bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder what level of significance their > statistics are set for? There’s something like > 100,000 candidates these days, or is it 200,000. > > > A 5% alpha level would imply that 2500 - 5000 > people might be false positives (assuming a single > tail). A 1% alpha level would imply 500-1000 > people might be false positives. > > It’s fine to use statistics for screening for > possible cheating, but there’s got to be other > types of evidence before one can summarily suspend > people. > > I understand that this is a private organization > and so CFAI can more or less do what they want, > applying whatever standards they feel, but surely > it can’t be good to say… Please take our test, > and by the way, we’re going to throw about 2.5% of > you out each year and accuse you of statistically > cheating. There wouldn’t be near the many false positives after taking proximity into account. Similar results on a test taken in Dallas and one in Chicago wouldn’t factor in.
No, but the alpha level would presumably be set for likelihood of similarity, conditional on proximity, yes? And maybe it’s just set really really high, like 5 standard deviations.
anyone knows what were the actions last year or previous years for such “unusual similarity” … or has anyone received anything from CFAI apart from the acknowledgement mail???
in my case on the similarity issue, i proposed to 1. check the video and audio recordings 2. give me the same test so i can get the same answers 3. lie detector test, take me to a lie detector test center or some sort and conduct a thorough investigation. and to the responses, some of you guys said that the CFAI is not going to give me a test to retake to let me prove that I did all the questions by myself, 1. why’s that?
Maybe because you can remember all your answers? They are definitely not going to let you retake it and you can forget about the lie detector. You will find out sooner or later than the CFAI is not necessarily concerned with a handful of people who are wrongly punished. Not when 100,000 people are taking a test each year. There’s bound to be some false positives in there somewhere. The problem is that there is usually no way to prove that you didn’t cheat. I truly wish anyone that gets these letters the best of luck but you should prepare for the worst.
well, the CFAI will most likely give me a response on the 22nd since that’s when the 30 days of investigation will close, not sure if it’s going to take longer, but I will keep you guys updated on my case. and to hezagenius, referring to the above posts, quote " I truly wish anyone that gets these letters the best of luck but you should prepare for the worst. " thank you, and I’m prepared to get permanently banned. Well, on the bright side, I can still go to HBS or Warton for a master or take the FRM, etc…
@billgates How do you know it is only a 30 day investigation. I have a similar problem and they are not giving me any kind of timeframe for resolution. Did you get a response?
Same case, and I didn’t have the impression of been cheated by any other candidate, just the lottery of loser.
Billgates Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > some of you guys said that > the CFAI is not going to give me a test to retake > to let me prove that I did all the questions by > myself, > > 1. why’s that? No joke man, but if you have to ask why and can’t figure it out for yourself, you don’t have a future in finance. Also remember: this is not innocent until proven guilty court of law here. This is the prosecutor and judge together.
No, I haven’t heard from them yet and its been 40 days. Does anyone know the penalties for having similar answers with somebody else before you can appeal?
Hello , Guys , I have the same problem , i am a candidate for CFA Level I in June 2011 , They send me the sam letter of “Unusual Similarity” Till now I haven’t got any response , does any one got a response so far ? Thanks AxiomMan
The burden of proof should be on CFAI, not the candidates. If probabilities are being compared, it should be conditional: Candidates has similar answers given they sat next to each other. Good luck.
abacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The burden of proof should be on CFAI, not the > candidates. Should be, but isn’t.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > abacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The burden of proof should be on CFAI, not the > > candidates. > > Should be, but isn’t. I Agree. And remember, the judge and prosecutor are on the same side. The odds are already against you.
Does any one get a reply from them yet and Does anyone know the penalties for having similar answers with somebody else before you can appeal?
no clue what the penalty is, but higgmond said that it could be a 1 year suspension for having similar answers, who knows.
Billgates Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no clue what the penalty is, but higgmond said > that it could be a 1 year suspension for having > similar answers, who knows. The 1 year suspension is my recollection from prior instances noted on AF.
its been a long time and still CFAI hasnt send any response…
@AxiomMan and @Billgates - did you guys receive any response from them regarding PCP investigation??? any ideas if anyone has received??
If you have money lying around, I would suggest you call your lawyer.