^^^ I agree with itera that it would be too naive to think that no one cheats. You’d be amazed at some of the amateurs that show up at L1. I also align with the CFAI’s thinking of putting the onus on you to prove you’re not guilty. What I don’t agree with is the process and the means through which candidates are put through to prove their innocence.
You shouldn’t go around accusing people of something unless you have proof or you have gleamed into annual PCP investigations of Charterholders. Greg Smith was a whistleblower, not a Charterholder. I’m not saying that everyone during the 07/08 crises was worth their weight in gold, but using the above as an example is just plain old retarded. Plus, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so quit hijacking other people’s threads.
If anything, for every Greg Smith, I’d argue Goldman has ~30,000 employees who think otherwise.
I understand your point and sure, people who were honest over a long period of time sometimes can turn into cheaters, just as honest people can suddenly become criminals. But if character is admissible as evidence in a criminal and civil case, it is likewise material for determining the likelihood of whether a person is guilty or not of cheating. If we eliminate character, we are simply left with one person’s word against another. That is not a fair way to conduct fact finding.
I agree that if someone were caught attempting to cheat it should be punishable, but realize that there is a difference between someone who managed to cheat and thus gain an unfair advantage (regardless of whether it materially helped them pass or not), versus someone who tried. The damages in one case are clearly lower than the other.
But it’s one thing to catch someone with a formula sheet, a hanky with writing on it, or a programmed calculator. The proof there is much easier than saying someone ‘looked’. What does looked mean? How can you prove line of sight by observation? There are some police officers who are certified at telling speed without the aid of radar and their testimony is accepted with a lower standard of proof. Do proctors have similar sophistication to tell if someone is looking where they shouldn’t?
I think asking me to run correlations here is as pointless as me asking you to run a correlation as to the veracity of a proctor’s ability to detect cheating and actual cheating.
Its fairly accepted that when you hire someone to do a job, you have to have a method of measuring the quality of the work performed. Management 101. If I were running the CFA exam I’d sure as hell be interested in checking the quality of the work the proctors are doing, as opposed to annually renewing their contract because I like the way they smile. Its no different than an CPA firm pulling a surprise audit.
Agreed. But having higher quality monitoring methods and one-per-table seating in my view is worth it, both for the sake of eliminating type I and type II errors. That can only increase the quality of charterholders in the long run.
This is true CT, I agree to that too that checks in US is Naziesque. But I only disagree with your earlier statement that you can even cheat in 3rd world centers!
Two simple things can ensure problems dont occur (just like Itera and above have said):
Intermix levels and jumble the order of questions.
I took a toilet break in the afternoon session and this proctor accompanied me and sat on the bench while I was praying down the porcelain altar. It was not creepy though because he had his back against my lateral side but he was trying to keep a watch with the help of the wall mirror. As a serious candidate one cannot complain for the measures followed but I was wondering what if someone had taken a big break.
I think the problem with this is–if two people take different tests (even if only the order of the questions is changed), then it is statistically impossible for the tests to be equal in difficulty. One test will be .00000001% easier than the other.
And we all know how serious CFAI takes themselves (whether it’s justified or not). They wouldn’t DREAM of giving two different tests, one of which is hard, and one of which is easy.
^ agree with order changing. I don’t believe cheaters will spend all the time looking at which bubble is filled in, and then try to glance at the question it corresponds to by trying to look at their neighbor’s question booklet. too risky, and too little time
I sent my response couple of days ago. Didn’t mention it here because I do need time to get back to myself. It’s been a while since I wrote an email that long. My hands were shaking when I was writing the response, because I was thinking about @itera’s argument too. I feel helpless knowing that CFAI definitely tends more to think in that way, which makes my chance of getting out clean very slim.
But how can I prove my innocence? It’s my words against the procters. Procters don’t have to prove anything but I have to. And the judge is not unbiased. I’m so frustrated.
Andreason, if you were about to go to court and defend yourself would you feel it wise to listen to someone who’d say ‘Dude, don’t even bother, you’re getting the maximum sentence’?
Ignoring those voices is the only way you can stand a solid chance of coming off clean. You made your defense, now your job is twofold 1) check up on them every few weeks, 2) when you’re not doing 1, forget about this entirely and enjoy your free time. You didn’t do anything wrong so don’t allow yourself to beat yourself up. The matter is out of your hands until the next decision point. Do something fun like learn a new language, take up a new sport, whatever it is.
And do yourself a favor: don’t come back to this forum until you’ve gotten follow up and need support. The last thing you want to do is listen to more ‘Dude, I’m telling you you’re screwed’ BS. Just get the charter off your mind for now, life is bigger than the CFA you know. Much as that doesn’t seem to be true to many people here.
I’m praying that you’ll get out of this situation and will be on your way to earning your charter sooner than later.
^Most sensible advice worth following in toto. At least ignore the soothsayers who relish projecting the negative sides only and exploiting the fear of gullible so that ultimately there are fewer Charterholders to compete with! Just relax and take it easy till you get the intimation from CFAI.
This is why I’m glad I took my exam in Tokyo. Japanese proctors are more lenient and not petty with appearances of cheating. In the morning session one proctor apologized for asking me to put my ear plug case under my seat.
4 years back when I took my japanese proficiency test one guy kept looking around obviously cheating and the proctors kept asking him to stop. Then they gave him a yellow card which was an official warning. He continued to look around and they didn’t give him another yellow card which would have meant his results would have been voided. There was also a woman who kept mumbling during the reading section so I got angry and complained. The proctor asked her to stop and she said that’s how she reads and focuses. The proctor then gave me a look of “there’s nothing I can do”.
A cursory look at some of the comments on here suggests a cultural undertone in the disposition of proctors. I think that in some countries, being a show spoiler is a big NO. While in some, proctors are often over zealous and looking to pick a fall guy. I guess we will never know where to draw that line between adhering to principles and enforcing rules. The US will like to set rules for almost everything, knowing that no one can preempt all things. For things without documented rules, the discretion of proctors will always be required. Discretion may be influenced by culture. So, why set rules when principles can almost cover all things.
I would venture to say that most of the real cheaters are not caught. These are the folks who can’t be hassled to use the restroom during the designated breaks but must instead run to the restroom during each the morning and afternoon session. Someone in this thread mentioned the formula peeking during these “bathroom breaks”. I think this is much more prevelant than many realize.
I wish this guy luck but I think he is in trouble. not for a second I think someone at level 3 would try to cop a peek and enhance his chances for passing. however looking around is a violation. the proctors are claiming he did it several times. CFAI has to stand by their super strong ethics enforcement code. heck they make you study the same material at every level.
I wouldnt approach employers, refs to make a case. just take the lump. its prob gonna be a suspension.
I think this might be an ethics violation as well. You’re not supposed to notify people of cheating and/or other ethics violations if its purpose would be to “get ahead.”
these investigations seem pretty hard to shake off - I wish you luck if you are indeed innocent.
The proctors in Canada seem to exhibit common sense while adhering to the rules, I guess a lot of them have gone to university and understand how the system works. they also don’t seem to mind when I’m checking them out walking down the aisle.