Exam scoring

I found this on Wikipedia; found it very interesting: Candidates who have taken the exam receive a score report that is intended to be fairly unspecific: there is no overall score for the test, only a Pass/Fail result. For each category of questions, each test-taker is given a broad range within which his or her performance falls: below 50%, between 50% and 70%, and above 70%. The passing grade for the exams has been defined as 70% of the top percentage of exam papers until 1989; since then, the grading method is not explicitly published.[12] and the minimum passing score is set by the Board of Governors after each exam. The Board of Governors review the results of a Standard Setting process and input from psychometricians. Standard Setting is a process by which CFA Charterholders from around the world review the exam and recommend, for each question, a minimum passing score for the “just qualified candidate”. The minimum passing scores for each question are aggregated and presented to the Board of Governors as a recommended minimum passing score for the entire exam. The Board of Governors is not bound by this recommendation, but does recognize it as very important information.

This is very interesting. thanks for the info

CFAMember2010, You should look at the ethics section, VII(B) especially… I think everyone wants to help you on the Analyst Forum, and if you don’t change that signature, I don’t think any one will.

So what about this do you find interesting? It’s all true…

The fact that I didn’t know it is what makes it interesting to me. The fact that its true makes it MORE interesting…

I’ve weighed in on this before. I hate this Angoff/“just qualified candidate” BS. The practical results of it are really clear - since adoption of this method the year-to-year passing rate vol has gone up big in the 5 years or so since the adoption of the technique. Unless you believe that the candidate pool has gotten volatile (and I can’t even make up a decent story how that could happen), then the Angoff method has just added a measure of arbitrariness into the grading process. I have no idea what a “just qualified candidate” is and I am much more involved with CFA students than any standard setter (who are forbidden from any teaching or tutoring). Angoff wasn’t invented for things as complex as a minimally qualified CFA charterholder. It was invented for stuff like a minimally competent french fry guy where you can really evaluate the outcome of a process. The whole Angoff thing is a cheesy way that CFAI gets to manipulate the % passing for other goals, like stemming the flow of charterholders or “proving” that their requirement that people buy books from them is a good idea. This whole process represents amazing arrogance. I have taught intro statistics many, many times and I always grade on a curve even though I ought to know what a “minimally qualified” stat student knows. Usually one would looke at a dramatic increase in passing rate vol as a prima facie case that the technique doesn’t work. Apparently, CFAI doesn’t see that.