Not sure if anyone is on the fence about taking level 2 after passing the first one. I’ve been reading here about how difficult it is. Below are examples of users from this site and how much effort they said they put in. Poster 1, Hours studied:>600. Mock exam score 69. L2 result: FAIL, band 4. Poster 2, Hours studied: 500. Mock exam score 77. L2 result: FAIL, band 8. Poster 3, Hours studied:>450. L2 result: FAIL. Poster 4, Hours studied: 400. Mock exam score 72~. L2 result: FAIL, band 7. Poster 5, Hours studied: 400. Mock exam score 70. L2 result: FAIL, band 10. Poster 6, Hours studied: 400. L2 result: FAIL, band 8. Poster 7, Hours studied:>350. L2 result: FAIL, band 4. Poster 8, Mock exam score 80~ (90% on one Schweser). L2 result: FAIL, band 4 (was band 7 the previous year). Poster 9, FAIL band 5, then FAIL band 4, then FAIL band 4 (getting worse). Poster 10, FAIL 2005, then FAIL 2006, FAIL 2007, FAIL 2008. Pass 2009. Poster 11: FAIL, then pass after spending 1000 hours total. Poster 12: FAIL band 9 (300 hours), then pass after >700 hours Poster 13: pass after >750 hours. Note some high mock scores vs actual scores, despite spending well over the suggested number of hours needed (250). The official pass rates include re-takers, so I can’t be certain if these results are outliers or the norm. These posters cared enough about the exam to track their progress on this website. One was ‘99% certain’ after the exam of getting over 70% but still failed on band 10. Luck is said to be a significant component due to exam format. A term that is uttered is “black box”, where effort is not necessarily rewarded. People have said things like ‘those who fail level 1 (more than once) may never pass level 2’. I think they were being only slightly rude or misleading.
What is the point of posts like this? I’m in IT, took Level 1 in December 2009 for the first time. Took it with a CPA that I work with that failed it twice before. Results? I passed on my first attempt with high marks, he failed for the the third time. What does that mean? It means a lot because it shows that there are soooo many variables other than the ones you quote (hours, self-reported mock results, feelings of how they’d do). And it means NOTHING because there are just too many variables to track. It sounds like you’re mad at the CFA Institute for having such a difficult test. If I’m wrong about that, please tell me what your point is. If it’s just to discourage people - good luck.
My fortune cookie…“the sky seems small if it is looked at from the bottom of the well.” i think it applies…
dont believe everything you see on here.
who’s poster 13? I want what he’s drinking
wake2000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > who’s poster 13? I want what he’s drinking it’s called abstinence.
ACFACandidate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is the point of posts like this? > > I’m in IT, took Level 1 in December 2009 for the > first time. Took it with a CPA that I work with > that failed it twice before. Results? I passed > on my first attempt with high marks, he failed for > the the third time. > > What does that mean? It means a lot because it > shows that there are soooo many variables other > than the ones you quote (hours, self-reported mock > results, feelings of how they’d do). And it means > NOTHING because there are just too many variables > to track. > > It sounds like you’re mad at the CFA Institute for > having such a difficult test. If I’m wrong about > that, please tell me what your point is. If it’s > just to discourage people - good luck. How did you do on L2? If you passed L1 in dec 09, you took L2 right? How did that go? L1 is ridiculously easy compared to L2. No one cares about L1 anymore
ACFACandidate, if you have not taken L2 yet then the post was meant as a reminder for people in a situation such as yours, and I say that without intending offence. I’d rather be mentally prepared than risk being shocked later. I hope you found L1 too easy like most people here. Have you read the various analogies comparing L1 vs L2 coming from everyone who took the tests? If you agree that variables such as how many hours you studied or how well you do on mock exams mean nothing, then you essentially agree that L2 success is not necessarily related to hard work and dedication, which was exactly the point. I don’t think everyone who did superbly in L1 realizes this risk. And it is a risk because those hours you spent preparing could have been spent on other things like networking or just sharing your life with loved ones. lzen5: truthful numbers or not, most of the posters mentioned were actively participating in forum discussions for many months, unlike some who were trying to pass with a few weeks of cramming. If those who actually took L2 can give me a contrary dose of reality, about how easy L2 can be passed if anyone just spent say 500 hours reading the curriculum, I’d love to hear that.
That first post is a classic reminder of what Level 2 is. I passed it after putting in over 600hrs of intensive studying.
anon2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ACFACandidate, if you have not taken L2 yet then > the post was meant as a reminder for people in a > situation such as yours, and I say that without > intending offence. I’d rather be mentally prepared > than risk being shocked later. I hope you found L1 > too easy like most people here. Have you read the > various analogies comparing L1 vs L2 coming from > everyone who took the tests? If you agree that > variables such as how many hours you studied or > how well you do on mock exams mean nothing, then > you essentially agree that L2 success is not > necessarily related to hard work and dedication, > which was exactly the point. I don’t think > everyone who did superbly in L1 realizes this > risk. And it is a risk because those hours you > spent preparing could have been spent on other > things like networking or just sharing your life > with loved ones. > > lzen5: truthful numbers or not, most of the > posters mentioned were actively participating in > forum discussions for many months, unlike some who > were trying to pass with a few weeks of cramming. > > If those who actually took L2 can give me a > contrary dose of reality, about how easy L2 can be > passed if anyone just spent say 500 hours reading > the curriculum, I’d love to hear that. Anon2 - I don’t think this is a fair post. Different ppl require different amounts of time to prepare. I know of ppl who studied only 2 months b4 the exam and passed while others needed 6 or more months. In my opinion, there are no comparisons and the only way to find out is to take it yourself. Ppl can do all the analogies and comparisons for you, but at the end of the day, its how you find it that matters most. For all you know, you might find Lvl 2 a walk in park?
Um, I hate to break it to you, but either the people lied about the number of hours they studied or these numbers are not representative of the general population of CFA candidates. If you really studied over 500 hours for this exam, you’re crazy.
>Um, I hate to break it to you, but either the people lied about the number of hours >they studied or these numbers are not representative of the general population of CFA >candidates. If you really studied over 500 hours for this exam, you’re crazy. Well then lock me up and hand me the meds
I passed after 180 hours of studying, but not by too much of a margin I don’t think. I felt way more confident than my matrix broke me down. I have a masters in finance and a hot wife, if that helps. Different people have different requirements and learn differently. If you’re dedicated, focused, and put in the effort - you’ll pass (although as the poster indicated, it might take multiple attempts).
magicskyfairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Um, I hate to break it to you, but either the > people lied about the number of hours >they > studied or these numbers are not representative of > the general population of CFA >candidates. If you > really studied over 500 hours for this exam, > you’re crazy. > > Well then lock me up and hand me the meds Yes then lock me up as well. I’m pretty sure I went over the 500 hours mark. Don’t forget the MAJORITY of people retake L2. I’m pretty sure prepping for this exam twice, averaging 250 hours each is definitely way below the average hours spent. 250 hours = 2.7 hours a day for only 3 months.
iteracom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > magicskyfairy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > >Um, I hate to break it to you, but either the > > people lied about the number of hours >they > > studied or these numbers are not representative > of > > the general population of CFA >candidates. If > you > > really studied over 500 hours for this exam, > > you’re crazy. > > > > Well then lock me up and hand me the meds > > > Yes then lock me up as well. I’m pretty sure I > went over the 500 hours mark. > > Don’t forget the MAJORITY of people retake L2. I’m > pretty sure prepping for this exam twice, > averaging 250 hours each is definitely way below > the average hours spent. > > 250 hours = 2.7 hours a day for only 3 months. I am handing myself over for a lock up as well. Don’t forget the meds!
I studied about 225, and passed Level 2 first try. But if I took breaks, stopped to eat, daydream, etc., I didn’t include that in my hours. So in reality, I was “booked off” for studying for about twice that, but actual productive time was about 225. To study 5 hours on a Saturday, I had to start at 10am and didn’t finish til about 6pm. So it also depends on how you measure your hours.
I think it also depends on if you are good at retaining knowledge/ taking tests or not. Some people can study 500 hours and still fail, but others need to only study 150-200 and pass. I took level 1 in december and passed with flying colors, and took lvl 2 in june. I def. did more intense practice problems for lvl 2 but studied about the same amount, probably around 200 hours. I passed with comfortable margin. a common misconception people will see is that when they simply read the material for level2 they will realzie its not that difficult. when you guys actually do some of the practice problems, you will where the difficulty lies in .
bluekayaker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I studied about 225, and passed Level 2 first try. > But if I took breaks, stopped to eat, daydream, > etc., I didn’t include that in my hours. So in > reality, I was “booked off” for studying for about > twice that, but actual productive time was about > 225. To study 5 hours on a Saturday, I had to > start at 10am and didn’t finish til about 6pm. So > it also depends on how you measure your hours. That’s a good point. One could count that as >400 hours though, considering the whole time was allocated to studying. Also… if I remember correctly, you’re one of the FSAs on the board, so you crushed any mathematical topic on the exam with little or no studying.
I agree. If you put in 4 hours, but spent 3 hours imagining sugar plums dancing around, you still spent 4 hours. Heck you can further divide productive studying into levels of productivity. but what’s the point of that?
I am sorry but I do not beleive you can study 600 actual hardcore hours and fail L2. Just cannot happen.