http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy/topicareaweights.html There is nothing game breaker about that topic weight. If there is, then everything is a game breaker. I will spend 5-15% of my time on it, which is my point.
So that everyone is aware - it’s going to be a cluster. In 2007 all the guys were talking about how they got rawked in 2006 by PM. We all *knew* it was going to be a game breaker so I and others spent the extra time, knowing this section was going to be an all out brawl, and it didn’t make a damn bit of difference. Despite dominating this section in mocks I proceeded to score <50 on the exam. Now is 2008 all the talk is about how we got killed in 2007. Dood it is going to be a bloodbath, so put the extra work into it if you like, because you need every point, but know they can always ask a question you can’t answer…and those questions are going to be in the PM section. It is Friday, cheers!
“Caspian, your just bitter from the last thread.” Which thread is that?
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprog/courseofstudy/ > topicareaweights.html > > There is nothing game breaker about that topic > weight. If there is, then everything is a game > breaker. I will spend 5-15% of my time on it, > which is my point. I kind of agree with Black Swan here. Obviously, a percentage of people passed the test even though this section was extremely tricky. If both schweser and the CFAI texts couldn’t help…than what are we arguing about? It’s 5-15% of the test, if this was the straw that broke the backs of many people - then obviously they had bigger problems on other portions of the exam. I just don’t see how the CFAI would consider this section so very important if it was such a small percentage of the overall exam.
this was the max points last year. PM was 36, am i interpreting this wrong? or was that my score? thats a fairly large portion Q# Topic Max Pts <=50% 51%-70% >70% - Derivatives 36 - Economics 18 - Equity Analysis 72 - Ethical & Professional Stnds. 36 - Financial Statement Analysis 108 - Fixed Income Analysis 36 - General Portfolio Management 36 - Quantitative Analysis 18
36 for PM means, 36/3 = 12 question means 12/2 2 vignetts
Come on guys. This discussion isn’t helping anyone. Black Swan is right and wrong. If you would have scored great in all other parts, you would have passed. However, if you study well and score 70/75% on average in every section, an unexpected subject such as in PM last year can absolutely cost you dearly. You may be scoring well and then a 20% score on PM will just get you below the passing score. Let’s get back to studying… I’m far from scoring 70% !!!
“Didn’t mean to be an ego trip, however, I think TB has been blown WAY out of proportion, and am only posting my perspectives because I’m afraid people will get tunnel vision and create a similar oversight by targeting Port Mgt and TB too much.” First of all, don’t worry about people and their perspectives. You aren’t the board’s savior and you aren’t the board’s Neo, guiding everyone to exam victory. Secondly; Blown out of proportion by who? People like SpongeBob and myself who got above 70% in the larger sections but yet failed the exam? You are entitled to be as obtuse as you like, but to dismiss the concerns and observations of those WHO ALREADY SAT FOR THE EXAM as being “out of proportion” is foolish. Obviously Spongebob and I didn’t get 100% on all the other sections and yet we failed the test because we went 0-6 on TB. Obviously we had issues in other sections (for me it was and will again be Quant), but that doesn’t mean that we didn’t “almost” pass and perhaps an easier or less tricky PM section would’ve made the difference. I studied my f*cking ass for for that test and went into it with only one weak spot (quant) and I failed because they asked these ridiculous questions in the PM and econ sections (and I do economics for a freaking living). So don’t tell me it is out of proportion. “Not to mention I have gone back and done my homework and read the post 2007 threads. My perspective is that alot of people treated PM as a free-bee the way it was in LI.” You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Nobody is sitting here saying it should be treated the same as Equity or FSA and nobody is saying that we just glanced over the section, giving it no weight. Nobody is saying that. All anyone has ever said about PM was that it was a very tricky, out-of-leftfield vignette on the exam and many of us, myself included, feel that section was partly responsible for our not passing. I really don’t see how one can argue with that point of view WHEN I ALREADY TOOK THE EXAM IN QUESTION. Idiot.