The standard setting results are one piece of information that the Board of Governors uses in establishing the minimum passing score. The determination of the actual MPS, however, is a policy decision that is based on a variety of information. CFA Institute professional staff and the Board will continue to monitor advances in the psychometric field to augment the information currently employed to set the MPS.
It goes by your name…if the grader likes your name, you pass. If you are a borderline name, they look at how diligently you filled in your circles. Full coverage without going outside the lines leads to a PASS.
No, no, no - the name and bubble filling aptitude is not correct. What really happens is They stand at top of staircase, throw all the answer sheets down, all those papers landing on the top 3 steps pass. Although they need really large staircase for 25,000 answer sheets.
ryanwtyler Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > You seem quite passionate about this, but even in the CFAI text you quote it states that the Angoff method is supplemental. ie. they start with 70% of the top 1% and then go through to confirm this is appropriate.
should be somewhere 65-70%…
I think the top 1% score 118 correct, which means I will fail. The exam was relatively (compared to the LOS) easy but made silly mistakes.