Encouraging Failure Analysis

For those of you with with high band numbers, use this as encouragement: 685 people worldwide. That’s the most people possible who scored higher than me and still failed, that’s very small. If you had a 9 band; multiply by 2 and so on down the line. That’s not many people when you think about it. Used the below link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7W3crmC66XQ

How did you come up with that number? Are you saying I am top 685 of failed candidates?

92,081 candidates wrote x 47% that failed = 43,278 failures / 10 deciles so roughly 4,328 people in each decile? Not sure where you got 685 from…

14,569 candidates took Level III this past June. 7,720 passed, 6,849 failed. 10% of 6,849 is 684.9, which is approximately 685 people. The numbers are part of a link: https://www.cfainstitute.org/aboutus/press/pdf/1963-2008A_candidate_examination_results.pdf


yeah, I had bold in my emails to some friends, but couldn’t use that on this thread.

Does that mean you think the 10 bands should retabulate?

nah. just move on. No one has ever gotten anywhere with it that I know.

oh… they probably recount the marks like 5 times before submitting it as final too…

yup…save your money. Seeing them not change it would be like failing it again almost too in terms of disappointment.

Instructor at Windsor stated that they check exams on borderline a number of times. Retab is a waste of money. The issue is more about the subjective nature of the passing scores year to year.

My CIO printed out that article and gave it to me. I asked him if he saw the section about salaries boosting 25-40%. His response - without missing a beat - was “Yeah, that was last year”. Ouch.