+1… highly doubtful a candidate who made it all the way to L3 would intentionally stare at someone’s paper for 15 secs…
“Highly doubtful” ain’t much of a defense, unfortunately.
So you would not doubt the integrity of a proctor who accused an L3 candidate of staring at someone’s paper for a full 15 secs?
They made people in our test center who were wearing hats turn them around backward.
I got lucky this year and didn’t have anyone else at my table, so there was no possibility of being accused of cheating, though we have pretty accomodating proctors at my site.
I would not take “a full 15 seconds” literally; I doubt that a proctor would time a candidate with a stopwatch.
I would take it to mean that the proctor thought that the candidate stared at another candidate’s paper for an unusually long time.
Ask yourself this: why would a proctor knowingly lie about a candidate’s actions?
The proctor also mentioned avoiding eye contact with her…I’m sure no assumptions were made there. Who would have time making eye contact with the proctor when one is working on the exam? I guess some of you assume proctors are always right and they wouldn’t make any mistakes.
Why do eyewitnesses of crimes sometimes not identify the right offender? Perception isn’t always reality.
It seems that the CFAI, charterholders, and most candidates would agree the right rule is to have zero tolerance; in essence, a type 2 error (accepting a cheater’s exam) is what should be prevented more than a type 1 error (rejecting a candidate’s exam on the incorrect grounds of cheating). Also, I suspect because it’s easier to enforce than rules that would allow exceptions and subjectivity.
But rules that are right and easy aren’t necessarily fair.
You don’t need to respond back; I know the CFA program isn’t required to be fair.
I put a hat on and looked down as if i’m looking at an exam paper and asked my wife to guess where i was looking (i’m right handed) she said i don’t know but somewehere to your right. So it should’ve looked as if you were looking around the whole time, and you couldn’t stop giving the appearnce of glancing even if you wanted to, unless you removed the hat of course.
The proctor couldn’t see you actually looking at another paper and if candidates would appear so with the hat, its their fault for allowing candidates to wear them. just trying to help you battle this. Good luck.
Cool story
Great detective work Holmes. Another case in the books!
Just pointing out that no one can tell where he was looking and how it would look during an exam.
I’m still baffled why someone would wear a hat to this test.
#BedHead
As I said, I wouldn’t take their testimony as gospel.
You seem to think that I’m here to defend CFA Institute. Why’s that?
Since we are yet to hear the final verdict of the PCP lets wait and watch. Given the case facts , i dont think it would hold any water especially that the allegations are not concrete but subjective . Am sure the CFA Institute might be dealing up with such type of complaints each year. It could be an overzealous proctor and the fact the you were with the baseball cap in the front row made u that much more conspicuos. CFA Institute has to take cognizance of proctors report and cannot simply let go without any formal investigation , given the rigour and rules that CFA Institute abides to.
Trust me , you would be exonerated . And please do not wear the cap again for any exam. Sounds outlandish in a exam scenario. Cheers.
Here’s my input for what it’s worth (which is about exactly what you paid for it):
(i) In general, the CFA does not want to invalidate the exam of an innocent candidate and has set up procedures to at least review innocent explanations of potential violations. This is not a case of an unfair or arbitrary tribunial just victimizing candidates for the hell of it. You should go into the review with the perspective that you have a chance and that they will listen to fair explanations.
(ii) Like a police officer in the courthouse, the proctors will (fairly or unfairly) be given the presumption that their side of the story is a true recollection of their perceptions of the matter. They have no reason to lie while you have a very compelling reason to, so you cannot go full-frontal against the veracity of their story. “They are not telling the truth” is a losing argument.
(iii) Generally, a fact-finder will be more open to explanations of how the officer’s perceptions can be innocently explained. Grant that the proctor is telling the truth to the best of their ability, but present whatever explanation you have as to why what they believe they saw was a misinterpretation of what actually happened. Be as factually specific as possible and do whatever you can to evidence that you remember the situation and the facts surrounding it. (e.g. “It was at the end of the test. I was actually looking up at the clock, determining how much time I had left per question. It was to my right and up on the wall at the far end of the room. The proctor distracted me as I was finishing up the Investment Management section. I know this because I was staring at the corner of my table trying to recall the Beta calculation.” ) Detail whatever truthful explanation you have. Like a jury, the review needs something to hang onto. The more solid and realistic you can make it, the more of a chance that they will be able to use it. Again, do not forget, like a jury, they are looking for a reason not to punish you so give them something concrete that they can justify acting on. Your job is to distingush between your case and other cases in which they punished the candidate.
(iv) Personal details or narratives about your integrity, while not necessarilly decisive, may be helpful in getting you over the hump if it is a close decision. If you have never cheated in your entire career, have never committed an academic or professional infraction, donate every Saturday night to the local orphanage, whatever… let them know. Again, don’t be naive enough to think that any of this will save you on its own, but if you can draw a picture of a fundamentally good and honest person facing a unique charge, explanations of why this may be a misinterpration by the proctor may gain a little more traction.
(v) Do not lie. Never lie. Lies are easily discovered (especially with all the information everyone’s fingertips). Any dissembling (even if facially innocent and immaterial to the question at hand) will not only kill any chances you have, it could have further consequences. If you actually unadvisedly took a momentary peek at your neighbors’ booklet, just be a man and take the sanction.
Don’t see how you could infer that from what I wrote. I treat your opinion as from a charterholder who happens to be a boardmember of this forum.
Thanks for the input. My coworkers told me not to mention I was wearing a hat and not to mention that it is improbable to stare at my neighbor’s paper for 15 secs since it might lead CFAI to think I’m guilty and trying to hind something. So in my initial response, I mentioned: 1. the inconsistency between the 2 proctor reports, 2. I’ve taken CFA exams numerous times and this has never been an issue, 3. I was looking up to check the clock and pace myself, not making eye contact with anyone, 4. check answer patterns.
Hopefully, they will respond back and maybe I’ll let them know about the hat and describe more about the situation. But honestly, I don’t know what else to provide for them since I did not do anything unusual.
Thanks again for your suggestions.
I would not have hesitated to mention the hat. It is not disallowed and speaks to the accuracy of the interpretation of the proctors. If the CFA wants to disallow caps, they can do so, but they shouldn’t use them as a presumption against candidates who wear them.
I also would probably have mentioned that it is improbable (and unnecessary) for one to stare at another test-takers paper for 15 seconds. I would have couched it in terms of “This is why the proctors’ interpretation of what was happened is not what actually happened” instead of “No reasonable candidate would stare at another’s paper for that long.”
As far as the arguments you presented, they mostly look good, though (4) doesn’t really seem like it would hold much weight. I wouldn’t think anyone would presume that a candidate would copy a large proportion of the test from someone else. If I was a fact-finder, I would probably presume that a typical cheater would look to copy a couple of answers that they couldn’t otherwise answer, not the whole test.
Your best argument seems to be (1) as that goes right to the heart of the matter: the proctors got the factual situation wrong. It is not your word against theirs. It’s their word against each other.
Also, note that the proposed violation is “Looking or glancing at another candidate’s exam or giving the appearance of doing so violates the exam rules and regulations.” There is no applicable violation for giving the appearance of looking at prohibited study material (only the possession of study material). (See: https://www.cfainstitute.org/ethics/conduct/sanctions/Pages/candidate-sanctions.aspx). So, if you are being accused of looking under the table, the non-existence of study material should be a viable defense. Which is to say, you should probably mention to the PCP that one of the proctor’s observations is not even a cognizable violation (and contradicts the observation of the proctor’s observation of what may be an actual offense).
In any case, I’m not a PCP arbitrator, so I can’t speak directly to what they will think is compelling, but have dealt with a lot of similar tribunals where these kind of factors are determinative.
You can’t win! --Adrian
#RockyIV