I find it odd that so many people call L2 ‘the beast’ and say it’s harder than L3. L3 was MUCH harder than L2 imo. L2 is memorizing formulas. L3 is memorizing entire sections of text. There’s no comparison imo.
This is what I am telling to everybody… completely agree with you. Level 3 is definitely the most challenging of the 3 exams, at least for me.
I think it’s just a different type of difficult, but I would agree with you. Everyone creates this perception that Level III is a cake walk; however, that’s hardly the case. I think the material is a little bit easier for Level III than Level II, but the constructed response makes it pretty challenging and intimidating.
I think it’s just a different type of difficult. I won’t say it was significantly harder, but I would agree with you about it being a tough exam. Everyone creates this perception that Level III is a cake walk; however, that’s hardly the case. I think the material is a little bit easier for Level III than Level II, but the constructed response makes it pretty challenging and intimidating.
At least you can guess your way to the correct answer on L2. You’re forced to climb without a rope on L3.
L3 is definitely tougher than L2 mainly because of the AM section. Time pressure and memory retention problem on framing the answers leaves very little room for error and adds pressure in the multiple choice sections.
Whoever says that L3 is cakewalk, I just don’t agree.
Y’all may be mischaracterizing the comments about Levels II and III.
I, for one, think that the Level II _ material _ is more difficult, but that the Level III exam _ format _ is more difficult. There’s a world of difference between knowing that one of a), b), and c) is correct and staring at a blank sheet of paper.
I’ve never encountered anyone who said that Level III is a cakewalk. Absolutely _ or _ relatively.
L3 is harder to pass for sure. More difficult exam even you understand the material. AM session includes many subjectivity.
Those who claim the opposite are mainly old charterholders who lived with the 60% and 70% pass rates in the old days.
+1. Totally agree with you. THe format and requirement of judgement and proactice memorizing kill many candidates
Respectfully, you certainly have no first-hand knowledge about the difficulty of the tests (at any level) _ in the old days _, and I suspect that you have little second-hand knowledge about them.
Further, I, for one, haven’t found anyone thinks that the Level III exam is easier to pass than the Level II exam, and I doubt that you have any evidence to support your claim that they’re _ mainly old charterholders _.
With all respect, the fact that you didn’t find any one thinks LIII easier is incorrect. At least you could think of the poster of this thread who said many people say the opposite of your claim. Unless you did not read his post.
I referred to old Actual pass rates.
The poster of this thread claimed to have encountered people who said that it is easier. Perhaps he has.
I haven’t. And his post is, at best, hearsay.
Not only did I read it, I understood it.
I’m aware of that.
I’m also aware that higher pass rates don’t necessarily mean that the test is easier. The candidates could have been better prepared, for example, or more competent.
I would not even compare the tests by the format of questions.
The format preferred is normally the function of the question-style you are used to from high school, which, in turn, is the function of your cultural background.
Some people can rebase their preferences throughout the course of their lives/ with the new experiences, but some will still prefer the old good style they have grown up with. And - to the big suprise of people with Anglo-Saxon roots - open-ended questions style is still beind widely practiced and - who knows - maybe CFAI is doing a well-meant cultural gesture by offering am in this format (I would love to think that!)))
I found Level 3 harder than the previous 2 levels due to its content being more out-of-touch with my everyday practice.
This was a serious depriment to my motivation. And if I track back every single topic that was going smoother for me these were the ones I could either establish some link to my practice with/ had spent a great deal of time on during my studies/ could relate to myself (that is, except for the procrastination-biased ones like retirement hahaha).
I realise that some people in unrelated careers do CFA exams but I honestly do not understand how they are motivating themselves. To me, having seen things in practice adds a totally different quality to how you perceive the content. But that is just me and my 2c.
50% of who passed L2 fail L3. The same core concepts of L2 are repeated for the second time. Still 50% fail.
Level I is the newly hired analyst level thinking - the meddlers
level II is analyst/associate level thinking - the ‘do-ers’
Level III is the manager/executive level thinking - the decision makers
I think the people who are successful at level-III possess the ability to boil down complicated thoughts/results into clear, concise and accurate answers.
If you think L3 is much harder than L2 then I think you are forgetting the hell you went through to pass L2, it is a beast of an exam. L3 is as hard as L2, not saying harder or easier, but they are about equal in terms of difficulty. Different format obviously for AM session, but the PM session is not bad if you know your stuff. I felt like I could have studied for a year and not been ready for L2, did not feel that way about L3. L3 is all about knowing how to answer the questions in the AM session quickly and efficiently and move on so you don’t run out of time. I don’t think the actual material for L3 is harder than L2. L2 to me is a more technically demanding exam.
If L3 was easier than L2, why the hell would we have to do L3 after L2 and not the other way round?
Remember that a candidate is eligible to attempt L3 only after he passes L2. It would be counter intuitive to suggest that a candidate is eligible to attempt something easier only after he passes something tougher