Just like there is an Ethics adjustment, CFAI should look at peoples scorecards for repeat candidates who may have ended up in band ten the first time and then due to bad luck they end up on the same bandwagon again, and they should analyze the performance over two years, because chances are the score cards wont be identical for the same person repeating the exam and if we combine whatever that person had in the >70% category the first time and whatever they managed to work on and bump up into the >70% on their second attempt you may very well have a candidate who demonstrated that they have enough understanding of the learning objectives required to have pretty much the majority of the topics covered in the >70% range !! now why shouldn’t someone who matches this profile be allowed an “adjustment” just like the Ethics adjustment? I would say that this case is more deserving of an adjustment than the ethics logic the CFAI likes to apply. The CFAI already knows that passing or failing a level isn’t a straightforward thing and there are many factors they consider in determining who passes and who fails but unfortunately i think they only look at the factors pertaining to the current years exam and they dont take into consideration how last years exam compares to this years exam and how repeat candidates have performed comparatively over the two years on each topic covered in the results sheet.
Interesting idea. However, I’m not really sure there is an “ethics adjustment.” There’s a fairly detailed description of the grading here: https://www.cfainstitute.org/cfaprogram/Documents/the_cfa_program_our_fifth_decade.pdf and I see no mention of it. I think when the CFAI has spoken in the past of Ethics being a kind of “tiebreaker” it’s been simply been a creative way of emphasizing the importance of its weighting and reminding candidates not to ignore it.
If any thing, repeaters should be penalized for their repeated effort to level the playing field. I say this and I am a repeater.
About Ethics Adjustment: "What is the “ethics adjustment”? The Board of Governors instituted a policy to place particular emphasis on ethics. Starting with the 1996 exams, the performance on the ethics section became a factor in the pass/fail decision for candidates whose total scores bordered the minimum passing score. The ethics adjustment can have a positive or negative impact on these candidates’ final results. CFA Institute has a policy of not releasing either the minimum passing score or individual candidate scores. Consequently, CFA Institute does not release specific information about the ethics adjustment or the candidates who were affected. The adjustment has had a net positive effect on candidate scores (and thus pass rates) in most exam sessions. The published pass rates always take into account the ethics adjustment for borderline candidates. " http://www.cfainstitute.org/utility/faq/Pages/index.aspx
I think they should greet us with cupcakes the morning of… You know cause its a hard exam…
How about a repeat candidates’ penalty? Would provide more of a negative incentive to pass the first time. Just kidding. At least the CFA doesn’t force re-takers to average their scores when retaking a la SAT. We get a clean slate each time and last year’s 58 can get washed away by this year’s 70.
I’m getting a bit fed up of TexasInstruments and all his whining! What a moaner! (see my previous post). Dude, why are you so soft? Suck it up and stop complaining. If you pass, you pass. If you fail, it’s not the Institute’s fault - it’s yours. By your logic each person would take the exam 6 times, and each time only study 1 book (but study it in immense detail). Then, after 6 attempts, they would have collectively passed the exam by cherry picking their best performances on each section. But right now I’m not annoyed at your lousy socialistic suggestions, but more your lousy attitude. Whatever happens in the future, I hope you don’t become a charterholder because I really want to be one. And I do NOT want to be associated in the same industry as you. Do us all a favor and just leave the forum.
I second CoxCFA’s motion… I second johnnyblazini’s motion as well…CUPCAKES ROCK!
Third’d - you’re a freaking whiny little b.
dumbest. thread. ever.
PistolPt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dumbest. thread. ever. i dont even know why im responding but +1
+1 to Northeastern Students’ comment
hilarious - How do you feel Texas? No one agrees with your stupid commentary/suggestions/poor attitude - pretty much everything.
i really don’t know what to do, its a big problem now that all of you don’t agree with me…!! shit what have i done, i messed up big time… i just don’t know what i can possibly do to get people to agree with me so i can live happily and maintain my pride!! big mess i am in
Personally I think repeat test takers should be penalized, but CFAI wouldn’t make as much money that way.
TexasInstruments Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i really don’t know what to do, its a big problem > now that all of you don’t agree with me…!! shit > what have i done, i messed up big time… i just > don’t know what i can possibly do to get people to > agree with me so i can live happily and maintain > my pride!! > > big mess i am in Just keep working hard in that back office and failing LII, you’ll be fine (I’m sure you’ll respond with what a BSD you are at Goldman, but you can save us all some time by not and just coding something for actual decisionmakers).
jcole21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Just keep working hard in that back office and > failing LII, you’ll be fine (I’m sure you’ll > respond with what a BSD you are at Goldman, but > you can save us all some time by not and just > coding something for actual decisionmakers). Jcole, way to insult the head rainmaker at BancoPopular. You just made yourself a powerful new enemy, my friend.
It is totally in CFAI’s best interest to keep candidates taking and retaking the exams and keep failing them. More money, more word of mouth, no dilution. Make level 1 twice a year and make it easy. Let people bite the bait without a problem, then once they’re hooked, then torture them. As long as level 2 and 3 are ultra hard, all is well.