I know there are a lot of disappointed/mad people around here. I will say one thing I learned from this whole thing: It’s all about the hours that you put in, IMO. I took L2 for the ------------- THIRD ------------- time on Saturday. The first two times I probably put in 150 hrs the first time, and 200 the 2nd time. This time, I EASILY had 300-400 hours. I used Stalla Lecture CD’s (which are GREAT), Passmaster, and took 6 practice exams from Schweser book 1 and book 2. Quite frankly, I thought the morning was downright easy. I had seen everything before. The afternoon was tougher, but I would still be shocked if I didn’t get 70-80% on the afternoon. When I got on the AF, I was shocked to see some of the questions that people were asking about because they struggled on. Some of the stuff that were “gimme” points for me I claim no superior intelligence (we’re all on about the same level I’m sure. We’re all smart, most of us aren’t supergeniouses I assume). It basically all boils down to the hours you put in, IMO. If you think you didn’t pass, give it some time. You might be surprised. If you find out you didn’t, put in the time next time and you’ll be fine. (I’d STRONGLY recommend the Stalla Video CD’s, and I’d strongly recommend doing questions/practice exams from both providers).
are you saying that all we need to do is put in 750+ hrs?? *biting my tongue*
no i disagree completely it depends how much information one can cram into his or her head cfa is all about volume. its not hard, its just memorizing all that stuff 1time 1luv 1try4me (hopefully i passed) ironically i found afternoon easy (except PM) and morning was a little challenging
aladak Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > it depends how much information one can cram into > his or her head > I hope you’re not actually saying that a person’s mind has a limit on what you can put in it. That would be among the most ridiculous things I’ve read on this forum:)
akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > are you saying that all we need to do is put in > 750+ hrs?? > > *biting my tongue* Well, that would do it I’m sure:) I was basically saying, for those like me in previous years, who put in 200 or so hours, don’t feel like you can’t pass. You can. With the right study materials and spending more time, you’ll pass. After failing last year, I was wondering if I could pass. After having a totally different study program with the lecture CD’s, I realized that I could in fact pass.
ontheuptick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know there are a lot of disappointed/mad people > around here. I will say one thing I learned from > this whole thing: It’s all about the hours that > you put in, IMO. I agree to a certain extent but disagree at the same time. I think a lot of “well-prepared” people fail because they’re bad test takers, whether they want to admit it or not. If you study 200-500 hours and don’t know the material, what were you doing during that time? Or they focus too much on memorizing the material (did everyone really think they’d fail the exam if they didn’t have the Breusche-Pagan and Durbin-Watson stuff memorized?) and not enough on “getting it.” With that said, though, I like your message–if you fail, keep trying harder.
Well geez, if it’s the THIRD fricking time you’ve seen the stuff then, yeah, you ought to get at LEAST an 80%. *rolls eyes*
I agree with jennygirl. This was my first time sitting for L2. I put in over 300 hours of true study time and still struggled with the afternoon exam. I think if I were to take this test again, I would find it all much much easier.
jennygirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well geez, if it’s the THIRD fricking time you’ve > seen the stuff then, yeah, you ought to get at > LEAST an 80%. *rolls eyes* I don’t know why you have to be a beetch about it. I was simply showing how some people who think they did terrible are probably feeling like they can’t pass. I felt the same way too. Then, I got a much better study plan, spent plenty of hours, and I passed without much trouble. Obviously I failed the thing twice, so I’m not starting this thread to pump myself up, which you seem to be insinuating.
ontheuptick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know there are a lot of disappointed/mad people > around here. I will say one thing I learned from > this whole thing: It’s all about the hours that > you put in, IMO. > > I took L2 for the ------------- THIRD > ------------- time on Saturday. The first two > times I probably put in 150 hrs the first time, > and 200 the 2nd time. This time, I EASILY had > 300-400 hours. I used Stalla Lecture CD’s (which > are GREAT), Passmaster, and took 6 practice exams > from Schweser book 1 and book 2. > > Quite frankly, I thought the morning was downright > easy. I had seen everything before. The > afternoon was tougher, but I would still be > shocked if I didn’t get 70-80% on the afternoon. > > When I got on the AF, I was shocked to see some of > the questions that people were asking about > because they struggled on. Some of the stuff that > were “gimme” points for me > > I claim no superior intelligence (we’re all on > about the same level I’m sure. We’re all smart, > most of us aren’t supergeniouses I assume). It > basically all boils down to the hours you put in, > IMO. > > If you think you didn’t pass, give it some time. > You might be surprised. If you find out you > didn’t, put in the time next time and you’ll be > fine. (I’d STRONGLY recommend the Stalla Video > CD’s, and I’d strongly recommend doing > questions/practice exams from both providers). I will strongly agree if I pass 
BTW when you put so many hours few question come from memory. One was "When futures is preferred over forward (based on correlation of interest rate and value)?
What is this, high school gym class??? ontheuptick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jennygirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well geez, if it’s the THIRD fricking time > you’ve > > seen the stuff then, yeah, you ought to get at > > LEAST an 80%. *rolls eyes* > > > I don’t know why you have to be a beetch about > it. > > I was simply showing how some people who think > they did terrible are probably feeling like they > can’t pass. I felt the same way too. > > Then, I got a much better study plan, spent plenty > of hours, and I passed without much trouble. > > Obviously I failed the thing twice, so I’m not > starting this thread to pump myself up, which you > seem to be insinuating.
I feel like I put in a ton of hours and think that I probably passed, but wouldn’t be shocked if I didn’t. I think a lot comes down to what you spent the last week doing. In the week leading up to the exam I spent a lot of time on pensions, temporal v. all-current, and derivatives, which all came in very handy. But I also spent a lot of time on multiple regression, FCFF, FCFE, and the Ethics book which did not come in particularly handy. My biggest disappointment coming out of the exam was on an entire ethics item set dedicated to the research objectivity standards. In December’s Level I exam we had to learn about GIPS in addition to the real ethics book, but it only came up in a question or two. I thought that if the other readings came up they would do so in a way that ties in with the actual ethics book. Having 5% of the exam and 50% of the Ethics on 10 pages (or so) that I read back in February was beyond disappointing.