Can anybody compare these two.
I’m studying for GMAT right now and my last two practice exams I got 770 and 750. I would say CFA L2 (>70 in all areas) is much harder. But the two tasks aren’t very comparable because the exams are very different. GMAT is almost like an IQ test so a natural ability to take these kinds of exams helps (and studying excessively won’t). With CFA, excessive studying helps more than being a genius.
GMAT is basically a review of high school math and grammar. Not comparable.
I agree, there is no comparison.
Apples and different apples.
I killed the GMAT with about two hours of review of basic geometry. It’s a bit of a joke. I don’t understnad how people perform so poorly on it. On the other hand, Level II has been my standardized test nemisis for years now. There is no comparison between the two.
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m studying for GMAT right now and my last two > practice exams I got 770 and 750. I would say CFA > L2 (>70 in all areas) is much harder. But the two > tasks aren’t very comparable because the exams are > very different. GMAT is almost like an IQ test so > a natural ability to take these kinds of exams > helps (and studying excessively won’t). With CFA, > excessive studying helps more than being a genius. It would be nice to see your actual GMAT score. What do you suggest as passive GMAT preparation in verbal for someone who wishes to give GMAT 16 months from now.
SmokeyJoeWood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > GMAT is basically a review of high school math and > grammar. Easier said than done.About 1 % of all GMAT takers hit 750.
AbhiJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > topher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I’m studying for GMAT right now and my last two > > practice exams I got 770 and 750. I would say > CFA > > L2 (>70 in all areas) is much harder. But the > two > > tasks aren’t very comparable because the exams > are > > very different. GMAT is almost like an IQ test > so > > a natural ability to take these kinds of exams > > helps (and studying excessively won’t). With > CFA, > > excessive studying helps more than being a > genius. > > > It would be nice to see your actual GMAT score. > What do you suggest as passive GMAT preparation in > verbal for someone who wishes to give GMAT 16 > months from now. Well I am taking the exam in about 2.5 weeks so I will find out my actual score then. As far as passive prep, I would just read a lot. Read lots of articles, books, newspapers, etc. In my opinion, that will help with all aspects of verbal and obviously will have the most benefits in reading comprehension, which is the most important section in verbal. 16 months from now is a long time though.
stevec Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I killed the GMAT with about two hours of review > of basic geometry. It’s a bit of a joke. I don’t > understnad how people perform so poorly on it. > > On the other hand, Level II has been my > standardized test nemisis for years now. There is > no comparison between the two. clearing CFA L2 is same as getting GMAT 720 percentile wise.
AbhiJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > stevec Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I killed the GMAT with about two hours of > review > > of basic geometry. It’s a bit of a joke. I > don’t > > understnad how people perform so poorly on it. > > > > On the other hand, Level II has been my > > standardized test nemisis for years now. There > is > > no comparison between the two. > > > clearing CFA L2 is same as getting GMAT 720 > percentile wise. How do you figure that?
topher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m studying for GMAT right now and my last two > practice exams I got 770 and 750. I would say CFA > L2 (>70 in all areas) is much harder. But the two > tasks aren’t very comparable because the exams are > very different. GMAT is almost like an IQ test so > a natural ability to take these kinds of exams > helps (and studying excessively won’t). With CFA, > excessive studying helps more than being a genius. Good job topher! I’ll have to chat with you on gmail soon. Good luck on your exam!
got 640 on GMAT 12 years ago and passed L2 last year with >70 in all but two of the 5% coverage areas. I would say no correlation, no comparison.
AbhiJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > stevec Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I killed the GMAT with about two hours of > review > > of basic geometry. It’s a bit of a joke. I > don’t > > understnad how people perform so poorly on it. > > > > On the other hand, Level II has been my > > standardized test nemisis for years now. There > is > > no comparison between the two. > > > clearing CFA L2 is same as getting GMAT 720 > percentile wise. Yes, but the pool of test takers is vastly different. You get folks taking the GMAT who have non-quantitative backgrounds. That just dosen’t happen with Level II (particularly after having to pass Level I). If you could have seen some of the folks I was in graduate school with you would understand why GMAT scores skew so low. Lots of folks take the test that shouldn’t be going to graduate school, IMO. If you are taking Level II, you have passed Level I and therefore in theory should be able to apply yourself, gain proficiency in the learning areas, and pass the test.
I would say that there is zero correlation. I took the GMAT with zero preparation, as I decided to take it last minute before I graduated because I thought I might grab my MPA/MSA since the job market sucked so much. I ended up with a 740 with zero hours of studying. I’ll be lucky to end up with half of my scores above 70 on the CFA level II exam. I very marginally passed L1 with approximately 50 hours of studying, and I expect to marginally pass L2 with 200-250 hours of studying. GMAT is more about raw intelligence (sorry if this makes me sound like an ass), whereas CFA is about intelligence and work ethic. Either way, good luck to you all at 8am tomorrow.
ScottyDoesKnow Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would say that there is zero correlation. > > I took the GMAT with zero preparation, as I > decided to take it last minute before I graduated > because I thought I might grab my MPA/MSA since > the job market sucked so much. I ended up with a > 740 with zero hours of studying. > > I’ll be lucky to end up with half of my scores > above 70 on the CFA level II exam. I very > marginally passed L1 with approximately 50 hours > of studying, and I expect to marginally pass L2 > with 200-250 hours of studying. > > GMAT is more about raw intelligence (sorry if this > makes me sound like an ass), whereas CFA is about > intelligence and work ethic. Either way, good > luck to you all at 8am tomorrow. If you can clear CFA L1 with 50 hours, getting GMAT 740 with zero preperation is no surprise.In short you are an outlier.
AbhiJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can anybody compare these two. Nobody can compare the two for they are two different sports. It’s like asking… ‘I beat everyone at pool at my local bar, can I beat Tiger Woods?’
The harder the battle , the sweeter the victory…Gr8 AbhiJ According to me there should be no comparison …
stevec Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AbhiJ Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > stevec Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I killed the GMAT with about two hours of > > review > > > of basic geometry. It’s a bit of a joke. I > > don’t > > > understnad how people perform so poorly on > it. > > > > > > On the other hand, Level II has been my > > > standardized test nemisis for years now. > There > > is > > > no comparison between the two. > > > > > > clearing CFA L2 is same as getting GMAT 720 > > percentile wise. > > Yes, but the pool of test takers is vastly > different. You get folks taking the GMAT who have > non-quantitative backgrounds. That just dosen’t > happen with Level II (particularly after having to > pass Level I). If you could have seen some of the > folks I was in graduate school with you would > understand why GMAT scores skew so low. Lots of > folks take the test that shouldn’t be going to > graduate school, IMO. If you are taking Level II, > you have passed Level I and therefore in theory > should be able to apply yourself, gain proficiency > in the learning areas, and pass the test. But you see I am comparing CFA L1 candidates in a year that is around 100k and GMAT is around 250k ( counts repeaters as twice).So on this base the quant advantage is nullified to an extent.Plus with GMAT you have a better pool of candidate in the top 10% region , those who taget top B Schools, many of them don’t sit for CFA. Thus I believe if you take a scenario in which all candidates prepare 6 months for CFA L2 and 3-4 months for GMAT you can get a co-relation between GMAT and CFA.