^^^now I am smiling. I am set for Level 3 2011. P.S: I wrote Level 2 2010.
Chuckrox8 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > wanderingcfa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > CFAI has stated publicly in the past that they > > consider 70% of the top 1% of candidates in > > determining the MPS (along with a bunch of > other > > things). > > > > In theory if the top 1% of candidates scored > 100%, > > then the MPS may be close to 70%. The more > likely > > scenario is the top 1% of candidates score > between > > 90-99% (no one has scored 100% yet), putting > the > > MPS somewhere in the range of 63% - 70% > > 90%+ at any level is an insane score. I’m sure > people do it for L1 frequently but, for L2 & L3 > you’d have to be one of the damn curriculum > writers! I’m sure some of the brightest > candidates in the world can be found on AF. I kind of agree. I think if you get 70% you deserve to pass no matter what. But then if 75% of candidates get 70% - 80%, and the rest below 70%, I think they’ll do 75% passing rate. They won’t use 80 x 0.7 = 56% as the passing score - way too low.
cinny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I kind of agree. I think if you get 70% you > deserve to pass no matter what. But then if 75% of > candidates get 70% - 80%, and the rest below 70%, > I think they’ll do 75% passing rate. They won’t > use 80 x 0.7 = 56% as the passing score - way too > low. When CFAI had the details listed regarding what they look at it consisted of the following 70 percent of the maximum points; 70 percent of the top paper; 70 percent of the top 10 papers; 70 percent of the top 1 percent of papers; and an analysis of candidate and examination data. Never once have they stated any criteria higher than 70% being a MPS. If you scored 71% on the test, you passed.
What is interesting is that if you look at the list below you see that the pass rate was higher than average in 2005 for Level II and then again for Level III in 2006. Also, it was very low in 2005. It’s possible that two things happened: the candidate class that entered the CFA program in 2003/2004 was very strong and the 2005 Level III exam was too hard. The CFAI then swung the other way in 2006 (made it perhaps too easy) and hit upon some really well prepared candidates. The result was a 76% passing rate. Clearly, that was deemed to be too much so the exam creators whacked the next year with a much tougher exam (and a 50% pass rate followed). Sure, this may be curve-fitting galore but it seems like a reasonable interpretation. Year Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2009 46%/32% 41% 49% 2008 35% 46% 53% 2007 39% 40% 50% 2006 40% 48% 76% 2005 35% 56% 55% 2004 35% 32% 64% 2003 41% 47% 68% 2002 44% 47% 58% Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst
I am going to give you all my non-expert opinion on the pass rate fluctuation and why we hit high pass rates after low pass rates. In 05, 55% of the candidates pass, then 76% the next year. The test was not necessarily easier, its just that out 45% who failed the year before, most of them came back. They were twice as prepared. Then the following year, there was a big drop because a lot of people were taking it for the first time. So this year, I would expect to hit higher than 49%, but only because half of this class is of people who have taken it before and is now are twice as prepared.
Good point CFADreams. I hadn’t thought of it that way, that’s certainly more likely than my explanation.
I looked at the 2006 morning exam though. And many others agree with me that it was significantly more straightforward than all other exams. I guess because of the high passing rate, CFA increased the hardness of the test. Last year 2009 AM was hard, and the passing rate wasn’t that high.
CFAdreams Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am going to give you all my non-expert opinion > on the pass rate fluctuation and why we hit high > pass rates after low pass rates. > > In 05, 55% of the candidates pass, then 76% the > next year. The test was not necessarily easier, > its just that out 45% who failed the year before, > most of them came back. They were twice as > prepared. Then the following year, there was a > big drop because a lot of people were taking it > for the first time. > > So this year, I would expect to hit higher than > 49%, but only because half of this class is of > people who have taken it before and is now are > twice as prepared. I think this is partly true. However I don’t think retaking means that you are twice as prepared - not necessarily. Each test covers just a small part of the material, so if CFAI wants to make the exam really hard, they can, no matter how much you study…
cfaboston28 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trend shows that whenever they hit the low score, > next year they bring to higher. > > Hopefully they would continue this trend. Gamblers’ Fallacy.
^ That’s more representativeness
Does CFAI have some kind of minimum requirement for Ethics. I understand that we can have 0% in any section but still pass if overall score pass the MPS. Does it applied for Ethics also or you will fail if your Ethics is below like 70% regardless your overall score?
Seriously? You got to Level 3 thinking <70% on ethics is an automatic fail? Gotta be kidding…