questions. If it’s going to take you 5 minutes to differentiate between implementation Shortfall and VWAP, that’s your problem, not the CFAI problem. 2 - Questions addressed “light” subjects: again, if you focused on the main topics as a way to get enough points to pass, that’s your problem. It’s understood that the average candidate would know how to calculate the future price of a commodity given the Rf rate and the Lease rate. But the avove-average would have also read the end-of-chapter problems and tried to understand how the reverse cash and carry works. > > (You should really get over yourself with the > lectures by the way. I’ve smoked every section on > LI and LII over 70% and probably passed this thing > too (though the AM got me), and I still agree with > the essence of the complaints people have.) Now since, you’re coming at me personally, I went back and checked your claims, that’s what you posted last August: “Passed. Was only able to get it on my Blackberry so can’t tell the exact scores yet – 70%+ in all but a couple, it looks like, including 70%+ in PM (which makes me think they tinkered with Traynor Black because it whupped me). Don’t really care what the astericks say at this point.” I don’t give a S*** off-course what you score, or what you do in life, but at least have the integrity not to misrepresent yourself as someone you’re clearly not.
1 - Exam was too long: That’s only true if you did not practice enough of these questions. If it’s going to take you 5 minutes to differentiate between implementation Shortfall and VWAP, that’s your problem, not the CFAI problem. YES, exam was too long. Any well thought out exam will imply that if you know everything you will finish it BEFORE the time runs out, and not 10 mins before. I took many, many many tests in my life and everytime i knew material cold i would finish well before the bell.
CSK, I only finished with 2 minutes left, but I still don’t think it was too long. Specially that to pass you probably need to solve only 40-50% of the questions correctly. It would have been too long if you needed to score say 80% to pass. But we all know that’s not that case.
mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And you misunderstand the complaint totally > with > > your continued above-it-all mentality. > > I don’t believe I misunderstood the complaints, > they resolve around two lame arguments: > > 1 - Exam was too long: That’s only true if you > did not practice enough of these questions. If > it’s going to take you 5 minutes to differentiate > between implementation Shortfall and VWAP, that’s > your problem, not the CFAI problem. > > 2 - Questions addressed “light” subjects: again, > if you focused on the main topics as a way to get > enough points to pass, that’s your problem. It’s > understood that the average candidate would know > how to calculate the future price of a commodity > given the Rf rate and the Lease rate. But the > avove-average would have also read the > end-of-chapter problems and tried to understand > how the reverse cash and carry works. > > > > > > > (You should really get over yourself with the > > lectures by the way. I’ve smoked every section > on > > LI and LII over 70% and probably passed this > thing > > too (though the AM got me), and I still agree > with > > the essence of the complaints people have.) > > > Now since, you’re coming at me personally, I went > back and checked your claims, that’s what you > posted last August: > > “Passed. Was only able to get it on my Blackberry > so can’t tell the exact scores yet – 70%+ in all > but a couple, it looks like, including 70%+ in PM > (which makes me think they tinkered with Traynor > Black because it whupped me). > > Don’t really care what the astericks say at this > point.” > > I don’t give a S*** off-course what you score, or > what you do in life, but at least have the > integrity not to misrepresent yourself as someone > you’re clearly not. With all due respect, MO34 may not have the capacity to understand various test methods. In actuality, making a quality test is very, very hard. Look at GMAT and how it has gone the route of computer based testing. The test makers have to work extra hard with all the latest statistical method available to them to devise a test that can distinguish well prepared candidates vs. poorly prepared candidates. This is is very tough thing given the fact that there is a ton of people taking the test with varying degree of expertise in one topic or another. To make a long story short, however, the dispersion of the scores must be very wide. Or, the standard deviation must be wide enough for them to consider this or any other tests to be a successful examination of body of candidate knowledge. Believe me I’m not complaining because the scores might come out poorly. I think I’ve gotten enough education under my belt, however, to say that when tests are devised poorly, everyone does really come out right around the middle (in terms of scores). In fact, when I was a research fellow (during grad school days), I devised a quarter end examination with my professor. I figured that I devised an awsom test with really really tough questions. However, the results came out to be a disaster. Everyone’s score came out very very close to the median. In fact, the difference between a passing score and failing score came out to 2 wrong answers (on a 26 question exam with sub-parts). With the all the money, and access to academic talent that CFAI has, they really should be spending a ton of money and time to devise a scientifically valid test. It’s very hard to do. But they shouldn’t let people pass whose guesses happened to be the right answer.
mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CSK, > > I only finished with 2 minutes left, but I still > don’t think it was too long. Specially that to > pass you probably need to solve only 40-50% of the > questions correctly. > > It would have been too long if you needed to > score say 80% to pass. But we all know that’s not > that case. So, do you agree that the test was design so it would be EXTREMLY hard to score 100%? Why would you design such a test on the first palce?
comp_sci_kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, do you agree that the test was design so it > would be EXTREMLY hard to score 100%? Why would > you design such a test on the first palce? Yes I agree that it is probably designed for that purpose. I believe that’s a correct approach. Perfection in any area is impossible and specially in finance. You can design the most advanced model and test it with all different tests, and when you implement it in the real world it fails miserably. That’s why most investors don’t give much weight to simulated results. Even the great Jim Simon with all his success had an extremely hard Feb-August 2007. He didn’t come out and blame the market for his failure 
I committed myself to not participate in the forum until test results are out but this thread is too good not to respond. I did not think the Am test was too long. I never cracked a CFAI book except for some end of chapter problems, and referencing when I was unsure of the topic. I used Schweser entirely and I thought they did a pretty good job preparing me. I got through the entire AM test with about 30 minutes left, which I used to go back and fill in some answers to questions I was unsure about. And I did bomb the reverse cash and carry but take full responsibility for not knowing the material; I don’t blame CFA in any way. On Q 11, I did an abbreviated anser which I think will score me some points, but was OK with not acing the question because I felt I could go back to the two IPS questions and brush up/fill in answers; I knew my time was better spent on these questions because I was familiar with the material and could use my brain to figire out some things I was never before exposed to: excess return, liquidity constraint, etc. If anyone happens to fail and plans to take it next year, I wouldn’t spend my time blaming CFA but would practicing on getting faster. I hope everyone passes here; you all seem like good candidates. But if you don’t pass, or if I don’t for that matter, no one is to blame except yourself. Get better for next year and know the material inside and out. Leave nothing to chance.
MellonC00 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > With all due respect, MO34 may not have the > capacity to understand various test methods. In > actuality, making a quality test is very, very > hard. Look at GMAT and how it has gone the route > of computer based testing. The test makers have > to work extra hard with all the latest statistical > method available to them to devise a test that can > distinguish well prepared candidates vs. poorly > prepared candidates. > > This is is very tough thing given the fact that > there is a ton of people taking the test with > varying degree of expertise in one topic or > another. To make a long story short, however, the > dispersion of the scores must be very wide. Or, > the standard deviation must be wide enough for > them to consider this or any other tests to be a > successful examination of body of candidate > knowledge. > The one thing I believe they could have done a much better job at, was to balance the morning and afternoon sessions in terms of difficulty. I agree with you that the current format is probably not optimum, but it’s not too bad in my opinion. It is true that there are not enough problems to differentiate say between a “C” and a “B”, but again , they’re not trying to make such a differentiation as it’s a pass/fail test. Now the important questions: Can someone unprepared pass this test based on luck ? I don’t believe so. Can a student with “average/good” preparation fail this test? yes, I believe so. Based on this, I would conclude that their focus is on NOT passing someone who does not deserve to pass while risking to fail someone who is borderline. ( type 2 error :))
>>Can a student with “average/good” preparation fail this test? yes, I believe so. That would be me
mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And you misunderstand the complaint totally > with > > your continued above-it-all mentality. > > I don’t believe I misunderstood the complaints, > they resolve around two lame arguments: > > 1 - Exam was too long: That’s only true if you > did not practice enough of these questions. If > it’s going to take you 5 minutes to differentiate > between implementation Shortfall and VWAP, that’s > your problem, not the CFAI problem. > > 2 - Questions addressed “light” subjects: again, > if you focused on the main topics as a way to get > enough points to pass, that’s your problem. It’s > understood that the average candidate would know > how to calculate the future price of a commodity > given the Rf rate and the Lease rate. But the > avove-average would have also read the > end-of-chapter problems and tried to understand > how the reverse cash and carry works. > > > > > > > (You should really get over yourself with the > > lectures by the way. I’ve smoked every section > on > > LI and LII over 70% and probably passed this > thing > > too (though the AM got me), and I still agree > with > > the essence of the complaints people have.) > > > Now since, you’re coming at me personally, I went > back and checked your claims, that’s what you > posted last August: > > “Passed. Was only able to get it on my Blackberry > so can’t tell the exact scores yet – 70%+ in all > but a couple, it looks like, including 70%+ in PM > (which makes me think they tinkered with Traynor > Black because it whupped me). > > Don’t really care what the astericks say at this > point.” > > I don’t give a S*** off-course what you score, or > what you do in life, but at least have the > integrity not to misrepresent yourself as someone > you’re clearly not. Normally I let stuff like this go, but the columns are totally screwed up on a Blackberry … which is exactly why I said I couldn’t tell my exact scores. Did you not notice that part?
comp_sci_kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1 - Exam was too long: That’s only true if you did > not practice enough of these questions. If it’s > going to take you 5 minutes to differentiate > between implementation Shortfall and VWAP, that’s > your problem, not the CFAI problem. > > YES, exam was too long. Any well thought out exam > will imply that if you know everything you will > finish it BEFORE the time runs out, and not 10 > mins before. I took many, many many tests in my > life and everytime i knew material cold i would > finish well before the bell. True, but. Having to physically go through the act of writing is what takes away much, if not all, of the time advantage for quick thinkers.
mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CSK, > > I only finished with 2 minutes left, but I still > don’t think it was too long. Specially that to > pass you probably need to solve only 40-50% of the > questions correctly. > > It would have been too long if you needed to > score say 80% to pass. But we all know that’s not > that case. And “too long” by itself isn’t the complaint.