L2 versus L3

[dwheats]

@fzian

Lets put it this way: -

Will your prior knowledge in L2 help in your L3? Definitely.

Do you need to recall your knowledge from L2 to pass L3? Definitely not.

Can you pass L3 by solely studying the L3 materials? Definitely.

There are lots of L2 materials that are redundant in L3 but there are some materials in L1 & L2 that can come in handy if you remembered them for L3. If you didn’t, well, you’ll just have to work a little harder.

I think this is true too.

Independent events implies: P(pass L3 given you have passed L2) = P(pass L3).

So if you study 400 hrs for L3, it is the same as studying 400 hrs for L3 given that you have already studied 400 hrs for L2? Unlikely. There is a complete refresher for all L2 material that is appears in L3? Doubtful.

[former_trader]

@negra

curriculum level 2: 3500+ pages

curriculum level 3: 998 pages (including ethics that you`ve already seen)

This is nonsense.

[former_trader]

My feelings seconds after the exams:

I was 100% sure I passed L1 (to the point where I ordered L2 Schweser before I even received the results)

I was 66.67% sure I passed L2 (ended up passing)

I was 50% sure I passed L3 (ended up passing)

L3 is more challenging due to the essay AM session. You could write forever but be out in left field.

[dwheats]

@former_trader

@negra

curriculum level 2: 3500+ pages

curriculum level 3: 998 pages (including ethics that you`ve already seen)

This is nonsense.

Poster thinks this because of new vital source format.

I have the hard copy for june 2015 exam and it’s about 2100 pages.

[fzian]

@dwheats

Independent events implies: P(pass L3 given you have passed L2) = P(pass L3).

You might want to read what I actually said. I did not say that they are independent events. More specifically, I said: -

@fzian

I disagree with that logic. If level 2 and level 3 are independent papers (i.e. you can take level 2 and 3 in any order), it does not follow that those who passed level 3 will pass level 2. This logic is especially faulty given that level 2 and level 3 tests very different things.

I wasn’t saying that L2 won’t help. I am merely saying that just because half the person who passed level 2 failed level 3, it does not follow that level 3 is harder than level 2. In other words, I was pointing out a logical fallacy.

@logical fallacy

All doctors have passed the CFA exams Some doctors are unable to pass the CFA exams Maybe it is because of burnout. Maybe they underestimate it. Maybe life got in the way. But maybe it is because CFA is more difficult than being a doctor.

@dwheats

So if you study 400 hrs for L3, it is the same as studying 400 hrs for L3 given that you have already studied 400 hrs for L2? Unlikely.

Yes, that is what I said -_-"

@fzian

Lets put it this way: -

Will your prior knowledge in L2 help in your L3? Definitely.

Do you need to recall your knowledge from L2 to pass L3? Definitely not.

Can you pass L3 by solely studying the L3 materials? Definitely.

There are lots of L2 materials that are redundant in L3 but there are some materials in L1 & L2 that can come in handy if you remembered them for L3. If you didn’t, well, you’ll just have to work a little harder.

@dwheats

There is a complete refresher for all L2 material that is appears in L3? Doubtful.

There are refreshers for some key L2 concepts that may be relevant in L3; a complete refresher is unnecessary. Put it this way. Was a complete refresher of L1 really crucial for your success in L2? Remember, L3 drops quite a few topics from the syllabus (and adds a whole different set of topics). However, instead of deciding which is harder, I would advise you to, you know, actually start by maybe actually reading through the syllabus?

[itera]

passing L3 is conditioned on passing L2. Thus, not independent.

[naren]

itera, a solid lack of reading comprehension there.

fzian never said they were independent. He correctly pointed out the logial fallacy that just because 50% of L2-passers fail L3 does not imply that L3 is harder, that’s all.

Independence or lack thereof is irrelevant.

[fzian]

^ This.

Also (emphasis and capitalisation added): -

@fzian

I disagree with that logic. IF level 2 and level 3 are independent papers (i.e. you can take level 2 and 3 in any order), it does not follow that those who passed level 3 will pass level 2. This logic is especially faulty given that level 2 and level 3 tests very different things.

[itera]

@naren\_

itera, a solid lack of reading comprehension there.

fzian never said they were independent. He correctly pointed out the logial fallacy that just because 50% of L2-passers fail L3 does not imply that L3 is harder, that’s all.

Independence or lack thereof is irrelevant.

naren, an abundant amount of poor deduction here.

I never said who said what. In my 10 second skim of all the muck, I decided to say something factual.

[fzian]

I have likewise decided to say something factual: -

Grass is generally green.

[Greenman72]

^You have, in fact, killed two birds with one stone.

You have said something factual AND proven that you’re an intolerable dumbass!!!

[fzian]

Aww… Resorting to ad hominem now. You poor kid… I am sorry that you are incapable of logic and have to resort to crude remarks to articulate your point (whatever it is).

[dwheats]

@fzian

^ This.

Also (emphasis and capitalisation added): -

@fzian

I disagree with that logic. IF level 2 and level 3 are independent papers (i.e. you can take level 2 and 3 in any order), it does not follow that those who passed level 3 will pass level 2. This logic is especially faulty given that level 2 and level 3 tests very different things.

Lol. This argument depends on the accuracy of the IF statement.

You can’t say there is a logical fallacy (make a conclusion) based on claiming a premise is true that you do not beleive to be (or is not) true.

THAT is a logical fallacy.

[fzian]

@dwheats

Lol. This argument depends on the accuracy of the IF statement.

You can’t say there is a logical fallacy (make a conclusion) based on claiming a premise is true that you do not beleive to be (or is not) true.

THAT is a logical fallacy.

I am not sure if you actually undertand logic. How is using an “if” a fallacy? In layperson’s term, take the following statement as an example: -

If it is raining, the grass will be wet.

Notice that the statement is true regardless if it is raining or otherwise (and hence not a logical fallacy) – unless you insist on arguing that the statement is false if the grass is shaded, waxed, etc.

[dwheats]

To summarize: “If the papers are independent, then the logic is faulty.”

The papers are NOT independent, and therefore we cannot conclude whether the logic is faulty or not.

It is a useless argument to use if you know that the premise is false.

[itera]

here’s another logic statement: If we can all move on beyond this pretty useless word play, we can all be better off.

there, i win.

[fzian]

That is because my statement was not a proposition; it is a refutation. However, even if we ignore hypotheticals, lets re-evaluate the proposition: -

@Greenman72

Fact - Half of the people who passed L2 will still fail L3.

…But maybe it’s because the test is harder.

Lets break that down into parts: - Premise 1: Level 2 comes before level 3 Premise 2: Some of the people who pass level 2 fails level 3 Conclusion: This it is because level 2 is harder than level 3

The argument does not follow as it ignores the fact that level 3 tests different things – the evidence is circumstantial at best (and even that is pushing it). Now, you can argue that Greenman72 said “…but maybe it’s because” (which he/she did). However, the word “maybe” is pretty much a weasel shorthand for “It probably is but I am going to hedge my bets by saying maybe because lol, loophole”. In fact, Greenman72 started by saying: -

@Greenman72

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

…and starts of with a bold statement and attempts to worm in an opinion into what he/she calls as “facts” (the “maybe” portion of the argument).

@itera

here’s another logic statement: If we can all move on beyond this pretty useless word play, we can all be better off.

there, i win.

Sorry, you don’t win because: -

@dwheats

Lol. This argument depends on the accuracy of the IF statement.

But you are probably right. I am sure that we will all be much better off arguing if Level 2 is harder than Level 3 or otherwise.

[itera]

@Greenman72

^You have, in fact, killed two birds with one stone.

You have said something factual AND proven that you’re an intolerable dumbass!!!

well Greenman you were right. I’m going with intolerable dumbass

[Would_You_Look_at_Th]

Why is my Philosophy 106 class the center of discussion on the L3 thread? May I proffer a resolution? - maybe the logical debate can be moved to here B====================D-

[Sell-side_Sensei]

I can play too.

If people engage in petty semantic BS, it will ruin the thread.

I have to dig deeper and deeper on AF lately to find anything of substantive value. Not a reflection on the site, but the posters here seem to have a serious pole up their ass lately. At the risk of unintentionally steering this into a utopia socialism thread but i thought this community was to allow stressed out, mentally drained, over-acheiving, numbers nerds a place to vent and comiserate. Now will someone just tell me for the love of all that is holy… how many pages is the L3 curriculum!!!