In theory, shouldn’t you prioritize subjects with higher weightings?
really??? I’m shocked 2007 derivs were only 0-10… wow. I mean, why even put the 0 on there… as if it’s not going to be tested or something? LAME.
I guess you haven’t noticed that the midpoints of the ranges for L2 don’t add up to 100 this year (unlike L1, L3 and all previous years).
You actually took the time to calculate the midpoints and then add them up?
Yes because I was comparing the weightings to last year and found that there were net increases in subjects but no decreases. Obviously the figures given are ranges so they aren’t objectively ‘wrong’ but given that with every other example year/level the midpoints add up I think there’s something wrong with this year’s quoted weightings.
and discounted them back to today
I just think that at the end of the day, does it really matter what the weightings are? If you don’t spend much time on economics and then can’t answer the one vignette they ask, then you practically fail that section. Don’t assume that you’re going to be better off on the other subjects just because you “spent more time on them”. OK, you barely spend time on the 0-10 sections…well what happens when they weight those sections 10% and the larger weightings by their smaller percentages? I just find this similar to those people who wanted to know if the test in history class had 10 multiple choice questions and 20 short answers…or 10 short answers and 20 multiple choice questions…I mean, does it really friggin matter? There are no shortcuts…especially on the CFAI. It’s been a long Tuesday at work…and my brain is fried from this weekend. I’m in a bad mood.
It definitely matters on how you look at it. Let’s say the pass rate is a 65%. If I can somehow get a 80% on FSA and Equity analysis, then I need only a 50% on the rest of the exam to pass. To each’s own.
Yea, I agree. But what are the odds of studying in such a manner as to get 80% on FSA and 50% on another subject when we don’t even know what they are going to ask us on the exam. Banking on doing better on higher weighted topics is just not very practical in my opinion.
mark@dirtbags Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It definitely matters on how you look at it. > > Let’s say the pass rate is a 65%. > > If I can somehow get a 80% on FSA and Equity > analysis, then I need only a 50% on the rest of > the exam to pass. > > To each’s own. Don’t even bother looking at it that way as I learnt my lesson failing with equity, fsa, ethics, econ, and quant over 70% last year… so I was baffled and still angry to the point it has killed my motivation for studying causing me probably to fail again, but this time miserably rather than border line.