No comments further from my side, just read the thread what others say in this forum…Or wait there is one, if a person can’t win the argument he or she insults the opponent usually, that is my friend indeed your case here but I guess you figured it out by now since you are a true analyst…a bit of a sarcasm in here, but hey you deserved it !
The 40/60/80 has come up as an alternative solution to roughly estimate the candidates’ scores since CFA institute does not reveal the exact scores, in the nutshell it is the generalization approach which works the following way.
If say a candidate shown the following proficiency in the test.
Ethics -*- which corresponds to the rage 51-70, the 40/60/80 rule would assume that the candidate scored approx 60, then you take 60% and multiply say by 36 points available in that section which gives you roughly 22 points.
Portfolio Management - - * which corresponds to the range >70, the assumption would be that the candidate landed at 80% of the range, so you would take 80% and multiply by the points available for that section say 36 and your rough estimate would be 29 points that you could have scored.
Thiis is not the proven methodology but it gives some insight on where you approximately landed the exam.
Hope that answers
I’m not so sure it gives any more insight than assuming 50/70/100, for example.
My question is this: why does this assumption provide more or better insight than using, say 33/60/75?
If you score in the <=50% band, you probably were guessing randomly-- maybe 33% is a better estimate in this band? In the middle bracket, 60% could work as the middle point (but maybe not). Why isn’t it equally as reasonable to assume most people score 75% instead of 80%?
If the consensus is that the test is so difficult and hard to get around 80% (or 90%), why is 80% picked as the “average” score for the >70% category instead of something else? Doesn’t that kind of imply there are a lot more people scoring 90% and 100% than most people think (assuming the distribution around 80% isn’t extremly tight)?
Given the passing rate, does it seem like a bit of a stretch to assume the average score in the >70% category is 80%? At least on here, where the “top percentile” are rumored to hang out, you don’t see many candidates frequently getting 80% on many things (in CFAI assessments and mocks)…
Agree with the logic, you can use either number… the 40/60/80 is more centered towards the mean I guess this is the main assumption here…
The mean of what? The middle value in these ranges isn’t necessarily the population mean score of candidates over these ranges (I realize 40 and 80 aren’t the midpoints of their respective ranges).
50
then would it be fair to assume that 60 would be the middle within? Let’s call it “main mean”
This is what I meant “towards the mean” and that is the assumption that within the narrowest range there is more possibility of being close to the mean of this range eg 60
regarding 40 and 80 which seem skewed towards the main mean, the assumption here is that in case of 40 you give yourself a benefit of the doubt while getting closer to the main mean and same is the case with 80, instead of say 85, being closer to the main mean eg mean of the narrowest range…central limited theorem…generalization…
But nothing wrong if you can put your views as in black ltrman and get the close enough score which applies to your case.
This is probably the “assumption” I would agree with most. But, just because the Institute gives these bands, doesn’t mean that candidate scores cluster around the middle (although it could).
Again, towards what mean? The midpoint is 50, but there is no guarantee (or even logical argument made) that the true mean overall score for candidates is 50%. Is the benefit of the doubt more logical than assuming the true accuracy (for people in the lower band) is 33% (random)? If the benefit of the doubt is good for the lower band, why not for the >70% group-- could they get the benefit of the doubt for 85%, or should we assume that the supposed difficulty of the exam makes 75% more reasonable than 80%?
I’m not so sure that they’re invoking the central limit theorem with this one…
My main point is that (unless they have some literature that I need to read), their assumptions don’t seem to follow any solid foundations. Yet, so many people are captivated by the methodology and everyone is trying to determine the MPS (and even spending money on this sort of analysis?).
These are solid points that have been brought up before. In levels 2 and 3, more information can be derived from the number of questions in an item set, for example, if you get >70% in alternative investments, and there was only one item set, that means you either scored 83.3% or 100%, so 80 may actually underestimate your score. It gets more complicated with 2 or 3 item sets but you get the idea. Also, in order to average, lets say 70% (which many did on mock exams) you have to score much higher than 70% in some areas, these are your strong areas, and I know that for myself I would frequently get 5/6 or 6/6 on those.
Also, as for this being a hang out for the “top percentile”, you don’t frequently see people scoring 33%. Often, there’s at least 1 or 2 questions you know, even if you bomb the section, so assming you only know one answer, that gives you an average of (1/6)+(1/3)*(5/6) = 44.44%, so once again, 40% may underestimate your score.
As for the 50-70 band, it doesn’t matter how you slice it, your average score is 58.33%… obviously this result is only possible when there’s an even number of vignettes but you should get the idea. Thus 60% may slightly overestimate your score.
I am sorry that you consider factual statements to be insults. You wrote three or four sentences, half, if not all, of which do not make sense.
“We all know it works” - Improper use of the English language in this situation. There is no logical explanation for its usage.
"Than where in the CFAI extract you see any reference for the fact " - I assume you mean, where in the CFAI extract are there facts. The entire extract is a factual statement, lol.
____
Another authoritative source:
WHAT IS THE “ETHICS ADJUSTMENT”?
If your results indicate that you’re a borderline fail, you can be lifted into the passing zone by a strong performance in ethics. What if you’re a borderline pass? You could be failed if your ethics performance was particularly weak. This is taken directly from the CFA website:
“The Board of Governors instituted a policy to place particular emphasis on ethics. Starting with the 1996 exams, the performance on the ethics section became a factor in the pass/fail decision for candidates whose total scores bordered the minimum passing score. The ethics adjustment can have a positive or negative impact on these candidates’ final results.”
____
But your home bias, and illusion of knowledge bias will certainly lead the way regardless of the information you are presented with.