Someone that misses MPS by 1 question is BAND 10… Its the definition of the top 10 percentile that failed, between multiple BAND 10s some people missed it by 1 or 2 or 3 questions but if they missed 120 or 119 questions they would be BAND 1 because that’s the worst possible score you can get… why would missing 1 question land a candidate in BAND 2?
Nothing special about a FI vingette… Add a yield cuve and interest rate tree with some missing nodes plus have a discussion about a random unrelated Tranche structure of CLO…
Calculate a missing ytm/spot/ f rate Price a node if callable or puttable Distinguish between different buzz words… I
What about a trade off?
Allowed to do the exam twice in a year, but can only do it a maximum of 2 per candidate per exam?
Says the man who hasn’t undertaken the task yet.
Clock’s a-tickin’.
…
I’m not doing it but all that needs to be done is take a few related BB or EOC example … Add a gimmick back story and change the numbers… What am I missing here?
Well, the vignette you are supposed to write for one…
It sounds like you think if we say “YES OKAY!!! WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!”…that somehow we are CFAI and it will happen for you…
I respect your opinion, but you’ve yet to show me a factual statement to support your idea that 1 question below the MPS is a Band 10 (clearly, it wouldn’t be a band 2). I’m not asking for your logical interpretation (the CFAI might not like your logic, even if I agree with how your logic makes sense). Your idea makes an assumption about the minimum passing score and the scores around it (there are tons of ways the Institute could handle borderline scores).
Can you explain why my earlier example is more incorrect than your interpretation? The example is about a “no man’s land” that is directly between the MPS and the band 10 scores. It’s a speculation about how they could handle grading and the MPS–the idea just proposes an MPS, a gap, and a “max failing score”, if you will… Your point seems very simple (and I agree it’s possible, but we have no evidence from the Institute, from what I’ve skimmed), so why would the Institute leave it open to interpretation when they spend so much time explaining how to interpret a fail band? Why not say that a Band 10 could be from 1-3 questions below the MPS? Band 9 is 4-6 questions, and so on.
You’re missing the amount of hard work that goes into it.
You have to get all of the information for 6 questions into a 1 – 2 page vignette. You have to come up with six questions that meaningfully test the knowledge that the candidates are supposed to have. You have to make the questions answerable within 18 minutes by those who have mastered the material. You have to devise 12 incorrect but reasonable alternative answers.
You seem to think that these are trivial tasks, little more than copying and pasting.
Your pejorative dismissal of the difficulty of the task betrays your ignorance.
CFA Institute will have item sets rewritten several times – 6, 8, 10 times – until they’re ready to include in an exam.
Just look at how many topics we had on here criticizing or taking issue with the CFAI online practice assessments or CFAI mock exams. I know I ran across my fair share of vignettes that were either hard to understand or misleading in spots. Writing those things cannot be easy.
It it sooo sad to know that I cant pass the exam nor am I smart enough to write the exam as an examiner.
LOL.
Hmm, I don’t know tickersu, how about the same way they pass some candidates and fail others? It’s their designation so they can do what they want as long as it’s not baised.
Next, I agree the fail bands are based on relative performance, but I think you’d agree that directionally a 10 band is closer than a 5 band, right? My broader point was those that were closer should get another bite at the apple.
No offense, but your definition of “objective” is simply yours…and you have no special insight on CFAI rulemaking either. So, I’ll continue to hold my opinion that 7s and above should be able to take the exam in Dec, but I thank you for your comment.
Agreed. They seem to think only their opinion matters.
Why?
Because, in my opinion, they have studied harder and/or have a grasp of the material. I get that economically board members have a vested interest in making it harder for others to attain the charter, but it just seems unfair.
Also, that’s an appended point from another post where I argued all L2 failers should have a second bite at the apple in December and proferred fail bands 7 and above to retake as a compromise.
You truly think Band 7 is a good representation of someone who prepared well for the exam? As I stated earlier we’ve had testimony from people who got that and admitted to not being even close to prepared and guessing on majority of the exam. Plus you’re just drawing another seemingly arbitrary line in the sand.
Dude, contrary to what you believe, lines are being drawn regardless. Where the line is drawn is open for debate, I just proferred an working number as a compromise to letting everybody take the test a second time, a way to slow the charter process (that helps current charterholders) while rewarding those that were better prepared *than most that failed the test.*
I personally think you have to keep it once per year. Perseverance is a part of the journey and if you make it a volume exam where people can do it twice in a year you’re going to send more people through to level 3 and dilute the quality of people getting through. Now with that said do I think if you gave someone who got band 10 three different exams and they wrote them three days in a row would they pass at least one of the three exams? Yes I do. That is the luck element that goes into this. One exam might have item sets you know better one year than the previous no matter how much you study, so from that standpoint I can see the argument for allowing it twice per year. But in my opinion I want the best of the best to get through and increasing level 2 to twice per year will send even more people through when everyone else that got their CFA in past years had to persevere for a full year until the next attempt. I failed last year and yeah it sucked to have to wait a full year, but when I failed level 1 and got to write again in December it almost made it too easy knowing I could keep taking it every six months if I had to versus waiting a full year.
CFA Institute already implements exactly what you’re discussing.
They call it the MPS. If you meet it, you get to go on to Level III.
If you don’t, you get to remain at Level II.
All you’re really doing is trying to redefine the MPS.
As for people who were close to passing being more deserving of a second chance than those farther away . . . I don’t see that you’ve made anything close to a compelling case.
In what other endeavor do you get more chances when you fail by a little than when you fail by a lot?
If you lose the Super Bowl by 1 point, do you get a rematch the following week?
If you cross the finish line in the Tevis Cup in 24 hours, 1 minute, do you get to reride it in a month?
If the deadline for submitting your proposal to DARPA is July 16, 2015, 12:00 midnight EDT, do you get a pass if you submit it at 12:05 AM, July 17?
Frankly, I think that having the tests more often gives candidates _ less _ incentive to study and master the material. Having to wait a year if I were to fail is a much greater hardship than getting another shot in 6 months; I’d be inclined to study a lot harder for a yearly exam than for a semiannual exam.