isn’t mo34 taking L3 in 3 weeks…
The calculation of % people passing all three exams all three exams in a row (without failing) can be fairly represented by 0.4*0.5*0.5 =0.1 (10%). It’s not a straightforward multiplication of the pass rates, because there are people who pass but don’t take the next level and the ones who fail and still retake. But within some reasonable degree of error, we can assume these two to be equal. So, only 10% will pass all 3 without failing holds…
No it doesn’t. The issue isn’t people taking the test or not - it’s independence. I can give a group of people who don’t have a snowball’s chance of failing any level. When I started the process, if you told me that I had a 1 in 10 chance of making it 3/3, I would have insisted that you ought to be really happy at giving me 3:1 odds and betting $250K (or whatever). In truth, I would have been happy to give up pretty impressive odds the other way. There is a significant cohort in all these professional exams that would pass 100 in a row if they were offered. Here’s a bet - if you give me 3:1 and bet $250K I can pass any professional exam in 6 months if they will let me take it (questions need to be in English and it needs to be a paper and pencil exam not an NFL physical or something).
exotic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The calculation of % people passing all three > exams all three exams in a row (without failing) > can be fairly represented by 0.4*0.5*0.5 =0.1 > (10%). It’s not a straightforward multiplication > of the pass rates, because there are people who > pass but don’t take the next level and the ones > who fail and still retake. But within some > reasonable degree of error, we can assume these > two to be equal. So, only 10% will pass all 3 > without failing holds… That’s true largely. But a big dif was I, like other 07 L2 passers, passed L2 when the pass rate was 40%, which is signifcantly lower than a 50% implied rate. That being said, I think, or hope, that L3 will have a higher than 50% pass rate this year. For my odds to be one in 10, I’d need the pass rate to be 64%. That would be just peachy! Back to the books…
JD, I was talking about statistical probability, i.e. % of population fulfilling a condition. That’s not the same thing as probability assigned to each person in the population… Of course, if you look at it retrospectively, the ones who do pass all three in the row are probably the smartest or most dedicated ones, and we can still say that they had the quite high a probability (much higher than 1 in 10) to pass three in a row. That won’t be in conflict with the original “10% of population passing three in a row” statement…
“I have heard one in five finish the process, one in ten finish it in 3 exams.” FWIW I’ve seen these same #'s cited before without deriving them from historical pass rates.
I did it 3 for 3. If I remember them correctly, the passing % are 40%, 33% and 45%, give or take a small margin of error. That roughly means out of 100 people who sign up for L1, 6 of them finish L3 on their first try. This is not exact, but it shouldn’t be far from the actual %. Usually after the L3 results are out, you will see a group of people proudly post that they did it 3 for 3.
3 in a row… i think it is probably higher than 10% because if u pass it on the first try, u take it once…but if u fail, u can fail many times. and indeed i know people who have failed like 3 times until passing a level. thus multiplying the percentages for each exam is understating the 3 for 3ers in my opinion. i’m just here to relive the happy memories of studying for this horrible exam. the glory of passing it is worth it only when u relish in the misery of those who have not yet passed it. To indicate that I passed them on the first try, i put on resume the month and year that i started the program…and the date that i received the charter.