65%?
i thought it was 70% at least thats what the mocks lead me to think… i hope it is 65%
CFAI has MPS setting guidelines and it is based on a curve… like 70% of the highest score and/ or 70% of the average score of top 10% candidates etc
53.18008%
you expect it to be this low?
64%
56%. Naah, make that more accurate at 56.13%.
how did you arrive at 56.13%?
I think this is how it works: 1. Assume the average of the top 1% of Level II takers = 95%. That’s equal to 342/360 2. Then you take 70% of that, which is 239.4 3. … which then becomes 239.4/360 = 66.5%
Using an MPS of 202 for year 2003 level II from the link means, the MPS was 202/360 = 56%. Meaning avg score of top 1% was .56/.7 = 80%. Assuming, a more conservative (higher) avg score of top 1% of 90% gives an MPS of .9*.7 = 63% => you have to get 76 correct (44 incorrect as opposed to 36 incorrect).
this idea is rampant. it is wrong. there are standard setters the come up with the mps. they base it on what a “mimimally capable candidate” would score. sabdullah1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFAI has MPS setting guidelines and it is based on > a curve… > > like 70% of the highest score > and/ or 70% of the average score of top 10% > candidates etc
Keep in mind in 2003 it was still the old essay exam framework. I assume the MPS for those exams are completely different from an all multiple choice exam.
How will we know what the MPS is? It doesn’t get posted right, and the opaque result reporting (>50, 50-70, >70), make it difficult to calculate. I think the best way to guestimate it is to use a 50 / 70 / 100 rule for the lowest passing grade you can find. That is assume whoever got the lowest passing grade (apparent from the results), got the highest possible grade on each module, i.e., 49, 70, and 100% - that’s the best guess for MPS. 40/60/80 method gives you false passes and fails.
The unfortunate fact is the top 1% people will get close to 99% instead of 90%. From last year’s posted results, you can see some people got at least 75 correct but still failed. What I see is that if you get 70% (which is 84 out of 120), you are guaranteed to pass. Between 80~84 is borderline, maybe due to ethics or whatever other rules CFAI comes up with. Below 80, the chance is really slim. I personally is right at the borderline so really hope the line can be lower, but no matter how I calculated from last year’s results posted here, the bar is still quite high. buddham Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Using an MPS of 202 for year 2003 level II from > the link means, the MPS was 202/360 = 56%. Meaning > avg score of top 1% was .56/.7 = 80%. > > Assuming, a more conservative (higher) avg score > of top 1% of 90% gives an MPS of .9*.7 = 63% => > you have to get 76 correct (44 incorrect as > opposed to 36 incorrect).
How many candidates sat for the exam? For each 10,000, 1% is 100. So, I guess 100 people from the CFA pool can easily score 99% unless the Ethics section (at least 4 out of 6 during PM were not properly worded) got them.
I read somewhere that CFA Institute said no one has ever gotten a perfect score on any CFA exam. IMHO, that argues against the top 1% scoring 99%, because otherwise there would have been a perfect score. Rather, the top 1% score has to be considerably lower. Putting it in statistical terms, the extreme right hand tail of the distribution must be very thin, and a 99% score would be many standard deviations away from both the mean, and the pass point.
In my opinion, if nobody has gotten perfect score on any CFA exam, it does not show the weakness in the CFA candidate pool, but it does show that CFAI is not able to come up with 100% questions that are unambiguous and properly worded.
there are ~100 ppl on this board and I doubt that a single one of them would be comfortable enough to guess they scored anywhere close to 95%. Thats only six wrong… anyone think they got only 6 wrong?? … I’m starting a tread to throw out this question…
kellyima Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read somewhere that CFA Institute said no one > has ever gotten a perfect score on any CFA exam. > IMHO, that argues against the top 1% scoring 99%, > because otherwise there would have been a perfect > score. Hmm, you’re right. I wouldn’t be surprised to see CFAI having to drop that claim in the next couple of years - the sheer # of candidates is going to result in someone getting that perfect score sooner or later, even if it is because they nail 95% of the questions and then correctly guess the last few. But yes, it does indicate that the top 1% score must be closer to 90% than 99%.
from cfa website “In 1996, a methodology for arriving at the MPS—the Angoff Standard Setting Method—was introduced to the CFA Institute Board of Governors. The Angoff method was specifically developed for multiple choice examinations and has been employed as a supplemental criterion for the establishment of the MPS for the Level I examination since that time and for Level II beginning in 2005. CFA Institute retains psychometricians— experts in the design and measurement of examinations—to conduct standard setting workshops. Workshop participants are practicing CFA charterholders. These individuals participate in a systematic process that adheres to sound psychometric practice and typically yields a workable range of MPS values. It should be extremely comforting for both charterholders and candidates to note that the results of the standard setting workshops have been remarkably consistent with previously utilized performance metrics (e.g., 70 percent of the top 1 percent, etc.).”