the lower the pass rate, (1) the more candidates will re-take the exam, hence more cash-inflows (2) the more valuable the CFA designation looks, hence more new candidates, hence more $ This is a very good business model, given that the pass rate is not too low to scare candidates away
especially when you are made to think that 70%!!! is the passing rate!
Disclaimer: This is just a personal theory (opinion). I suddenly think that getting an overall 70% is not enough on the CFA. Seems more like you have to in the top 30-35% of highest weighted sections and when the sections scores get cummulated you should be in the top 65% or higher bracket of all test takers. That meaning, they probably curve it upwards so that the scores reflect your standing in that topic area. E.g: If you scored 70% on ethics, but the top 30% in the ethics section all scored like 80% or above, then you get relegated into the 50-70% bracket, assuming the lowest of the next 20% is below 70%. Oh well…
They don’t do that. they set the passing rate judged by the overall scores of everyone who took the test. How you did on any specific section is not taken into account. When you get your results back if you got more than 70% of the questions on ethics right, it will show >70% regardless of how anyone else did. And 70% would be the absolute maximum you would need overall. You probably need closer to a 66 or 67. If you got 70% overall you will pass.
sweft Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Disclaimer: This is just a personal theory > (opinion). > > I suddenly think that getting an overall 70% is > not enough on the CFA. Seems more like you have to > in the top 30-35% of highest weighted sections and > when the sections scores get cummulated you should > be in the top 65% or higher bracket of all test > takers. That meaning, they probably curve it > upwards so that the scores reflect your standing > in that topic area. E.g: If you scored 70% on > ethics, but the top 30% in the ethics section all > scored like 80% or above, then you get relegated > into the 50-70% bracket, assuming the lowest of > the next 20% is below 70%. Oh well… No - they disclose how these are graded. A 70% is almost certainly a passing score in every year that I have seen the exam grades.
where do they disclose this. I’m interested in the metrics they use to determine what the passing rate per year is based on the relative difficulty of the exam over previous years and the changes in the quality and preparedness of the candidates taking the exam. I would assume they try to ensure that the borderline passing rate from one year to the next reflects an equal grasp of the material and not any type of year to year “curving” since the quality of candidates can fluctuate and drift. Any thoughts… and any CFAI info on this would be interestings.
Do asearch on AF on Angoff. We’ve discussed this a lot including the references to CFAI material. In fact, I think it;s even on Wiki.
Completely unrelated, but … LICandidate - are you going to get a new account on here once you pass L1?
Hey Zeroaffinity, sorry for the delay i have been off the forum for a while. everyone on here thinks the LI stands for Level 1 but that actually was not what I intended. I saw a lot of users names like BostonCandidate and stuff like that. The LI is actually supposed to stand for Long Island. However, I did pass Level 1 last summer, and i just registered for Level 2 last week, so maybe since everyone thinks it stand for Level 1 candidate i should change it.
My first interpretation was Long Island. NY bias probably.
lol…me too willchan LI= Long Island…definitely NYC bias
same here. long island bias.