Fair enough, and I could have been more expansive with this point (sorry Hashtag, I know I need to be less expansive). The 7 was merely a starting point. as they did better than 60%-70% of those who failed. The number could be changed upward (more restrictive like 9s and 10s only, or less --including all the way down to band 1 and let everybody re-sit).
I’d rather not argue specific cut points, as that wasn’t the main principle of my argument. My main point was this was a way to protect current charterholders more from a surge in passing candidates while adding a second test – that was all. : )
My point was I’d like a quicker “race time” (using your analogy). And, if anything, racing actually proves my point because there are qualifying heats – my point is to use a prior test results as a “qualifying heat” for a second (added) race.
I don’t follow Nascar, but they are “objective” with The Race For The Chase. There’s a group of racers that only matter based on prior performance (sort of adding a second test for those with higher fail bands). And if my point doesn’t make total sense, it’s because using racing to describe adding a second CFA test is a bad anology – but it’s your analogy to begin with, so…
If the MPS is between 60-70% (if), scoring less than the MPS wouldn’t be enough, in my judgment, for a quick retake-- especially considering that random chance would put you at a score of 33%, on average. Do you still feel the same way, considering what random chance would provide? If the MPS was in the +75% range (or 4-5 answer choices were given), I would definitely be more open to a quicker retake for candidates in the top 5-10% of failing candidates (or so). This also assumes quality and rigor are maintained and there aren’t any negative externalities (with maybe a few other conditions, but not important, and I don’t make the rules). By the way, I think it’s good that we have differences of opinions and different viewpoints. It keeps things interesting (what else would we be doing on here until scores come out?), and it definitely helps when we give each other prep advice!
If you’re referring to IsThereAny, I would agree–seems a little too disparaging to a fellow poster and to the plumbing trade. It’s understandable when you’re arguing or defending a point to come off a little hostile or rude, especially over the internet, but that’s blatant.
Youre describing the actual CFA exams…L1 is a qualifying heat for L2 and L2 is a qualifying heat for L3. All you’re really attempting to do is make the charter easier to obtain.
Yeah, yeah. I’m light, and you’re not funny. It isn’t a coincidence your picture there contains the word “troll”. You’re not offering anything to the discussion other than blatant disrespect to this guy (and plumbers as tickersu pointed out lol).
My degree and job history (stockbroker, financial advisor, and financial analyst, in no particular order), plus the fact I passed L1, say I have just as much right to be here as any other candidate.
Also, you speak of a plumber as if it’s almost a pejorative; I guess I just wasn’t raised that way. And I think if you knew an actual plumber you’d reconsider that comment. I have a family member that’s one — he works his butt off taking calls at all hours, but makes more than many Wall Street types (his boss is rich many times over, because if you need a plumber – trust me, you will pay for that plumber). Plus, he doesn’t slide any money to Sallie Mae every month.
America’s a big place with tons of ways to make a buck, if you’re making money (and not on the government dole) I can’t hate — America probably needs plumbers now more than bankers, to be honest (although I’d be a terrible plumber), get educated there bro.
It’s interesting some of the most insightful comments (even among those who disagree with me) are from those awaiting L2 results (or below) and some of the most spiteful comments and attempts to make me look dumb (for simply having an opinon that dare differs from you) are coming from those that already passed the L2 exam (way to reflect credit on the profession guys!) – just a thought…
That’s actually a solid point. Good rebuttal. That’s why I wanted to offer it only to certain people that failed to slow that effect. But this is starting to be a huge circular argument. At this point I’m willing to just end this thread between us in the interest of time, as we’re both intractible. I do respect the charter, however, and the work you put in to attain it. Let’s just agree to disagree? *extends handshake*
There is a big difference between passing a series of difficult exams, and passing those exams over a period of time, while working. Staying motivated for a period of years (when you have a lot of other stuff going on) shows commitment in a way studying a lot in a short period of time doesn’t. So I would say it adds value to the charter to have the exams spread out.
although everyone seems to be indicating that passing 3/3 is the norm, looking at the pass rates it’s clearly not. It’s pretty reasonable to assume from start to finish that it will take 4 years ( which is the average if I’m not mistaken). Why shoud CFAI make that time shorter, if you buy into the idea that commitment over a period of time means something. If you want a short time frame you have to really go above and beyond and pass all the exams on the first try, I think this makes a lot of sense.
You’re not being punished by having to wait for failing, that’s just part of the process, thats the norm. What this does mean is that the CFAI isn’t giving out the reward of a shorter time frame to people who almost did really well.
That’s actually a very astute point that hasn’t been brought up in detail until now. But you don’t think allowing L1 to be taken at two seperate times contradicts your message a bit?
for those joining in, here’s a summary of 4 pages:
Argument #1: "Waaaaahhh, all the failed people who were close to passing (e.g. band 7-10) are clearly superior to the ones who did worse, and this elite group of failures deserve a special chance to pass WAAAHHHH T.T
Argument #2: you failed. you are not special. get over it and study harder next year. or try plumbing
I wasn’t aware of this either. If Level 2 was offered twice a year, a CFA candidate could in theory complete the whole program in little over a year (e.g., Level 1 in June 2015, Level 2 in December 2015, Level 3 in June 2016). To me, that would diminish from the prestige and rigor of the program if the charter could be earned so quickly.
Well I do think offering level 1 twice a year makes it a little less valuable, and I would prefer it if it was only offered once a year (although the I think the impact would be greater for level 2 or 3).
Obviously CFAI feels that the value lost is worth it for increasing the candidate pool, I’m hoping they don’t do the same thing for level 2 or 3.
I think you also forgot an odd racing analogy that fell flat.
May I counter?
Argument 1: Wouldn’t it be interesting if the CFA offered L2 a second time like L1? (This is the one that generally L2 candidates are discussing the merits of offering the test a second time (many for, many against).
Argument 2: You can’t have an opinion on this and we’re not above demeaning you or making lame attempts of humor if we disagree with you. (This is generally people that have already passed L2 and most I’ve never heard from on the L2 boards while we were studying and working toward the test–S2000 totally excluded in the aforementioned comments, of course. It appears this group has mostly came out of the woodwork to talk down upon L2s while we’re awaiting test results.)
