Overall score based on 40/60/80 (assuming rounding to nearest whole number) - 61%
PM
> 70 5 sections (90 pts)
50-70 2 sections (72 pts) - and one of these was ethics
< 50 1 section (18 pts)
Overall score based on 40/6/80 - 68% (Max of 79.9%, Min of 54.3%).
So, my score was probably a 63 and change. Like I said before, it was a squeeker (and I felt that the exam gave it to me in the squeeker, too). But then, it was no more than I expected. I went in knowing I hadn’t put in the time (got serious on May 1, and put in about 100 hours total), and I barely finished the AM (kept putting answers in the wrong places and had to redo about 5-6 questions). I got lucky on the question selection - I could easily have seen myself with a 55-60 overall.
But passing ugly is still passing. And a bit of humility is good, because I can get a bit cocky.
True but irrelevant. Confidence is always about the future.
If you are rich and you tell people you are rich, you are bragging.
If you think you will get rich because of your enormous talent and creativity, you are confident.
If you think you will get rich because of your enormous talent and creativity, but actually are mediocre and talentless, and get rich by wining the lottery, then your confidence was misplaced.
My kid sister is an actuary. IIRC, they grade the exams on a 1-10 scale (probably decile rankings). A 7 might squeek by on some exams, but an 8 gives a safety net. Their feeling was that getting a 9 simply meant you wasted about 100 hours studying that you could have used much better in many other ways.
I understand your analogy, but it doesn’t quite apply in this case…
He may have sounded overly confident in the first place, but he did pass the exam fair and square. he did not “win the lottory” or bribe anyone to get his charter.
So in a way, he was still correct about his confidence in passing his exam, you can only critisize him for being over confident on his overall performance on the exam.
Winning the lottery has nothing to do with bribery and corruption. Also, “fair and square” doesn’t mean anything.
TRH was overconfident but passed by the skin of his teeth (this is a guess based on his distribution.) Ergo, he was wrong to be so confident about passing. There was a high likelyhood that he would fail (though thankfully he did not.)
It is not a criticism to point out misplaced confidence. It’s the truth.
Winning a lottory has nothing to do with your hard work so it says nothing about one’s talent or ability, whereas in his case he passed by studying and applying himself even if just barely, he did it in the correct and dignified way.
He has every right to be confident about passing because he did, but in your analogy, if that person was confident about his ability to make money to get rich but he only done so by winning lottory, that takes away his credit for being confident in the first place.
^ He passed because he scored high in questions that happened to be important for passing the exam. Others failed because they happened to know as much, or more than, TRH, but got unlucky and the questions they knew about did not carry as much weight.
Passing barely is qualitatively different than passing comfortably, and luck plays a large part in it, just like winning the lottery. If he had got >70% in most Qs and 50-70% in a few, I would not ascribe his passing to luck.
That does not say a lot to recommend the actuary curriculum then…
Irrespective of the CFA exam results, the CFAI curriculum has a lot going for it in terms of content. I have criticized it before for poor proofreading and emphasis on GIPS trivia and stuff like that, but I cannot deny that nowhere in the financial world would you find a better collection of ALL the topics you need to be a well-rounded analyst.
We don’t know if I passed by the skin of my teeth. I could have been in the higher end of the ranges. What we do know is that is that I did not slaughter the exam. I never professed to have done so. I just felt that my performance was good enough for a pass (and was). So claiming that my confidence was misplaced is possible, but not certain by a long stretch.
I professed plenty of up uncertainty about the morning session, but the afternoon gave me the confidence.
People just like to put others down because they want to distinguish themselves from the crowd, but honestly, knowing someone has failed or passed barely gives you no actual benefit so let’s just be nice and wish everyone to do well in their exams.
TRH, congrats…you passed fair and square! You said you will pass and you passed. I can’t recall anyone making use of the CFAI transcript…so your pass cannot be further classified…ugly pass, murdered it are only myths in the minds of some. CFAI don’t give a fuck!
Assuming these “people” are me (a safe assumption) -
I am not trying to put TRH down and I don’t claim to know exactly how closely he passed. I am also not trying to get any benefit or claim superiority over him or anyone else in anyway.
Now that the ad hominem stuff is out of the way…
Candidate X (to avoid the appearance that I am somehow targeting TRH) says “I am confident I will pass. Total peace of mind, no hesitation, 100% certain I passed.” Then he has a marginal distribution. He calls it a s*tty one. In that case, it is reasonable to say that his initial confidence was misplaced. That’s all I am saying.
You may disagree but I have seen some red herrings and ad hominem attacks, I haven’t seen a lot of logic in what you have said so far.
All i’m saying is, he was confident that he passed and he did, that’s the only thing that matters (or what matters most), don’t you think?
It’s like an athlete can claim to be confident that he earns a spot at the olympics, and you can’t fault him for getting last place for the swimming event he competes for. He was only confident that he could get in, he didn’t say (or at least was not explicitly) he would get a gold medal.
I don’t see how my logic is so hard to understand, i am not even defending him, i am just stating the fact that people should just calm down and put down the stones in their hands… there is no need to point finger at people. AF is all about study together pass together, not pick others apart.
A. Again, I am not trying to pick on anyone including you or TRH, but trying to explain why his confidence was not justified.
B. OK, let’s switch the to the athlete metaphor. If he said “no way I can miss a spot in the Olympics team, I feel great about how I did, you guys may feel nervous but not me, no sir!” and then proceeds to squeek in in last place, it would be extremely appropriate to call that misplaced confidence. The fact that he qualified shows that he got lucky because the guys who missed that spot were not on their A game at that moment. It does not show that he can always perform like he says he can. If he got the gold medal, no one could make that case.
I did not say that your logic is hard to understand, I am saying that you haven’t presented the logic. You keep insisting that I am trying to put people down. I don’t have any stones in my hands so it’s unfair to claim that I do. (I used to have some in my pants but sadly, they got taken away after marriage. But that’s another story.)
I have presented my logic, it’s simple, everyone has the right to be confident about their performance on the exam, first of all, we don’t even know if he is the LAST PERSON in, so we can’t really say how close he was from failing, and second, he passed, and therefore his optimism on passing the exam holds. Everything else is just nitpicking, and it’s petty to spend so much effort in proving your perspective is the only one valid and others are not (or simply just not presented well).
)