I completely agree that a band 10 is closer to passing than a band 5-- I’m not sure where I said anything on the contrary.
I’m also not sure what you really replied to in my post when you addressed me. I don’t think I have a handle on how CFA Institute does things, exactly. My whole point is there are many ways they could approach it, and we’re only provided with general direction. Everyone is speculating, but arguing as if they have facts from the Institute. I also don’t think anyone has proven that a band 10 is 1-2 questions from the MPS. If you’re that certain or confident (or someone else is), just provide a source-- it’s that simple. I never claimed I had special insight-- in fact, I pointed this out that none of us do. This is my point (I came up with an idea just as you all have). I agree you’re entitled to your opinion, but I haven’t seen many people advocating for this when they’ve already passed (and the bias seems quite probable). It’s only something that would help you if you didn’t pass.
Don’t worry about offending anyone. I haven’t taken offense to anything, and I hope you haven’t, either. It’s just a discussion on the internet. I would hardly consider this important–just a way to debate with members on the forum.
It shows that we might benefit from additional information from the Institute on these topics (MPS, fail bands). We could come up with a list of questions and email them to the CFAI if we really wanted to be constructive with this.
I’d like to start off by thanking you for your help, as I consider your guidance invaluable throughout the process. But on this issue I respectfully disagree.
First, although your hypothetical of an attacking tiger is evocative, it’s not accurate to the issue at hand (unless you’re equating CFA failure to death or near death by mauling, I’m sure Roy Horn would disagree :)).
A more accurate scenario would be “should an exam that recently added a second date for its first level do the same for the second level” (because that’s, exactly, what the question at hand is and needs no hypothetical for explanation). My answer is it should; obviously, again, you disagree.
The *compromise* is – I feel – an economic one that would benefit all parties. I’ve been getting pushback on both sides of this issue (those who agree there should be L2 testing twice a year and those who shouldn’t). My thoughts are that’s a good compromise then. Let me repeat and let me be clear, I think L2 should be given two times a year period, but I proferred this as the aforementioned compromise.
On one hand, you are allowing certain students to take a second bite at the proverbial apple, on a somewhat merited basis – this is a win for better prepared/smarter students.
For the institute, this should result in more money, as the test is not cheap.
For existing charterholders, not totally opening up the floodgates and letting all failers take L2 a second time should continue to keep the charter’s value and prestige high. The CFAI could also adjust its questions (read: make the exam harder) if it was worried about this.
In my limited circle of discussions with CFA charterholders on the subject, there doesn’t seem to be a great amount of pushback to the idea opening up L2 to twice a year when it’s came up. An older guy (maybe pre-L1 twice a year?) even commented that he’s heard the test has gotten so much harder that he thought eventually all levels would offer a second option per year.
What’s *fair* is a rather nebulous and subjective term, why does one with an ethics adjustment ends up passing when another fails but answers a similar number of questions? Why is the MPS decided differently one year, and what exactaly constitutes a *fair* MPS that reflects proficiency in the subjects.
I respect the CFA’s grading process, and I’m not complaining about it, but rather I’m pointing out many judgments are made and the issue of *fairness* can be equally applied to all decisions. Again, I agree it’s the CFA’s charter and they can grade as they will, but for you to argue what’s fair on one side you have to acknowledge the other side as well.
Finally, I totally agree with your final comment “If you want to avoid the punishment, pass,” and feel (hope, with fingers crossed, actually) I did, but this thread was asking the hypothetical “should the CFA offer L2 a second time.” I believe yes, regardless of my result. If asked next month, I will have the same answer should the CFA test for L2 twice. I don’t base my opinions on what’s solely in my best interest, but what I feel is best for the preponderance of parties.
Nice points though. And, again, thanks for the help and insight during this process S2000.
Whatever dude, how about you keep your insults to yourself? If you fail to grasp my rather cogent point, then you are the one to whom the video should apply, not I.
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you think some failing candidates are more merited than others. By that same logic, if you barely squeeze by do you think a 3/3 >70 on all sections is more merited than you? You’d have to accept that they are a better/smarter charterholder than you…which the CFAI makes it a point to say that they’re not. There is no merit in barely missing the cutoff and is supported by S200’s magicians examples, which really voided all of your arguments…and yes the “punishment” of waiting one year is fair if applied to all failing candidates equally…that is exactly what fair means…it’s not objective. It would be unfair to treat some failing candidates differently than others. You either pass or fail…two groups…not 11, not 10…2.
Thanks for your response and not simply an attempt to ostracize me like others for having an opinion they disagree with. I’ll try to address your comments as I interpret them, but perhaps I fail to understand the nuances of your argument. Perhaps I’ll address it or fall flat…but here it goes.
"By that same logic, if you barely squeeze by do you think a 3/3 >70 on all sections is more merited than you? You’d have to accept that they are a better/smarter charterholder than you…which the CFAI makes it a point to say that they’re not. "
I assume you’re saying that *I’m assuming a greater than 70% on all sections is smarter/better perpared than a person that barely passes.* If that’s correct (as in what you mean), I never wrote a better/smarter charterholder (you still wouldn’t be a charterholder, btw). I did write “smarter and better *prepared*” than you and should have continued my thought that I meant on the material tested. I believe there’s a correlation between study time and intelligence and test scores (which is how the CFA gauges its candidates).
And I feel my logic applies down the matrix as well. You say there’s “no merit” in barely missing the cutoff and I agree. I would feel horrible if I failed band 10, but *I would feel I knew the material better than somebody that failed band 1.*
I don’t understand your comment of “S200’s [sic] magicians [sic] examples, which really voided all of your arguments,” as I feel there was only example was the aforementioned hypothetical and I addressed it. Is it possible you were biased in his favor before reading both posts (which is fine, as we all have preexisting thoughts on this subject) and are not actually addressing the actual written comments between he and I? Just a thought…
Again, you say it would be unfair to treat some failing candidates differently than others but they treat some people that pass differently though (see: ethics adjustment). Again, I accept the CFA’s grading policies, but there is some objectivity here.
“You either pass or fail…two groups…not 11,” seems odd since the CFA gives an ordinal ranking system with its failure bands. There’s no merit for failing, of course, but there is an order; my compromise was to give those people near the top of that failing ordinal system another chance. Obviously, you and others disagree and I accept that, but it’s my opinion which I’ll continue to keep.
In the end, I think they should give the test two times a year, but I proferred this as a compromise (which I’ve said numerous times). Thanks for the note.
So the rest of the racers can never race again until a year from that date – got it! Thanks for setting me straight by using Vin Diesel quotes circa 2001. I’m sure Dominic Toretto is a charterholder and understands the nuances of bonds and derivatives. As such, we all should take insight from him about CFA testing schedules. : )
@CFAbeatsmeup- if you begin to practice condensing your explanations, rather than focus on articulating every little point in the justification, LIII AM Session is going to be a lot easier for you in the future. (And, no, I’m not poking at you.)
Fair enough hashtag, and thanks for not kicking me in the shins for having an opinion differing from the group. I’ll work on being less verbose, loquacious, and communicative on the test…
No. the lesson is it doesn’t matter if you lose bec you were #2 or #10, or bec you missed by 1 inch or 1 mile. There’s no re-do for those who were close to make them feel better about it, and there shouldn’t be.
You sit, and wait for the next scheduled race time.
I’m not trying to kick you in the shins, I just don’t get where you’ve developed this second Band 7 line as a way to determine candidates that were prepared but just fell short of the mark. As I stated earlier, I view Band 7 as being significantly unprepared for the exam, but that’s just my personal opinion. I’m struggling to see where you were able to ascertain that as the second line in the sand that separates a group of failing candidates.
Luckily my opinion doesn’t matter though. I truly don’t know what goes into the CFAI grading process, and frankly I don’t care because seeing the amount of time some people on here put into figuring out the MPS would drive me insane. But that process is there, it’s their program and I’ve signed up for it. I’ll go with that line and just try to prepare as much as humanly possible to cross it.
I just read how the exams are graded and the MPS is determined.
It takes a lot of thought, strategy, professionalism and skill to determine the world wide MPS. CFAI is def. one of the best designations to get. Sounds sooo prestigious.
All we can hope for is that the exam was super hard, we were well prepared and the MPS is low this year!
I am impressed and did not know this! We should only write this exam once a year. Its a higly respected program because of its rigor. CFAI writes:
Regulatory, Professional, and Educational Recognition
We hope that you agree the standards and rigor of the CFA Program have been maintained and even enhanced. The stakes of the CFA Program are higher than ever because the CFA charter has become a de facto condition of employment in many investment management organizations. Regulatory authorities are also on the list of organizations that recognize the value of the CFA charter. Examples include authorities in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong has recognized the passing of Level I of the CFA Program as providing an exemption from several modules of its licensed representative exams. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom has recognized Level I of the CFA Program in combination with the Investment Management Certificate (IMC), or Level III with the IMC Unit 1, as satisfying the Retail Distribution Review (RDR) requirements. All of the state securities commissions in the United States that require an investment adviser licensing examination grant CFA charterholders a blanket exemption, and the CFA designation is one of only a few designations that is awarded such status. In addition, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) provides an exemption from the analytical portion of the Series 86 Examination for certain applicants who have passed Level II of the CFA examination.