As I was studying last night, I came to a realization of something I’ve been thinking for a while, but couldnt exactly put words to. When I failed last year’s exam, I couldnt believe it. Im a smart guy, I studied the appropriate number of hours, hit the major topics and covered the smaller ones as well. But then when taking the test, and seeing the Economics question (which I hated) and the Treynor Black vignette, I was very annoyed. And it made me think LESS highly of the exam and the organization. But I never really was able to articulate why. And so what I realized last night, is I think the exam is a bit too much of a “gotcha” exam. Meaning, you can study a ton, cover all the topics and still fail because the exam is designed for you to NOT pass. Thats why, say, 40% of people pass and something like 20% of people who start actually finish. My point is that while studying is the most important input into one’s ability to pass, its also a bit of luck that comes from knowing the “gotcha” questions. Am I wrong?
yes. very wrong.
Could not be wronger
It really doesn’t matter. I was surprised when you didn’t pass last time and I will be completely shocked if you don’t pass this time. I think you should just chalk it up to bad day last time and nail it this year.
You’ll be a CFA charterholder next year and be thankful not every Joe Schmoe, CFP (there is nothing wrong with being a CFP/Planner) is able to join your club.
I agree Caspian luck is the second most important factor in passing this exam
Joey, I appreciate that and I appreciate the confidence. While I know Im wrong (I just felt like starting a discussion), I still cant help but feel like the TB vignette…what the f*ck? It serves no purpose to put that in there, all six questions, unless you are trying to get people who may have missed what was, at the time, a smaller and ill-covered LOS.
I agree with Joe. Caspian, you had a bad day last year. There were at least 20 of us that all studied together last year in Toronto and on test day we were all shocked at some of the derivative stuff, not to mention the surprise of Treynor Black (we all used schweser). With all those smart people in the same boat, I couldn’t believe when 16 of them passed and 4 of us failed… I’m a competitive guy, I’m not going to lie to you, I didn’t talk to a few of the passers that I viewed as “light-weights” for a while…note wholesalers making me look like a jacka$$. Keep your head up, it’s a done deal for you this year.
sorta agreee…I feel like I was in the same situation as you caspian…i studied like a dog…have always been an above average student…understood mostly everything in the topics…got 70+ in 5 of the 8 topics (got below 50 ONLY in one)…and still failed… why oh whyyy
I dunno Turkish. Again, I want to say my “mistake” was spending too much time on what I deemed the more important topics. I was fortunate in that I did fine on accounting, equity and ethics. I thought all three were relatively “Easy” (although I had a bit of trouble with the residual div question. But the FI, quant (my weak spot) and the awful econ section really bothered me. I guess I just have to spend more time on those and hope that I hold up in the other “major” sections.
Well, I’m screwed this year then. I’ve only been hitting the “major” topics and almost completely ignoring what I deem smaller, less relevant topics. Maybe I should adjust my strategy over the next 2 weeks, before all I do is tests…
turkish are you in toronto? nice to see some other torontonians in here 
I am.
"Well, I’m screwed this year then. I’ve only been hitting the “major” topics and almost completely ignoring what I deem smaller, less relevant topics. " Well, not that I did this, but the first time around, I certainly made it a point to pay extra attention to things like temporal/PBO/residual div and it paid off in the respect that those sections were not really a problem. Dont make the mistake, as I guess I did, in overlooking the smaller things. I definitely didnt give Fixed Income the time it deserved, but again, this is my point. Take the economics section. 99% of the readings were currency related, with only small touching on Porter and stuff like that. This is my “gotcha” point (which I admit Im overstating). The economics stuff (and I do this for a living) was a bit ambiguous. I work in finance and if there’s one thing I can tell you, its that exactness matters and matters a great deal. I just found that section (again, econ and PM i feel were the reason I failed) was like the CFA saying “hey, guess what? You thought we were going to test X because, you know, its the ENTIRE reading, but we’re not!! WE’re going to ask you about the four paragraph on page 3 in the section nobody cared about and which has no consequence in the real finance world.”
Honestly, I think last year was a ‘gotcha’ year to show how ill-equiped candidates were for the CFA exam and their ‘concern’ that candidates are not reading all the material in the CFA books (translation - we hate the fact that cadidates won’t buy our books, so we are going to show you why you should buy our books and not rely on Schweser or Stalla so that when we make it mandatory next year you all agree with it). It was brutal last year because majority of the candidates studied from other study materials and not the CFAI books. I think CFAI went through the stalla and schweser material and made notes on which sections were not emphasized by the two and threw in a few questions from those sections. Yes, it sounds like a conspiracy theory but the timing between the brutal 2007 level 2 exam and mandatory CFAI textbooks was just a little too good in my view.
^ I completely believe it, conspiracy theory or no.
I believe it also. Its something we talked about openly on the boards right after the exam. I mean the DAY after it was something we spoke about.
Was 2007 the lowest pass rate for Level II?
Which would imply that *this* year, they need to bump up the pass rate in order to say “I told you so, look how much better it is now”. Here’s hoping anyway.
chrismaths Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which would imply that *this* year, they need to > bump up the pass rate in order to say “I told you > so, look how much better it is now”. > > Here’s hoping anyway. *fingers crossed* and yes that is what I think would happen as well.