Scored Above 70% in all CFA programme on CV, Violation (Yes or Not)

“Harrogath - CFA Passed Level I”

http://www.cfainstitute.org/community/social/Pages/profile.aspx

Forum mistake, not mine, it is a standard tittle lol

This is what I have noticed as well. The conversation drifts from a strong conviction that it is a violation of the CFA Institute’s code and standards towards it being a violation of his code and standards. His opinion seems to trump what is actually written in reference books…Don’t get me wrong, it’s perfectly fine to have your own opinions and beliefs, but it doesn’t change reality.

It is still your mistake and a violation of the code and standards… You have chosen to add the title to your anonymous account.

Ok, so we were all in violation some time. If you already erased it, well, what can I do, I will erase it asap tho.

Haha, must be!

anyhow… my opinion on the 70% thing is a violation. In the results email it states “The three columns on the right are marked with asterisks to indicate your performance on each topic area.”.

performance != score

i.e. they may not score some of your answers.

they will test the significance of each question and any question which doesn’t have significance ( choosing the correct answer is not correlated to high scoring candidates) will be dropped, so some questions are not part of scoring.

so it’s ok to say “my performance in every topic area was >70%” but you cannot use any synonym for performance such as score,mark, result etc.

This makes me smile.

I’ve never had anyone reply back into one of my outlined replies, which it seems you did you create a difficulty. I’ve never had anyone complain before, either. The CFAI score band is “>70%” which is equivalent to “at least 71%” if we assume that only whole percentages are used, i.e. 70.1% is not allowed, thus making 71% the first possible outcome. So, are you arguing that it is misleading to repeat the information exactly as the CFA Institute presented it? That is the point you seem to be making, but I could be wrong. Also, >70% encompasses >=71%, does it not? However, the CFAI scoring bands don’t allow you to explicitly determine if you scored at least 71% (unless I missed something). Overall, this doesn’t seem like an important point, because you should stick with what the Institute has conveyed to you if you truly want to be cautious (>70%, not >=71%).

Cum Laude is Latin for “with praise/glory/honor” (depending on your translation), it does not designate 100%. Typically, it is the lowest band of honors conferred at a university (at least in the US, usually around a 3.5 GPA out of 4.0, if I recall). The next (and higher) honors designations are magna cum laude and summa cum laude, meaning “with great praise” and “with highest praise”, respectively.

I’m not disagreeing with it possibly being silly to disclose. You seem to have latched on to this point, but I’m not disagreeing with it. I’m merely saying it’s within the guidelines provided by the CFA Institute.

Frankly, if you can’t see any order to the replies, that isn’t my issue. I write between the lines after someone has made a comment I would like to address completely, without any miscommunication as to what I’m referencing. I have noticed many people don’t use my method of replying. Does that mean I should conform because I’m being different? Think of what you’re saying, because my replies haven’t seemed to cause anyone such distress except for you in this very specific context. If more people asked me to reply differently, I would gladly take it into consideration. (I’m really not an inflexible person. As you can tell I changed my reply to your last post.) In order to convey your thoughts, you have been using words, so I’m not sure what you mean that you “don’t use words”… Clearly, you have understood my thoughts, because you have read and replied to them on numerous occasions. Lastly, I’m not sure what you mean by “screams everywhere.” No one is screaming, but based on internet conventions, some might say you are “screaming” by using capital letters. I don’t know, so I wouldn’t make that conclusion (I would rather go with emphasis from your capital letters).

As fun as this has been (it was), I’m going to let this be at least for a little while (in terms of you and I discussing this). I can’t expect myself or anyone else here to change your opinion on this, because you like presenting your opinion with the same conviction as facts. It’s your way of thinking, and that’s totally fine. As I said earlier though, your beliefs don’t alter reality.

http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/exams/Pages/your_exam_result.aspx?s_cid=eml_CCand14B_R1

They use “score” and “performance” interchangeably under point #2 on the Institute’s website.

I gave it a chuckle laugh. I haven’t considered that people might find it difficult to read, since no one has ever asked me to reply differently. Though, no one has replied to me the same way Harrogath did there haha!

It’s not a violation, period.

not a violation, but definitely douchey

Ok, lets go in order Tickersu.

About cum laude, 100% was like an example, it gives a certain title retribution to a work done, like Passed Level I of the CFA Program. Indeed, there are many cum laude tittles as you say, one higher than the previous. But 70%+ (>=71%) is not a tittle or designation, is a chart band.

I know the majority of people will not ask you to change your posting-method style because they don’t care maybe, or they are too busy or tired to talk about that, etc. (You’re basing your fundament that you are right from a relative truth).

You noticed is the first time I ask you to change your replying methods this time because it was very annoying trying to reply your replying-comments so many times. The first time I replied one of your replies you just changed to a single-paragraph-reply because you can’t reply again lol, is just impossible. I needed to use capital letters because I have no other way to differentiate my ideas from yours LMAO, I was not screaming any moment. Please don’t feel offended for this, just take in consideration the efficency of that. Your reply method is telling me that you don’t want to be replied back, and by the time I did it, then you simply gave up.

While I agree it is probably ok, is it even needed? Are things so contested in Nigeria that having an 70%+ CFA result is needed?

I decided to save my 700th point for someone special. (Even though I said I was done with this for a little while, I couldn’t resist. It’s too much fun to debate with you.)

Cum Laude may have been an example, but it wasn’t accurate. Your explanation now is much better at conveying your point. I agree with you that score bands aren’t really a designation similar to “cum laude”. Again, >70% (70%+) is not the same as >=71%, unless you can confirm that with the CFA Institute. I have said several times I think it would be somewhat silly to put anything like this on a resume, but who knows for sure. It seems you are really focused on a moot point. You went from arguing that it is a violation to arguing that you must say >=71% if you are going to make the statement. You said it is misleading to say greater than 70%-- but you failed to answer my question. Are you saying that it is misleading to say “greater than 70%” (>70%) even though this is exactly how the CFA Institute presents it? If you aren’t saying this, then where is your point that the CFAI can say this without it being misleading, yet no one else can say this exact same thing?

I don’t think the majority of people would ask me to change either, but I would think that after a few hundred posts (a few of which involve directly trying helping people) that a few people might ask for a clearer presentation if it was needed. That’s just my opinion. I don’t believe I am “right from a relative truth”—I just believe that my approach is logical: someone is more likely to say something over a longer period of time if I have made it difficult for them to understand the information I try to convey. I can’t read minds, so it seems more pragmatic to change if feedback dictates I need to change. The style I used to reply is because no one else had used it in the conversation, therefore, it didn’t create a problem. You intentionally tried to create a problem by changing your style. I could have replied again using a different formatting (try italics, or reverting to a non-bolded text), but you’re right, it would have become more messy after you bolded your text as well…In an effort to avoid being juvenile, I didn’t carry on and with you and make the conversation messier—I replied as you requested that I did (but now you’re trying to prove a point because I tried to be courteous?).

I never said you were screaming—I said that some people might get that impression based on “internet conventions”. But, I certainly did not think you were screaming (if you reread the post), I suggested you used capitals for emphasis (i.e. to make your text stand out…). Don’t forget that you brought up the “screams everywhere”, which has yet to be explained.

I’m not offended in the slightest, and I sincerely hope you haven’t taken any offense to anything I’ve said here. I’m unsure what you mean about “my reply method” and “giving up”. I felt the conversation was very wasteful. It still seems fruitless, but I’m bored right now and could use the entertainment. You keep arguing different points—it comes off that you just want to be correct about something or have others agree with your opinions. One thing you should familiarize yourself with is the notion that your opinion doesn’t carry the same weight as fact. You seem to take this approach quite often.

For the final time: unless you confirm this with the CFA Institute, “>70%” and “>=71%” are not equivalent. I haven’t confirmed it, because I don’t think it’s important (I’m surprised you are defending it so much)—but you should confirm it if you feel so strongly that it is correct (it might be, but I know for certain that >70% isn’t wrong, since the Institute uses it…).

You don’t need our views at all.

E-mail CFA Institute and ask them. They’ll tell whether it’s a violation or not.

Our views don’t matter a whit.

Uh, “passed > 70%” wouldn’t impress the uninitiated masses whether it’s a violation or not. “70%” sounds like a “D” to most non-CFA people.