Exam Score Retabulation

Anyone had or heard of success with requesting a retabulation? Failed L3 in band 10 and using the 40/60/80 method posted a 63% which is higher than some passes I’ve seen on here. Thoughts?

I’m over 66% based on the same method (band 10 as well), and I doubt I’ll be retabulating my score. As for successes, I’m yet to hear about one.

I have never heard of a re-tabulation leading to a change, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. My understanding is that a re-tabulation is merely making sure that the marks are totalled up correctly and that it does not include re-evaluation of the actual answers. 40/60/80 is a big approximation, and that - combined with the hypothesis that the “bands” are very narrow - will lead to many passing and failing “scores” looking similar. At the end of the day, it is not much money and if it will help you feel better, than go for it. But from a purely rational perspective I don’t think it is likely to change anything. Band 10 is tough - because you know you were likely just a couple of answers or so away from a pass. I feel for you, but you should be well-positioned to kill it next year.

Do it. I have heard from a ton of people that it is totally worth the retab. It gets overturned a lot.

^:)

amjf088 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is that a re-tabulation is merely > making sure that the marks are totalled up > correctly and that it does not include > re-evaluation of the actual answers. is this true? does anyone else know? i got band 10 and was planning on doing it even tho i know have virtually no shot, but if they dont actually re-grade my essays i may not do it. i thought they re-grade the exam.

Just throwing this out there- You think on retabualtions where the grades gets overturned, they make candidates remain confidential about it. I could see CFAI doing something liek that.

dpcfa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > amjf088 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > My understanding is that a re-tabulation is > merely > > making sure that the marks are totalled up > > correctly and that it does not include > > re-evaluation of the actual answers. > > is this true? does anyone else know? > > i got band 10 and was planning on doing it even > tho i know have virtually no shot, but if they > dont actually re-grade my essays i may not do it. > i thought they re-grade the exam. No such luck my friend. They do not regrade the exam. That is a fact. But still I think it is worth it.

I was a 66% last year using 40/60/80 and did it just for the peace of mind. I knew there was probably a 1 in 1000 chance, but it helped to let go of it.

Here is the link. You should totally do it. http://www.cfainstitute.org/Forms/exam_retabulation_form.pdf

drs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was a 66% last year using 40/60/80 and did it > just for the peace of mind. I knew there was > probably a 1 in 1000 chance, but it helped to let > go of it. assuming the outcome was less than favorable?

Yes, didn’t work. But I was able to put the exam behind me, and focus.

CFA Jay - you mentioned you have heard from a ton of people that the retab worked? Did CFAI not correctly add of the points on the essay portion? Any details on what happened?

mmurphy_ia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFA Jay - you mentioned you have heard from a ton > of people that the retab worked? Did CFAI not > correctly add of the points on the essay portion? > Any details on what happened? You missed his sarcasm…

CFA Jay is being sarcastic. I was Band 10 last year with a similar 40/60/80 assumption score. I spent the money on the retab, called CFA multiple times, wrote to the CFA Board and received the following e-mail after wanting to get assurance that an actual person had looked at my actual exam to give me every benefit of the doubt that the 1 or 2 questions I may have gotten wrong were actually right. Additionally, I had over 70% score on Ethics which presumably allows for some adjustment upwards if you are borderline. After receiving the following e-mail I used it as my motivation to pass this year. I kept telling myself that even though I worked my a$$ off for the exam I could always find more time to study. I did and I passed. Here is the actual e-mail response from CFA Institute: "John Rogers, CFA, President and CEO of CFA Institute, asked me to respond to your email inquiry of 20 August, 2009, addressed to the CFA Institute Board and copied below. I have also copied Brian Singer, CFA, Chair of CFA Institute Board of Governors, on this email. CFA Institute’s Board of Governors is charged with making the minimum passing score (MPS) decisions for each CFA exam. This is one of the Board’s most important responsibilities and Board members take it very seriously. The Board must assess the difficulty of the exams in relation to a standard that demonstrates mastery of the curriculum. Although pass rates fluctuate, the Board’s objective is to set a consistent competency standard across years. CFA Institute follows industry best practices in the testing/accreditation field and consults with highly-regarded psychometricians - experts in the design and measurement of exams - on every aspect of test development and evaluation. The most important information the Board considers in establishing the MPS for each exam are the results of the standard setting workshops. CFA Institute has used the modified Angoff standard setting method since 1996. This method employs a large and diverse group of CFA charterholders. Each workshop lasts two days and is managed by independent psychometricians. Each participant reviews the entire exam and makes an independent judgment on the expected performance of a competent candidate on each item on the exam. Next, participants briefly view overall actual candidate performance on the exam in the context of the results of their first round scoring (referred to as “impact data”). Each participant then reviews the exams a second time and again records his/her judgment as to the expected performance of a competent candidate on each item. In this way, both difficulty of the exam content and actual candidate performance are considered. The workshops result in minimum passing score recommendations that equate to competence in the subject matter from the perspective of demographically representative groups of charterholders. The Board considers the recommendations and makes the final MPS determinations. As you noted, the Board does provide for an adjustment for candidates whose total scores bordered the MPS. The adjustment depends on a candidate’s performance on the ethics section of the exam. The ethics adjustment was applied to the Level III scores and although you performed well on the ethics section, your overall score was not close enough to the MPS to benefit from the adjustment. On each exam, there are hundreds of candidates who fall very close to the MPS, both above and below. This would be true at any reasonable MPS point. As with most accreditation examinations, although the goal is clear – to identify and pass those individuals who demonstrate mastery of the targeted concepts – there may be competent candidates who, for many different reasons, do not achieve the MPS. Board members and CFA Institute staff are acutely aware of the importance of the charter to aspiring candidates and the investment that each candidate makes in an effort to learn the assigned material and pass the exams. I know you are disappointed that you did not pass the Level III exam but I hope that the CFA Program of study helped you to improve your knowledge and skills in the investment field. Sincerely, Peter Mackey, CFA Head, CFA Examinations 434-951-5519

bobg, your persistence is admirable. You must have been relentless to get a response like you did. OP, I think the 40/60/80 method isn’t something that you should place much weight on. It surely overstates the results - try 25/60/85 and see what you come up with (even still, i wouldn’t put my weight on it). There is so much variation within the topic areas that it’s complete guesswork. That being said, i’m sure there is substantial variation within the band as well, you could be top 5 percentile OF band 10 if you see where i’m going with this. Not passing is a tough pill to swallow, and honestly if i were in the same shoes $100 to save myself another 4 months of studying…well i’ve made many worse gambles in my life so why not. “If you are not satisfied with your exam results, you may request that your exam score be manually retabulated. During a retabulation, your answer sheets are verified by candidate number and name. Your marked answers are compared to the answer key and your score is compared to your score in the CFA Institute computer database.” My interpretation: Essentially, reperforming the arithmatic, checking MC on scantron to answer key (hmmm, you never know), and making sure score on paper = score in system…not clear enough to know if marked answers to answer key includes AM, b/c if so the interpretation could lead to significant changes if you weren’t graded correctly (but as far as i know there are many due dilligence checkpoints throughout the process - and popular opinion seems to suggest that there is no regrading)

RE: bobg "CFA Institute has used the modified Angoff standard setting method since 1996. " http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/educ/psych/crame/files/RickerCSSE2003.pdf “The Angoff method, in its most basic form, is seemingly a very simple process. Perhaps its simplicity should not be surprising, given that it arose from footnote in a book chapter (Angoff, 1971, p.515). A group of judges are each asked to (independently) think of a group of minimally competent candidates who would border on the mastery/non-mastery cut-off. The most typical instruction is for judges to think of a pool of 100 candidates who would “just barely” meet the performance criteria. When Angoff first proposed the method, his instruction was to think of only one candidate. However, with the exception of Impara and Plake (1997), the hypothetical pool of candidates is used… To add to the confusion, these modifications have been grouped under a common title, “modified Angoff” procedures, often without describing exactly what specific modifications to the original method are used.” I’m really thrilled to see our collective fates are tied footnote from the 1970’s. I picture a group of charterholders licking their thumb, testing the wind, guessing a number from 1-100 on how many would pass, then taking a coffee break and doing it again. Boom, an irrefutable, theory backed MPS arrived at in much of the same way as some of the forecasting pitfalls we’re warned of the circulum (with a buffer, or course. You know, for good measure.)

ConstantlyFrustratedAnalyst Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RE: bobg ConstantlyFrustratedAnalyst Your ID makes me laugh…lol

Confirmed that it is a waste of money. I’m sure CFAI needed the cash anyways…

Mr. Rogers appreciates your contributions to his annual performance bonus.