f that guy
I agree with CSK. From all the levels, I studied the least for level III and was not at all confident of passing after coming out of the exam. Since level III is part essay type, it makes it more difficult to recall the concepts fully and answer the questions to-the-point to get full credit. I would say that for level III, you need to spacing your studying over time and doing all old practice exams is critical for success. Also, exam-writing skills are more important for level III than level II.
Ugh, and the people I talked to said Level 3 was the easiest. I knew that didn’t make sense…
and now i’m scared somebody hold me…
Concerning the morning paper for L3. I was told by a person who passed 1st time yesterday that one of chief differentiating factors vis-a-vis other levels is the volume of things you need to memorise. Whereas with L1 and L2 you were presented with options, when asked to “give three reasons why etc??” at L3 but no options as in the AM paper things become a little trickier. So to a certain extent you can learn and pass without memorising (with the obvious exception of fomulas), by being quite familiar with stuff at L1 and L2, but at L3 you’ll be taken out if laziness - and unwillingness to memorise things - gets the better of you.
It seems that L3 has become substantially tougher in recent years. It is possible that the idea that “L2 is the tough one” used to be true, and simply hasn’t been updated to reflect reality. Now… which behavioral bias was that??? Anchoring? Status quo? Or maybe just overconfidence. L2 still has a lower pass rate than L3, but the average level of the candidates is presumably somewhat higher too.
How much does it build on L2? i.e. L2 is all assumed know right? So time series could potentially pop up in the exam?
Man… I’m new to L3 and most the people I work with took it light years ago. They all said you have to study a ton like the other levels but you could see the light at the end of the tunnel and you were practically guaranteed a pass. The pass rate is still the highest so the MPS must be lower, therefore it’s more likely to pass. I don’t like the sound of “the hardest test”. I thought Level 2 was tough.
the myth was that once you passed L2, you basically were a shoe in to pass L3 and get your letters. This was the way for everyone taking the exam before 2000. No more. In ranking, I would say: L3>L1>L2. I just felt the best coming out of L2 and passed, even though the pass rate in 2004 was 32%. I laugh when I read people say that the material is so easy when they receive it in January. It is that way every year. You get a false sense of confidence. Then whack. You get hit by a 2x4. Use the false sense of confidence to your advantage. Let everyone else feel confident. You take this test seriously. Study the Schweser notes, books and do the end of chapter questions. Put in 300+ hours and you will have your letters. The level of competition goes up for each exam. Half will pass. Half wont. Like the boyscout motto…be prepared.
The other thing about Level 3 that is kind of frustrating is that you have to know everything in incredible detail, even though a lot of it will not be tested. This year the cash-and-carry question seemed to throw a lot of people, who looked at it as a tangent in the alternatives material. I can’t tell you how many trivialities I jammed into my head that never came up in Level 3. In Level 2, you could be pretty much sure that everything would come up on the test because the topics were broader. Still, I have to give my vote for Level 2, because I never studied accounting and that was absolutely crucial in Level 2. I had to make up for points I knew I would lose there with derivatives and fixed income—not a good feeling. When I passed Level 2 on the second go around, I was thrilled. When I failed Level 3 the first time, I was furious. As someone eloquently said in another thread, when I think back on all those formulas, forex and pension stuff from Level 2, I want to puke. But bromion is also right that the test for Level 3 is harder than Level 2. For me the difference is that the Level 3 materials are more interesting and blessedly free of accounting, giving Level 2 the nod as the Heart of Darkness.
Ugh, the cash and carry question. You’re right about the detail. I’m perfectly comfortable with the arbitrage idea, know what you do to make money on the opportunity, but they ask something like “how would you perform the reverse cash and carry and what would be the profit.” I must have lost 30 secs or a minute thinking - “which one is cash and carry and which one is reverse cash and carry, the one where you buy spot or the one where you sell?” I ended up figuring that they must be asking us to make a profit (or were they?) and did whichever direction made money. But it sure felt like signing a cease fire agreement with the Russsians - I showed them the money, but am I going to be taken down anyway?
I thought L3 (took it this June and passed) was the most difficult of the levels. I walked out of L1 and L2 knowing with 99% certainty that I crushed the test. I was filling out my expense reimbursement forms before I even got my results. However for L3, I was not so certain. The test was very ambiguous. So, although the material for L3 was the “easiest” the test IMHO was by far the hardest.
woooho my post made it over one page… wow I’m a dork
Studied the most for level 3 and walked away from the test with the least amount of confidence. Now that results are out, I am very happy to have passed.
This is a scary thread. I am pretty unhappy that all of my co-workers now think I am “in the clear” since I have passed Level 1 and Level 2. From the impression I am getting, this is completely innacurate. But when I try to correct them, they just think I am playing up the difficulty. Thanks for your perspective guys. At least I know that since I passed L2, I have what it takes to pass L3. I think coming out of Level 1 that was not as certain. Just have to take the thing doubly seriously.
For me level 2 was easier overall . The difficulty of am vs pm was night and day for me. I would say the am of level 3 was the hardest part of the whole program due to the time constraints. I could have used an extra hour. I left the last 4 blank and that made continuing very hard. I felt that by comparison the afternoon was easy and way easier than either half of level 2.
i knew i had passed when i walked out of level 3 this summer, but I had studied hard. The AM format really tests how well you know your material and then express it too. L3 was the tougher one to prepare for, but I really enjoyed the material (not the studying!). L1, I barely studied die to work pressure, but I had a really good base and background which allowed me to chill out. L2 was a lot of material that really didnt connect together, unlike L3. Phew, I never gave it much thought but I am glad that I am on this side of the fence. just glad it is over and just waiting for my charter letter to come in over the next few months. I am sorry to see a few names that did not make it this time around and will look forward to congratulating next year.
Isn’t level 3 more fun? I haven’t taken it yet, but it seems to center around portfolio management which is what most of us want to do. I mean level 1 is a basic college test to see if you know quant, accounting, econ, equity, derivatives, fixed income, and some basic port management. Level 2 goes deeper into equity analysis, accounting, quant, fixed income, derivatives, altern invest and portfolio management.
I did find the information in L3 more interesting, yes, but exam experience is at least as unnerving as L2. Although, after doing L3, I actually value the stuff I learned at L2 a little better. What’s nice about L3 is that you see how a lot of this stuff all ties together.