^^ 18 (6 questions worth “3” points) - <50% -50><70% ->70% the fourth mark just means next section in the format above
Indeed a band 10 score. If I had paid a little attention to ethics, things would’ve been different.
300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%).
Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.
https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handout_may_2012.pdf
CFAbeatmeup:
300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%).
Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.
https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handout_may_2012.pdf
At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.
While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.
I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?
The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 --the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.
I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.
Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.
Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.
CFApunchedMeInTheFace
They sample tens or “hundreds” of survey responses and find a best fit for the data…pretty standard stuff. only problem is if someone lies. My own theory is that CFAI has other grading criteria that are undisclosed…
CFAbeatmeup:
CFAbeatmeup:
300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%).
Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.
https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handout_may_2012.pdf
At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.
While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.
I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?
The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 --the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.
I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.
Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.
Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.
CFApunchedMeInTheFace
Cool down dude…have absolutely no intention of ridiculing 300 hours…i understand that no one can get 100% correct on data but my point simply is that any score less than 80/120 is simply not safe and may not even be sufficient.
i found this 2012 score on Page 5 of the thread “Official CFA L2 Results 2014” Somebody posted two scores, one failed band 10 which was this one and the other border line pass in 2013.
P.S. I cant vouch for the authenticity but i doubt what benefit could one have by posting this result an hour before official results of 2014 wud be out
And, the weights are also clearly given in the score on that page
CFAbeatmeup:
CFAbeatmeup:
300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%).
Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.
https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handout_may_2012.pdf
At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.
While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.
I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?
The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 --the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.
I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.
Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.
Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.
CFApunchedMeInTheFace
Cool down dude…have absolutely no intention of ridiculing 300 hours…i understand that no one can get 100% correct on data but my point simply is that any score less than 80/120 is simply not safe and may not even be sufficient.
i found this 2012 score on Page 5 of the thread “Official CFA L2 Results 2014” Somebody posted two scores, one failed band 10 which was this one and the other border line pass in 2013.
P.S. I cant vouch for the authenticity but i doubt what benefit could one have by posting this result an hour before official results of 2014 wud be out
I’m not sure why you’d assumed I wasn’t “cool” in the first place and needed to cool down or I thought you were “ridiculing” 300 Hours. My tone was even keeled and everything I wrote was in the spirit of helpfulness. I’d say 99% of people who read that message would interpret it as friendly – I even touched base with you letting you know I responded. Perhaps there’s cultural/language differences (!?) that led you to think I was irascible?
Thanks for sourcing that data – I want to test my Ethics theory.
I agree with your 80/120 may not be enough (hence my 63 or 67 guess in my initial post)…but my MPS guess is only a hypothetical (as is yours) and it seems we both agree (66.66% not being enough, like 2014) and disagree (63% in 2013 and 2012). I just feel the Angoff Model and the former 70% cutoff is interesting when taken together along with 300 Hours’ MPS score estimates; I could be totally wrong though.
CFAbeatmeup:
CFAbeatmeup:
CFAbeatmeup:
300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%).
Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.
https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handout_may_2012.pdf
At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.
While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.
I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?
The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 --the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.
I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.
Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.
Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.
CFApunchedMeInTheFace
Cool down dude…have absolutely no intention of ridiculing 300 hours…i understand that no one can get 100% correct on data but my point simply is that any score less than 80/120 is simply not safe and may not even be sufficient.
i found this 2012 score on Page 5 of the thread “Official CFA L2 Results 2014” Somebody posted two scores, one failed band 10 which was this one and the other border line pass in 2013.
P.S. I cant vouch for the authenticity but i doubt what benefit could one have by posting this result an hour before official results of 2014 wud be out
I’m not sure why you’d assumed I wasn’t “cool” in the first place and needed to cool down or I thought you were “ridiculing” 300 Hours. My tone was even keeled and everything I wrote was in the spirit of helpfulness. I’d say 99% of people who read that message would interpret it as friendly – I even touched base with you letting you know I responded. Perhaps there’s cultural/language differences (!?) that led you to think I was irascible?
Thanks for sourcing that data – I want to test my Ethics theory.
I agree with your 80/120 may not be enough (hence my 63 or 67 guess in my initial post)…but my MPS guess is only a hypothetical (as is yours) and it seems we both agree (66.66% not being enough, like 2014) and disagree (63% in 2013 and 2012). I just feel the Angoff Model and the former 70% cutoff is interesting when taken together along with 300 Hours’ MPS score estimates; I could be totally wrong though.
Well, agree with Angoff method, and one thing is pretty much for sure. CFAI itself discloses that they use Modified Angoff method. I believe they must be taking 70% of the average score of top 1 percentile? If i assume, top 1% of the candidates may score 114/120 on an average (which is pretty high for 1%), even then, 70% of this score translates to around 66.5% which is 79-80/120.
Ethics Adjustment too plays a role but it plays negative role only when one gets < 50 on Ethics. I guess it is all neutral in the mid-range and positive in > 70 range.
And, I have misunderstood the tone of your message. May have to improve upon RC skills for GMAT scheduled later in Dec
S2000magician:
How do you know this?
I thought CFAI specifically mentions on their website that no one who has ever scored > 70% has ever failed the exam. I believe this is pretty much consistent with Angoff Method too. Even if topper scores 100%, 70% of this score would be 70% or 84/120. So, MPS cant be more than 70%
S2000magician:
How do you know this?
They officialy stated before that no candidate scored more than 70% and failed. You even said so yourself.
As for the latter, just a guess based on score estimates for candidates.
Nope. I scored FRA, ethics, Equity and quant and didn’t pass. But i didn’t look at the other sections. Still got 50 and above but failed.
I’ve said that it’s anecdotal, not official.
I’ve never heard anyone state this officially. Do you have a link to a source?
You probably nailed it this time. I’d be happy with a Band 10 score after my performance…
Can someone confirm if my understanding of the ethics adjustment is correct…
Lets say they set a MPS of 65% or 78/120 correct answers…
This means that everyone that hit 75-77/120 is a fail “Band 10” but if those same people got 90%-100% on ethics get pushed into a pass??? What about someone that got 78/120 but got “zero” on ethics, do they get pushed to a fail?
band2
June 17, 2015, 12:29am
#38
1 or 2 answers short may be pushed for a pass; 3 short is a little stretch. juet my two pennies.
CFAbeatmeup:
CFAbeatmeup:
CFAbeatmeup:
300 hours has done some good work on this and found the MPS at 67% and 63% in years past. I’d say either or this year, but one of those numbers. If you’ve done any studying on how they score the test (the Modified Angoff Method where experts have to take the test too) plus the minimum 70% score of old days, it seems the score is marked down 5% or 10% from the 70%. It’s likely those who know the material well will get a 90% or 95%, leading to a 5% (~3 percentage points to 67%) or 10% (leading to a 7 percentage point markdown to a MPS of 63%).
Here’s info on the Angoff model for score setting.
https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handout_may_2012.pdf
At first, I thought I could rely on their data, but they gave the expected MPS between 58-62% in 2012 and it turned out that a guy with minimum possible score of 76/120 failed to clear the exam.
While they would have done a pretty good work indeed, but still 63-66% is the range which puts you in quite an unstable territory.
I’m certainly not here to defend 300 Hours; as analysts we should change as the data does – but may I ask where you got the minimum passing score for this guy? Instead of outright rejecting 300 Hours hypothesis, could these situations be possible?
The calculations could be wrong, specifically in regards to weights. The CFA has some play in their weighings and the guy could have used a wrong weight set to calculate his mPS (little m = minimum). And also I assume you are discussing L1 (eventhough you gave 120 --the L2 number of questions), because the L2 MPS they gave in 2012 was higher than the one you just proffered (300 Hours reports 2012 L2’s MPS at 63%, no range). L1 is a single question format and perhaps easier to deviate weight wise from standard weighting. If you did mean L2, I’d assume on my limited knowledge he’d be a band 10 failure or a slight pass.
I’d hate to broach the subject, but is it possible your “guy” simply lied? Considering I don’t think your scores are supposed to be shared (although I’m not 100% certain)…it’s possible for him to fudge his results to save face. Saying you made a 70%+ versus below 50% in FRA changes things.
Finally, if you did mean L2 things get hairy on the edge of any cutoff. Although he had a 63.3%, rounding issues or an ethics adjustment could have sunk him. My assumption is the “ethics adjustment” is a tie-breaker of sorts for those on the edge – although I could totally be wrong. My point is you probably can’t rule out 300 Hours as totally wrong on one guy with a supposed .3% passing score with no weights given.
Just my $0.02–feel free to toss into a wishing well.
CFApunchedMeInTheFace
Cool down dude…have absolutely no intention of ridiculing 300 hours…i understand that no one can get 100% correct on data but my point simply is that any score less than 80/120 is simply not safe and may not even be sufficient.
i found this 2012 score on Page 5 of the thread “Official CFA L2 Results 2014” Somebody posted two scores, one failed band 10 which was this one and the other border line pass in 2013.
P.S. I cant vouch for the authenticity but i doubt what benefit could one have by posting this result an hour before official results of 2014 wud be out
I’m not sure why you’d assumed I wasn’t “cool” in the first place and needed to cool down or I thought you were “ridiculing” 300 Hours. My tone was even keeled and everything I wrote was in the spirit of helpfulness. I’d say 99% of people who read that message would interpret it as friendly – I even touched base with you letting you know I responded. Perhaps there’s cultural/language differences (!?) that led you to think I was irascible?
Thanks for sourcing that data – I want to test my Ethics theory.
I agree with your 80/120 may not be enough (hence my 63 or 67 guess in my initial post)…but my MPS guess is only a hypothetical (as is yours) and it seems we both agree (66.66% not being enough, like 2014) and disagree (63% in 2013 and 2012). I just feel the Angoff Model and the former 70% cutoff is interesting when taken together along with 300 Hours’ MPS score estimates; I could be totally wrong though.
Well, agree with Angoff method, and one thing is pretty much for sure. CFAI itself discloses that they use Modified Angoff method. I believe they must be taking 70% of the average score of top 1 percentile? If i assume, top 1% of the candidates may score 114/120 on an average (which is pretty high for 1%), even then, 70% of this score translates to around 66.5% which is 79-80/120.
Ethics Adjustment too plays a role but it plays negative role only when one gets < 50 on Ethics. I guess it is all neutral in the mid-range and positive in > 70 range.
And, I have misunderstood the tone of your message. May have to improve upon RC skills for GMAT scheduled later in Dec
No worries bro; good look on the GMAT!
danv0330:
Can someone confirm if my understanding of the ethics adjustment is correct…
Lets say they set a MPS of 65% or 78/120 correct answers…
This means that everyone that hit 75-77/120 is a fail “Band 10” but if those same people got 90%-100% on ethics get pushed into a pass??? What about someone that got 78/120 but got “zero” on ethics, do they get pushed to a fail?
I’m not sure anyone can correctly answer your question as the CFA keeps that stuff close to the vest.
