Level II vs Level I. More challenging but also more...enjoyable.

What I mean is level II has more meaning, is more applicable.

Level I was just like a load of dots on a page, with level II there’s a lot of “I’ve seen that before” moments and the dots start to add up to form a picture.

My theory is that it’s about internalising the info and not seeing it as 8 different topics - Financial Reporting, Quants, Derivatives - or a litany of study sessions, but instead understand that the curriculum is a bunch of interlated tools and information, layered upon one another with the sole intent of shaping in you a mindset of Analyst.

It also helps that in the last year i’ve immersed myself in reading hedge fund letters, building my own portfolio and following finance blogs which makes it ‘real’. (Note: I do not in a financial role, yet)

Make no mistake, it’s a challenge. However thats due to the quanitity of information rather than the content of the curriculum. Like trying to eat a delicious steak in one bite :slight_smile:

Either way, looking beyond the learning outcomes to the learning applications - what is this trying to teach me rather than what do I need to remember - really makes this stuff more digestable.

What do you guys think?

(Best of luck with the study - here’s my study plan tool if anyone missed it:http://www.analystforum.com/forums/cfa-forums/cfa-level-ii-forum/91308437)