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

tickersu · June 19, 2015, 5:09am

I agree-- the important point is that you passed. I think it would be silly to include score bands on your resume.

lammy · June 19, 2015, 5:33am

I was going to stay off AF for a while, but this thread is too good to pass up.

CFAI doesn’t seem to go out of its way to recognize candates with superior performance overall or strong performance across all sections of the exam. There is no CFAI award comparable to the Elijah Watt Sells Award, for example, that is bestowed on CPA candidates who score above 95% across all for sections of the exam on their first try.

Anyway, indicating that you scored in the top band (>70%) across all sections isn’t a violation. See the answer to Question 29 (Reading 2). You cannot, however, imply that you achieved a high score though since scores aren’t disclosed. All you really know is that you achieved at least 71% across all sections of the exam, which might be relatively high given the candidate pool but is hardly exemplary (I’d be happy with it though. Thrilled, actually)

S666 · June 19, 2015, 7:20am

I remember seeing an example where a candidate stated that he “achieved maximum scores in all topic areas” and this was a violation with the explanation that due to the score band scoring method, 70+ does not constitute a “maximum score” and is misleading.

I never saw an explicit example regarding stating “I achieved 70+ in all topic areas” but my guess would be its a factual statement and therefore not a violation.

But I agree with S2000…email the CFAI to make sure

olajideanuoluwa001 · June 19, 2015, 8:47am

lol, things are highly contested everywhere my dear…lol… However, i am just trying to get my head around it to be sure its not a violation.

onlysimon · June 19, 2015, 4:17pm

I don’t think it does really… “indicator of the score range” is implied as a synonym for “performance”.

“score” by itself is a much stronger term and therefore I’d treat it as using caps or bold letters.

Harrogath · June 19, 2015, 6:06pm

tickersu:

Harrogath:

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.

I decided to save my 700^th 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.)

If this wasn’t interesting or fun, I woudn’t be here. Trust me.

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?

70%+, >70% and >=71% would be the same assuming we use whole % with no decimals as I remember you stated in a previous post too. If you remember well I retracted from my initial statement that it is a violation because the code does not explictly estates that, but I still hold that it could be near a violation because the statement is misleading because 3 factors: A) it does not represent an accurate score for the whole exam, B) a mixed combination of 50-70 and 70+ can have a greater final score than a full 70+ (we both agreed) and C) No one knows the exact score so we can’t rely on such an info. That’s why we can not put it in the cv, just commenting when is needed (we all agreed here). Perhaps in the future this case is annexed to the code.

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 didn’t intentionally tried to create a problem, never, just replied you back with the same style of yours, that’s all. You finally noticed that is unsustainable for future replies. If this forum allowed letter colors I would surely reply you infinite times with no capital letters, the italics didn’t do a good job for differentiating. I used cap letters for this reason and in some extent to call your attention and avoid my post be forgotten.

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 explained why I used cap letters above in my previous paragraph. I stated " screams everywhere" because you reply almost every word and sentence of a people post, which is rude, in my opinion of course. It remembers me the teacher’s exam corrections back to school, and since I can’t confortably reply back in the same way I get annoyed. I encourage everyone to debate ideas and thoughts, not only every word, phrase or separate statement.

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.

I meant with “giving up” that you didn’t reply my cap letters post again which was a lot of fun to do sincerely, it was so original, never seen something like that in the whole forum the whole time I’m posting here. I never want others to be agree with my opinions, sometimes I’m so effusive to the extent that it seems I want others to agree with me, but it is not true, you are free to do so or not. What is really valuable is that we create debate, and that is always good. How do you believe the facts come from? They come from the opinion of past people. You stick to the code and leave your opinion without importance, I eventually changed my statement that it was a violation, so after that change everyhting I said was an opinion. I want to hear your opinions too, not just when your opinion is asked, but also when is not asked.

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…).

CFAI uses >70% to describe a band. Instead of using 100 bands which would give a more exact score, they just release 3 bands. Telling I’m in the higher band is just referencial, but the intention of a statement when it says I got >70% is not trying to be referencial, it is trying to mark a difference, so it is not much fair right? Also add the fact that mixed results can have a better final score. Those bands are not GPA, cum laude grades, etc, so they must not be used as certain info, unless CFAI uses it. CFAI still does not care about this, so this case does not appear in the code, perhaps in the future.

Feel free to not reply, I won’t feel that I “won” if you don’t. Was a pleasure to debate, again, with you.

tickersu · June 19, 2015, 6:17pm

I see your point that they don’t explicitly say score equals performance, but I don’t think they would dance so close to the line with the way they present the explanation. Direct from the CFAI website, so I can point out what I’m referring to (I have italicized the key parts):

" Your topic area performance is provided to illustrate your areas of strength and areas for improvement. This information is designed to guide you in preparing for future exams. The summary lists:

Each topic area covered on the exam
The maximum points that could be earned in that topic area
An indicator of the score range (≤50%, 51%–70%, or >70%) in which your score in that topic area fell."

It seems they are taking the broad idea of performance and telling you that it is defined by “an indicator of the score range”-- the range of possible values that includes your score in a topic (but does not precisely define your score). They explicitly say that your score falls in this range, and they already said performance is indicated by the range. It seems logical to connect all of these dots, but maybe I’m missing something in the Institute’s explanation.

tickersu · June 19, 2015, 7:25pm

Harrogath:

I decided to save my 700^th 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.)

If this wasn’t interesting or fun, I woudn’t be here. Trust me.

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?

70%+, >70% and >=71% would be the same assuming we use whole % with no decimals as I remember you stated in a previous post too. If you remember well I retracted from my initial statement that it is a violation because the code does not explictly estates that, but I still hold that it could be near a violation because the statement is misleading because 3 factors: A) it does not represent an accurate score for the whole exam, B) a mixed combination of 50-70 and 70+ can have a greater final score than a full 70+ (we both agreed) and C) No one knows the exact score so we can’t rely on such an info. That’s why we can not put it in the cv, just commenting when is needed (we all agreed here). Perhaps in the future this case is annexed to the code.

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 didn’t intentionally tried to create a problem, never, just replied you back with the same style of yours, that’s all. You finally noticed that is unsustainable for future replies. If this forum allowed letter colors I would surely reply you infinite times with no capital letters, the italics didn’t do a good job for differentiating. I used cap letters for this reason and in some extent to call your attention and avoid my post be forgotten.

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 explained why I used cap letters above in my previous paragraph. I stated " screams everywhere" because you reply almost every word and sentence of a people post, which is rude, in my opinion of course. It remembers me the teacher’s exam corrections back to school, and since I can’t confortably reply back in the same way I get annoyed. I encourage everyone to debate ideas and thoughts, not only every word, phrase or separate statement.

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.

I meant with “giving up” that you didn’t reply my cap letters post again which was a lot of fun to do sincerely, it was so original, never seen something like that in the whole forum the whole time I’m posting here. I never want others to be agree with my opinions, sometimes I’m so effusive to the extent that it seems I want others to agree with me, but it is not true, you are free to do so or not. What is really valuable is that we create debate, and that is always good. How do you believe the facts come from? They come from the opinion of past people. You stick to the code and leave your opinion without importance, I eventually changed my statement that it was a violation, so after that change everyhting I said was an opinion. I want to hear your opinions too, not just when your opinion is asked, but also when is not asked.

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…).

CFAI uses >70% to describe a band. Instead of using 100 bands which would give a more exact score, they just release 3 bands. Telling I’m in the higher band is just referencial, but the intention of a statement when it says I got >70% is not trying to be referencial, it is trying to mark a difference, so it is not much fair right? Also add the fact that mixed results can have a better final score. Those bands are not GPA, cum laude grades, etc, so they must not be used as certain info, unless CFAI uses it. CFAI still does not care about this, so this case does not appear in the code, perhaps in the future.

Feel free to not reply, I won’t feel that I “won” if you don’t. Was a pleasure to debate, again, with you.

I’m being genuine when I tell you it is very easy for me to read and follow your points in this post (which is probably why I don’t mind using it myself). However, I only use it when someone else hasn’t used it, so I avoid a messy reply. I reply in that way to assure, in a clear manner, that I have addressed all the points I intended to in my reply. I’m sorry— I still don’t understand how this is related to screaming.

I believe facts come from drawing conclusions from substantial, verifiable information (although we can be erroneous in our conclusions at times). I still see some gaps in your logic—if anything, I would find the “I scored in the highest band” comment to be an attempt to stand out.

Either way, if you want my personal opinion, I believe people deserve recognition for achievements. If a candidate wanted to share the score bands (or an exact score if one was provided), I think they have every right to do so if it is within the Institute’s guidelines. I think that is perfectly fair, but it should be done in a tactful manner. We all have different strengths/talents/abilities, and we can be more productive when we recognize that in the right way.

itera · June 19, 2015, 9:25pm

Not a violation as long as state it literally. you can’t indicate better performance, and you can’t say “top scores on CFA exam”.

But it is dbag-like behavior.

igor555 · June 21, 2015, 1:02am

if i saw that joint on a resume ill ding you fast

Kingfisher · June 22, 2015, 6:32am

IMO - It’s a violation. Why do you want to put that in your CV? Indirectly - you’re trying to make a statement that you are superior than some of the other CFA charterholders. CFA Institute doesn’t distinguish between all that passed …

You could drop a line to CFA institute to find more but my opinion it’s clearly a violation.

tickersu · June 22, 2015, 2:29pm

For me, I wouldn’t put it on the resume (for various reasons people have mentioned). However, if you feel that it’s a violation for that reason, then surely you feel that saying “passed each level on first attempt” is a violation for the same reason, no? I’m just curious about the stance people take on the “passed on first attempt” comments (that are allowed) if they believe that “>70%” comments would be a violation.

Yayyywork · June 22, 2015, 5:17pm

Does anyone actually put that they passed the exams in consecutive years? If I saw that on a resume I would assume the person was a tool. Seeing this would also probably get a pass by me.

Harrogath · June 22, 2015, 5:55pm

The thread discuss largely this, but it wouldn’t be an explicit violation because the code does not take account this case as a misrepresentation, a violation to the VII standard, or any other as far as “we all” know. Many members said that is better to directly ask CFAI if it is a violation, or not, to the code.

In my opinion, is near a violation because it borders a performance misrepresentation and the CFAI says that those bands are for personal and study references, it is not a grade that can be disclosed in the way many people is used to do.

hpracing007 · June 22, 2015, 7:50pm

They did it in half the time it takes the average person (if they knocked it out in 2 years like I did). Haters gonna hate.

tickersu · June 22, 2015, 8:41pm

I was curious whether people who pass consecutively would ding someone else who puts it on a resume (in comparison to people who take longer with the exams). I wouldn’t ding someone, regardless of my personal performance, but I also wouldn’t give someone a boost because of it, either (even though I think it can be an accomplishment).

I remember people in school automatically labeled the guy scoring >95% as a jerk because he ruined the curve…shame on him for being motivated and/or more intelligent (not saying that’s the case here, but I have seen bitterness expressed by a charterholder because others did well while he struggled to make it through…)

Yayyywork · June 23, 2015, 1:54pm

Im not dinging him for the fact that passed in consecutive attempts, I just think putting it on a resume is kind of douchey. If you have the CFA charter this isnt your first job, so it would be like putting your GPA on your resume (which after your first job IMO would just show personality traits of someone I would not enjoy working with)

In the end you have to work with these people, and its a personal choice to make. If I am looking at resumes in my eyes I view it as a slight negative. I would still give the resume a look and interview if I liked how the rest of it looked.

tickersu · June 23, 2015, 1:59pm

True, I didn’t mean dinging someone because they passed, but rather because they wrote it on the resume. I agree with you, if they’re a charterholder it’s fairly irrelevant because they’ve been working for a bit (almost makes you ask if they have other accomplishments since then). I was looking at it as someone with limited work experience, perhaps even someone switching industries (so they don’t have the charter yet), but passed all of the exams.

Yayyywork · June 23, 2015, 3:04pm

Got ya, I suppose in a situation where you are not in the industry at all it may get your resume looked at a bit more. Completely agree on the other accomplishments bit, even if you put that you passed in consecutive order, you better have something better than that to hang your hat on.

tickersu:

Yayyywork:

Im not dinging him for the fact that passed in consecutive attempts, I just think putting it on a resume is kind of douchey. If you have the CFA charter this isnt your first job, so it would be like putting your GPA on your resume (which after your first job IMO would just show personality traits of someone I would not enjoy working with)

In the end you have to work with these people, and its a personal choice to make. If I am looking at resumes in my eyes I view it as a slight negative. I would still give the resume a look and interview if I liked how the rest of it looked.

True, I didn’t mean dinging someone because they passed, but rather because they wrote it on the resume. I agree with you, if they’re a charterholder it’s fairly irrelevant because they’ve been working for a bit (almost makes you ask if they have other accomplishments since then). I was looking at it as someone with limited work experience, perhaps even someone switching industries (so they don’t have the charter yet), but passed all of the exams.

MarginCall · June 23, 2015, 3:31pm

I do not think I would like to either hire someone who brags about the CFA exam score or work for a company which demands such a score from job candidates as a pre-selection criterion.

It somehow signals a lack of style to me.