Scored 61% in 2005 AM CFAI mock

…and this my first attempt. Tried to be rigorous at myself. And I have two questions:

  1. how relevant is 2005 paper ten years later?

  2. If I score 61% in actaual am part and well in pm, would that suffice to pass?

also some thought on ethics - such a waste of time! I even didnt open in L1 and L2 and by relying on common sense and wording ended up in 50-70 range. Now having done ethics in L3, got the same result 50-70, presicely c.58%

The 2005 curriculum is different from the 2016 curriculum, probably significantly different. (I don’t have access to it, so I’m going with the balance of probability here.)

Take 2016 mock exams.

How come you got 61% in an AM session where I think there are more or less 50 points that are not part of the curriculum anymore?

Anything more than 3 years back is pretty irrelevant. You can maybe get some value but honestly using that score as a study tool is useless. There is a reason they give you 3 years of essays.

Doing the '05 mock is just going to make things worse.

Doing the '05 mock is just going to make things worse.

Well first of all I don’t think you should be using a score as a study tool in the AM, rather doing the best you can and trying to understand how your answers measure up against the guideline answers.

Also, some of the advice here is a bit misguided in my opinion. I can’t comment on 2005 as I started with the 2006 mocks and went from there to the present but they’ve been incredibly helpful and MOST of the material is still relevant. Have you looked at the exams or are just commenting based off pure speculation?

At worst, you have one and a half questions from each year that aren’t relevant anymore. That still gives you a lot of material to practice off. To each his or her own of course, but I think we should be careful with throwing out terms like “pretty irrelevant” when majority of the mocks in this grid are quite relevant still.

ItJ +1. It’s helpful.