Because it was super easy to pass last year and the grapes are sour this year?
I wish that I too didn’t like MissCleo fail the easiest fluke exam in history last year.
Can we find “low” scores from 2010 and compare them to those of 2011? Would be interesting to see how much 2011 is, if at all.
Or a pass. Who knows. If we do not know what caused this alleged fluke from last year then we cannot rule out it happening again. Let’s hope for no mean reversion here.
This is a fluke pass caused by machine error or power outage. 
Band 2 last year. I got the identical scores in 2011, except in Ethics where I got mid in 51%-70%.
In 1996, a methodology for arriving at the minimum passing score (MPS)—the modified Angoff Standard Setting Method—was introduced to the CFA Institute Board of Governors. A 2001 survey of professional credentialing programs found that 85% used standard setting, including the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and Certified Public Accountant (CPA) U.S. designations. Of those using standard setting, 88% used the Angoff method. The Angoff method has been used as a criterion for the establishment of the MPS for the Level I examination since 1996, for Level II beginning in 2005, and for Level III beginning in 2007. CFA Institute retains independent psychometricians to conduct standard setting workshops for each exam.This method involves a large and diverse group of CFA charterholders. The lead psychometrician divides participants into two smaller groups for each level of the examinations. Each participant reviews the entire examination, question by question, and makes an independent judgment on the expected performance of a just-competent candidate on each question on the examination.Participants review the entire examination a second time after reviewing general impact data and overall actual candidate performance on the exam. In the second round, each participant again records his/her judgment as to the expected performance of a just-competent candidate on each question. In this way, both difficulty of the examination content and actual candidate performance are considered. The workshops result in MPS recommendations that establish an appropriate competence level in the subject matter from the perspective of demographically representative groups of charterholders. The size of the group, its diversity, and its reliance on independent judgments contribute to the power of standard setting results. CFA charterholder members on the CFA Institute Board of Governors set the MPS each year. The Board convenes approximately six weeks following the exam to determine the Levels I and II MPS and approximately seven weeks after the Level III exam to determine the MPS. This is one of the Board’s most important responsibilities. Although pass rates may fluctuate, the Board’s objective is to set a consistent standard competency level across years. The Board must assess the difficulty of the examinations and the demonstrated competency of candidates. The Board considers all available information relevant to these factors. The results of the standard setting workshops are the most important input. From the Board’s perspective, standard setting is a systematic process that adheres to sound psychometric principles, providing the Board with a valid range of MPS values. The Board’s Guiding Principles for Setting the CFA Examination Minimum Passing Score may be found in the “CFA Exam Results” section of the CFA Institute website.CFA Institute professional staff and the Board will continue to monitor advances in the psychometric field to augment the information currently used to set the MPS.
Source: http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprogram/Documents/the_cfa_program_our_fifth_decade.pdf
looking at the various ‘fails’ and ‘passes’ posted in this forum and the accompanying bands, I reckon last year the MPS was around 65% (below 65% rather than above ). Given, how everybody seems to agree, last year’s paper was just a breeze compared to this year’s , i guess the MPS this year should be somewhere around 60%, 60-62% may be. 75/120 =PASS, is this gonna be that magic equation? i wonder…
Problem is last year’s candidate pool was incredibly weak. This year we got a bunch o’ gunners
Yes I’m sure all the geniuses decided to write the test in 2012…
Either way, how about you read about the Angoff method. The candidate pool doesn’t affect the MPS. I’m sure you’ve been told this many times but choose to ignore it.
Yah, think i agree with bmer4444, i also kinda think MPS is decided based on how difficult the paper was, rather than the average score or something. And i desperately hope that angoff thing rate this year’s paper as ‘torment’
I also agree with RBA and bmer, the difficulty of exam is a relative item, that is , if it was hard for everyone then, MPS will be adjusted accordingly. Also, last year’s examinees were weak is a somewhat unwarranted statement.
I believe the MPS could be somewhere b/w 60 and 68%…just my take…
Hope MPS is below 70% and Ethics is leniently viewed
I gave the exam last year and failed, i gave this year again and i think i did better than last year. I found exam this year to be easy as compared to last year.
Last year i was sitting clueless throughout the AM Session and though did better in PM session, the exam was not easy at all. This year i hardly got any time to look up for a second also till i finished both AM and PM session.
Its surprising to read posts that last year exam was easier than this year. Anyone else sharing my view?
Vgmalu,
I agree with you. I am a retaker and felt that this year was easier than last year. I’m certain that I found this year’s exam easier not because of any material difference in the questions but because I was better prepared this year than last year. Personally, I’m not sure how anyone could accurately judge the difficulty of the exams. Anyone who can comment on their experience directly had to have failed last year’s exam. If he/she failed last year’s exam, clearly the exam was not that easy for him/her.
RK
I’m in the same boat and was about to reply with the exactly the same thing. Who’s to say if we felt the exam was easier because we were better prepared or because the exam was actually easier.
Key point I keep in mind is that a LOT of people are taking this every year and only a small minority of them are posting on AF with any regularity. So, what may be discussed here is certainly not representative of the overall test taking population.
I failed last year Band 8, and this years test was significantly harder. Granted I’m almost 100% sure I failed this one, so I might not be unbiased, but it basically breaks down like this.
The big 3, Ethics Equity and FRA, were a complete joke last year. Every one who studied should have gotten above 70%. I didn’t really study FRA hence I failed. If you got those 3 gimmes you passed. Just that simple, the passing scores for last year were chock full of everyone failig 5 or 6, but passing those 3.
This year, FRA was pretty straightfoward except for that dirty operating lease vignette.
Ethics, was dirty, and very tricky, same with Equity except for the gimme gordon growth vignette, I mean some of the stuff they asked who knows where the hell it came from. Fixed Income 2nd vignette was a gimme, first one was just brutal, and this coming from someone who works with FI for 80% of his job. Derivs, I knew inside out, studied this hard core, because I flunked it last year. I thought I was ready for anything… well they served us up a plate of bullshit this year.
Econ, PM, Alts, and Quant were straightforward and easy. I’m gearing up already for CFA II part 4. I think my prep was good, but next year I’m hoping they don’t give complete BS in my 4 strength areas, FI Derivs Equity and Ethics.
[/quote]
I failed last year Band 8, and this years test was significantly harder. Granted I’m almost 100% sure I failed this one, so I might not be unbiased, but it basically breaks down like this.
The big 3, Ethics Equity and FRA, were a complete joke last year. Every one who studied should have gotten above 70%. I didn’t really study FRA hence I failed. If you got those 3 gimmes you passed. Just that simple, the passing scores for last year were chock full of everyone failig 5 or 6, but passing those 3.
This year, FRA was pretty straightfoward except for that dirty operating lease vignette.
Ethics, was dirty, and very tricky, same with Equity except for the gimme gordon growth vignette, I mean some of the stuff they asked who knows where the hell it came from. Fixed Income 2nd vignette was a gimme, first one was just brutal, and this coming from someone who works with FI for 80% of his job. Derivs, I knew inside out, studied this hard core, because I flunked it last year. I thought I was ready for anything… well they served us up a plate of bullshit this year.
Econ, PM, Alts, and Quant were straightforward and easy. I’m gearing up already for CFA II part 4. I think my prep was good, but next year I’m hoping they don’t give complete BS in my 4 strength areas, FI Derivs Equity and Ethics.
[/quote]
I so want to believe in you that this year it was difficult, coz only if that happens, i’m gonna pass. So based on your experience, what would be the MPS this year? Please be kind …
MissCleo -
Weren’t you also saying you thought this year MPS would be a higher than last year’s because this year’s exam was easier? LOL, I’m confused!
Other people clearly thought this was easy. I just botched it and failed, oh well another year of studying hoping I get some FAIR Deriv/ FI/ Ethics/ Equity vignettes. I personally thought this year was much harder, but I’m clearly in the minority.
I guess we all are confused…god, this is fun…all the best
Doing Brady the analyst’s adjustment, I get that the MPS for this year is non-existent.