[original post removed]
I’m sure it has happened. And just because someone gets all categories >70%, it doesn’t necessarily indicate he did comparatively better than someone who got say 5 categories 51%-70% and the other 5 >70%.
Could you explain this?
Theoretically, if Person A gets 71% in all categories, his record would show all 10 categories >70%. But he only got 710 points. If Person B gets 5 categories at 69%, and the other 5 categories at 100%, his record would only show 5 categories are between 51-70%, and 5 categories >70%. But his total score would be 845 points. (I’m really simplifying it, assuming each category has the same points.)
Exactly and with some section in the exam being really small (e.g. Alternatives) it can be quite easy to miss 70 in one section oe even more whilst scoring very highly in the larger sections FRA etc.
Seriously, what’s the point of this question??
Happened to me. :(. But I could not get enough time to study. I was relying mostly on Schweser Videos. This would be my second try and I am hopeful this time.
I m just curious! I know they are very different exam in terms of how hard they are but they still both cover the same broad topic (i.e., quant, FRA, ethics, CF, FI …) so i just want to see if doing very well on L1 has any correlation with doing well past L1.
No correlation. Its all about putting more than 350 hours and lots of practice. L2 is not hard at all, its just so vast.