+1
S2000 drinking kool-aid!!
haha I have to admit riling you guys up was pretty entertaining today (especially you ltj). So easy. And yes, I’ve got one more year until I get the charter… One of the drawbacks of taking the exams straight out of school and passing 3/3. Good luck on your L2 results ltj 
Sir, I appreciate good comedy. Creating your own troll memes and writing “you mad bro?” is the antithesis of that, unless you’re a 15 year old kid I guess. Notice that you’re the one projecting the waahhhs and the mads and the riled ups. I’m glad you were able to entertain yourself at least.
Thanks for the well wishes, nonetheless.
L3 is half written. takes a substantial amount of resources to grade. So… No.
The argument that a level has over-the-top quality questions that require so much rigor to set and expense to grade and all, just do not really add up as impediments to achieving this idea if truly there is a will to. These reasons are all petty! Yes, it is very challenging to administer these levels more than once a year, but this challenge is not in any way insurmountable.
In my view, the reason the CFAI does not administer these levels more than once in a year do not toe any of these highlighted paths of reasoning at all, and if at all they do, these reasons would be the most insignificant of all to the Institute. Quite frankly, I would say only one thing stands in the way of having Level 2 more than once a year, which simply is the CFAI’s WILL to do so. Yes! it is just the CFAI’s will. If and when the Institute makes up its mind to, it wil surely do.
So all opponents of this idea of having the exam more than once a year (Board members, forum members who have passed Level III, some present level II and III candidates) should please, kindly respect the intelligence of other forum members who support this idea, by coming up with more robust arguments, rather than simply stating trivial reasons like rigorous questions and expensive grading system. In your individual minds, you all surely know the true reason, and this true reason is in fact just one and not many reasons as you are trying to make us “believe”.
KInd regards, all.
+1
If we can land a man on the moon, the CFAI could surely offer the exam however frequently they would like.
+1 Million.
Sorry.
With respect, the members who propose the idea first need to come up with robust arguments in favor of having the exam more often than annually.
Haha, that’s fantastic.
Single-malt kool-ade, s’il vous plaît.
As someone who will (hopefully) be a CFA Charterholder one day it is on my best interest for the designation to be respected for a extended period of time (ideally my entire career). One of the reasons I like the CFA program is that they seemed to want to protect the reputation of the program as well. Not every group does this, and a perfect example is the CPA. While I can’t make a definite statement on if the tests are easier now, I will say that CPAs i will work with think they are, in part because you don’t have to pass them all at once. For any jobs that don’t truly require a CPA it is now less valuable (or at least appears so to me). The point is that the difficultly of a test matters, and by difficulty I don’t just meant the questions. Having to take exam once a year makes it more stressful, and therefore more of an accomplishment. This isn’t 2nd grade soccer where everyone gets a trophy. For something to matter people have to fail trying to accomplish it.
Furthermore having the test more often would benefit one group (as far as I can see). People not working in finance looking to get a finance job. 1. They can’t spend 3 years just to get a first job, it’s too long of a time period, and 2. They most likely have more hours open to study.
Like it or not the CFA is more valuable if it is people currently in the finance industry taking it as opposed to people not working in it. It would be great if everyone who worked hard and studied hard could then have the path to a job paved for them, but the world doesn’t work like that,and we need to operate in the real world.
It’s not that current charter holders are being cruel, it’s is in their direct interest to make sure the designation stays as strong as possible, and there is a big difference between a long time period involving most likely failing and having to wait an entire year before taking it again, and a program that you can bang out quickly.
If you want to get a finance job and dont really care about people’s view on the CFA in 25 years than yes twice a year makes sense, but for everyone else I don’t think it does.
i hope people are swayed by this, I’m sure that CFAI is considering making changes like this to open up the designation to more people, but in the process it will (in my opinion at least) weaken the impact of seeing Ron Swanson, CFA on a resume, or more importantly in front a perspective client. I realize this is sorta long, but for any candidates who don’t see how it is in their best interest for the process to be difficult, hopefully this convinces you. Not that this thread will make a difference one way or another but I’m sure the CFAI cares what its candidates and charter holders think.
this is no doubt true, but it would also reduce the number of people wanting to become Actuaries and therefore the SOA would be pressured to balance supply/demand through some other loosening…
CFAI is not in the same situation. Although it counts as a regulatory exam, it is not the only one. The attraction is that is is pretty fungible around the world, that’s about the only attraction. The ‘prestige’ should come from it’s thoroughness - not from some rule where you can only take it 3 weeks before the summer solstice, without water etc
I think there’s an obvious middleground here: Offer the test twice a year, but make it 3X harder.
That makes the designation much more exclusive, gives retakers a clearer advantage, and generates more $$$ for the CFAI. I think a higher failure rate would put up more menacing headlines (could read: only 12% of test takers pass June 2016 exam!), and make the club that much more enviable.
Do you think you understand something better by spending more or less time with it? I’m not talking about “understanding” as most high school and university students do nowadays. I’m not referring to memorizing problem structures and being able to regurgitate-- don’t kid yourself by saying this is a true understanding. I mean understanding a subject in a way where you can easily see it or build off it in a new situation without being prompted, and you could explain it to someone theoretically and practically. Does this take more or less time, on average? You can pass an exam in either case (unless it is truly a test of understanding with a high enough bar), but who do you want working for you-- the guy who just passed or the guy who knows his stuff? Unfortunately, the goal for many has been only to pass. Here’s the simple fact: if you legitimately understand something, it doesn’t matter if you see it today or 6 months from now (10 years might be another story, if you don’t refresh it…). However, do you really think you knew it if you could solve a multiple choice question today but not in a few months time? If you want to stick with the goals of the program and maintain the rigor of the credential, you will be in favor of candidates passing only if they truly understand a strong majority of the material. Are there any arguments against this idea?
For whom? For the CFAI the most “robust argument” is self-evident – added revenue.
Personally, the path to the charter would be *easier*, but the test could be made more difficult to compensate (not to mention you do have another test you have to pass). I haven’t done a huge analysis, but I doubt the value of the charter would be ruined by adding a second L2 exam, no more than it was after it added a second L1 date.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think once you consider the added revenue, the onus should fall on those *not* in favor of extending the CFA. If you tell a CEO you could add XXX revenue and profit, I think the question from a prudent CEO would be “why not should we do this” rather than “why would we want to do it?”
Let’s all disassociate our personal feelings, because ALL economic decisions should be, the question is would the CFA charter’s “value” (mostly the signal of quality a CFA charter connotes) fall by more than added revenue of an additional L2 test? Personally, I think not. Last year, if a second test occurred, and every person that failed L2 summer retook the test (an unrealistic scenario) and passed at the same rate as they did in the summer (46%), that would have added roughly 11,000 L3 test takers.
If all those guys would have passed at last year’s L3 rate (54%), the additional charterholders added through an additional L2 test would added 6,000 charterholders *faster* than once a year testing. Note I say faster, as I assume *most* of those people who pass both tests would not give up and simply get the charter later under the current rules. There may be a few that would have quit when facing a one-year wait versus a 6-month one, but I think not many.
First, I’m not sure that it would generate additional revenue for CFA Institute. Unless you expect candidates to fail more often, the total test fees would be about the same each way.
Second, as a non-profit, I’m not sure that additional revenue for CFA Institute is a valid motivation.
I think someone should take a stab at my previous post…
Also, why would the goal of extra revenue (we will assume profits), even if likely, be motivation for the organization, given that profits are not a goal of the organization?