Obviously CFAI does. They make you sign the pledge at the beginning of the exam explicitly saying you will not disclose any of the contents of the exam. Knowing how much work goes into preparing for these exams, I don’t wish it upon anyone to have their results voided, but you’ve got to follow the rules of the governing institution whether you agree with them or not. Posting anything on here related to specific exam questions is definitely playing with fire and I have little sympathy for anyone who gets burned as a result.
Just because you think the rules are stupid doesn’t mean it’s ok to violate them, and it further does not mean you should encourage others to violate the rules (hoping someone gets away with a violation is a clearly a form of encouragement, if not endorsement). If you don’t agree with the rules, don’t sign a document saying you do. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
In regards to your terrible example of Joe Bob making his boss aware that he is bounded by ethical manners . . .all I can say is “wow.” I’m glad you are so proud that you wouldn’t do the right thing. And, just so you know, I HAVE personally called out other PMs and analysts for code violations. I have also left a company because I knew there was gross misrepresentation and it did not get any better. So your example is a terrible one because there are still people doing the right thing, despite you and whomever agrees with you.
As an aside, why do you keep bolding names when you type? I’m not making fun of you, I just don’t understand . . . are you trying to emphasize the names to get your point across?
Come on guys, lets call bullshit bullshit. The ethics section is bullshit. We study it to pass. You cannot teach an unethical person to be ethical, no matter how many questions they answer… you are either born with a moral compass or you aren’t.
Also, please point out where I endorsed not following the rules? Every day people follow rules that they don’t necessarily agree with!
markCFAIL, you are scarying me… saying some are born moral while others are born immoral is just one little step from something we call eugenics. And this is no good, I think… 
And where’s education? Where’s belief that every man has a chance to change when given good example and opportunity?? Where’s the role of parents / school / church / institutions? What’s the point in governments coming up with incentives for individuals to act decently and fairly if people are from the start ‘sentenced’ to be good or bad??
Oh, I just hope you didn’t mean all that…
MarkCFAil I disagree. You have to teach ethics. If it is so clear cut as you say, then everyone should be getting 70+ on the ethics section which is clearly not the case
It would be interesting to see how the Ethics score diverge between native english speaking countries and other countries.
I have a wild thesis that native speakers might be better to answer the (IMHO) subtle read-between-the-lines question.
^ For the record, I am a non-native english speaker and not very ethical I would say - Have scored greater than 70% in L1, L2 & L3
Itera, cirkon …
First Cirkon, its “scaring” not “scarying”.
Secondly, maybe I should expound on my thoughts - I said you are born with or without a moral compass, I should correct myself. It is my belief that by the time you get to the stage in your life where you will be taking this exam, your moral compass has already been calibrated as a result of your upbringing: your friends, family, relatives, and your general environment. Simply reading and answering ethics questions is not going to make someobody who has spent the majority of their life as an unethical individual suddenly the pillar of morality.
In regards to your assertion that every man should have a chance to change given a good example Cirkon, I believe that as Churchill once said: you shape your houses and then they shape you. You have been shaped by the time you are in your twenties or thirties. Most people are not going to suddenly reverse course, shy of death row inmates that suddenly find Jesus 3 days before execution, and that change comes out of fear of atonement, rather than true belief.
If you guys truly believe that answering ethics questions qualifies an individual as ethical, or can make an indivudual who is unethical become ethical, you have seriously drank the kool-aid.
Well, to be fair markCFAIL, you did very explicitly state that “you are either born with a moral compass or you aren’t.”
Regardless, that’s not even the point. The point is, you need to teach ethics because when you sign a document stating that you will abide by the code of ethics and standard of professional conduct, you need to know what that means. And we all signed one. You can call it BS all you want, but nobody is forcing you to be a CFA if you don’t agree with the standards. Besides, I really don’t think it’s BS. I’m sure anyone who has actually read and studied the ethics section has gotten something out of it.
Ethics is not t bullshit. In every society wherein people need to interact there are certain rules. It doesnot matter where you are in - either in a prison or in a local CFA society - everywhere you meet rules you must obey to notwhithstanding your personal beliefs or breeding.
Regarding your last sentence - in this case these people meet with cognitive dissonance.
If you intend on lecturing me on the ethics content of the curriculum, perhaps you should not use the charter as a noun.
You’re right, my apologies. Best of luck to you.
Whoa ho, it’s funny how someone who says ethics is b*llshit actually cares he used it as a noun.
It’s rather ironic
I was being facaetious, i don’t care. I am not trying to get you guys all riled up, lets just agree to disagree and let this thread die.
Whoa ho, it’s funny how someone who says ethics is b*llshit actually cares he used it as a noun.
It’s rather ironic
+1. That is pretty funny…
Also, off topic but, now that we passed, how less stressful is it visiting this site?
^Oh I totally concur with that. But lots of memories still remain. I can remember myself as a level 1 candidate looking longingly at the level3 folks posting their PASS scores. now I can live the dream and it is SWEET
Hi Mark - I disagree with your statement - You are either born with a moral compass or not. Most of us are born with basic good morals. For us to survive as a species, we needed to move around in groups. Hence each person needed the support of others. So good morality is built into our genes by evolution. There may be some exceptions such as the infants born to crack addicted mothers or those born with serious mental disability. But other than these cases, rest assured, we are all born with good moral compass.
It is a society’s responsibility to ensure that the citizens continue to hold on to the good morals they are born with. Individual circumstances vary and some people become the bad apples in a society.
Additionally, a society which places much more moral importance on adherence to teachings in scriptures or on following religious rituals does confuse the citizens.
So, if you are from a society where a lot of importance is placed on adherence to religious rituals, you are naturally bound to pay more attention to the rituals than to following the ethics taught in the Ethics section of CFA. In such societies, CFA candidates, in general, will be more open to violating the CFA ethics. In other words they will not, on an average, think twice about violating CFA Ethics.
There are other societies where humanity is given higher moral importance and traditions and rituals are given less importance. In such societies, ethics taught in CFA curriculum will be more strictly adhered to.
Underlying principle of CFA Ethics is that one should cause as little damage as possible to the rest of humanity.
So, in short, your statement “a person is either born with moral compass or not” is totally inaccurate.
P
Read the entire thread please. I clarified my beliefs in a follow up, which you are perfectly allowed to disagree with, but you are not allowed to call inaccurate, that is simply your belief versus mine.
If you are going to give me the same rebuttal from others above who focus on the “nature versus nurture” argument, then you are contradicting yourself by then subsequently stating that group herding and evolutionary process is the cause of morality, barring mental disabilities. In one sentence you are disavowing my statement, in the next you are effectively arguing genetic predispositions are the root of human behavior. Pick your side of the argument and stay on it.
Another area where your argument falls on top of itself is when you state that it is a societies responsibility to provide guidance as to what constitutes good moral values, but then you say that a society that teaches religious values (which could be argued as moral in many ways) somehow leads to a higher incidence of individuals who are likely to violate ethics? Seems somewhat conflicting to me. Please explain to me how this conclusion was drawn?
The concept of societies where “humanity’” is given a higher focus is somewhat vague. Could you please tell me a.) what you mean, and b.) what societies these are? You seem to be arguing that a society NOT focused on rules and NOT focused on formal teachings would produce an individual more likely to follow a set of rules (in this case rules being the CFA ethics as you mention), rules which are, you guessed it, a product of formal teachings which you argue produce an individual less likely to follow them.
I am glad you are not an attorney.
Why is that? I’m not a native English speaker - thus it is interesting to me. Because the Collings Dictionary sets a word CHARTER as a noun : “… 1) a formal document from the sovereign or state incorporating a city, bank, college, etc., and specifying its purposes and rights 2) (sometimes capital) a formal document granting or demanding from the sovereign power of a state certain rights or liberties 3) a document issued by a society or an organization authorizing the establishment of a local branch or chapter 4) a special privilege or exemption 5) (often capital) the fundamental principles of an organization; constitution the Charter of the United Nations 6) a) the hire or lease of transportation b) the agreement or contract regulating this c) (as modifier) a charter flight 7) a law, policy, or decision containing a loophole which allows a specified group to engage more easily in an activity considered undesirable a beggars’ charter 8) maritime law another word for charterparty…”
Many thanks for your explanation.
Bender… for the umpteenth time, I was being facaetious, I have no clue why they require us to only use it as an adjective. I think it is absurd and I was using that example to highlight how Dean was getting all holier than thou regarding the ethics in the curriculum, but then himself violated a stupid rule…
For the last time… I don’t advocate breaking the rules, I simply believe that trying to teach someone who is already in their 20’s or later how to be ethical by reading some curriculum and answering some questions is optimistic at best and silly at worst.
I get what they are trying to do with the heavy ethics focus in the curriculum, but I feel that it is almost a marketing spiel more than an actual belief that those who go through the program are somehow transformed. Finance has been tainted by unsavory individuals who have fallen for the temptations of a severely imbalanced compensation structure, where outperformance, however you may come by it, is rewarded. It is only natural that somebody try to salvage the reputation through proper example. But do you think that somebody who was likely to front-run a client before going through this program is less likely to do so after? Wake up.