Since L1 had a 35% passing rate, I speculate that L3 will have a similar passing rate. There are just too many people taking the cfa exams. To be fair to all candidates, all L1-thru L3 should have similar passing rates because all levels are similarly hard. No longer could we say that one level is easier than another. Last year, the L1 and L2 had the same passing rate. I guess this could be the year where passing rates are all 35%. Like the L1 passers, everyone will need a >70 on most sections to pass. I heard that during a recession that the number of MBA and CFA exam candidates go up because of hiring unemployment and bigger need to 'differentiate." Who thinks the CFAI passing rate will fall this low?
I think it will fall, but not below 50%. You have to keep in mind that a lot of clowns show up to take L1, which is not the case for L3. So it’s only normal that the passing rate goes up as you clean out the field.
I don’t agree that all levels are similarly hard. Level I is very easy. As far as the passing rate goes; if you have the same pass rate at all 3 levels, then by default the test is getting progessively harder.
Historically L3 pass rate has been significantly higher. I would expect it to be higher this year as well. My guess is that it will hover be 50% +/- 5%.
If you are a L3 this year: and passed L’s 1 (50% pass rate 2006) and 2 (40% pass rate in 2007) on your first time, and pass this under the assumption of a 35% pass rate, then… .5 x .4 x .35 = 7%… only 7% on first time L1 takers for the '06 exam would end up passing L3 in 2008. Of course this assumes that there are no re-takers so I admit it’s flawed, but it is probably somewhat in the ballpark.
dean1981 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t agree that all levels are similarly hard. > Level I is very easy. > > As far as the passing rate goes; if you have the > same pass rate at all 3 levels, then by default > the test is getting progessively harder. What is the “t” value of the result. I think that I am going to reject the null if is it 50%±5% because if it is true, I might not pass. For me to think about passing, it need to be a leat 60%.
i expect L3 passing rate to hover around 99% this year.
I got an even better idea, let’s have the pass rate at 5%. This way, we are confident that those who pass are at least smarter than 95% of all L3 candidates. We can also try a historical simulation or the push factor analysis. Anyone want to try a scenario analysis?
tibwa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dean1981 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don’t agree that all levels are similarly > hard. > > Level I is very easy. > > > > As far as the passing rate goes; if you have > the > > same pass rate at all 3 levels, then by default > > the test is getting progessively harder. > > > What is the “t” value of the result. I think that > I am going to reject the null if is it 50%±5% > because if it is true, I might not pass. For me to > think about passing, it need to be a leat 60%. tibwa, what are you talking about? I’m confused why you’re quoting me when your comment has nothing to do with mine . . . . Btw, you’re very lucky statistics is not part of Level III.
I don’t think L1 or LII’s passing rate has anything to do with LIII passing rate. Each level is hard for that exam taker.
I wish L3 had more math. Too bad they removed regression and stuff like that 
^No kidding, I think quant should had a bigger part.
ws Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^No kidding, I think quant should had a bigger > part. yah, people should be able to answer question like “What is expected value of the dice”
comp_sci_kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wish L3 had more math. Too bad they removed > regression and stuff like that Yeah…they pushed all the time series stuff down to us level IIers this year and then didn’t even test it. In fact, the quant of this years exam had us calculating covariance!?!
sh34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair to all candidates, all L1-thru L3 should have > similar passing rates because all levels are > similarly hard. So you think that passing 35% of L1 candidates (who’s only requirement is to have at least the hope of getting a bachelor’s degree - any bachelor’s degree - by dec 31 while at the same time passing 35% of L3 candidates (100% of L3 candidates already passed L1 and L2, so you have another kind of candidates to start with) would be fair? IMHO, it would just be fair to have a L3 passing rate way greater/higher than L1’s.
Last year’s 50% L3 pass rate was a historic low. I really doubt there will be a 35% L3 pass rate, especially considering how many re-takers there were this year. Keep in mind the L1 pass rates were in the low 30s just a few years ago. Any joker can sit for the L1, and a lot of jokers sit for the L2. L1 is not hard. The L3 pass rate was 70% a couple years ago.
my prediction is a 65% pass rate.
I don’t think that L3 will have a pass rate in the 30s. Pass rate in the high 40s is not out of the question, though. I think that the MPS will be pretty low this year. It really depends on what they think the marginally acceptable passing candidate should be able to do. If they see lots of low scores, they might think that there are just a bunch of dummies out there; or they might decide that the test was especially challenging.
62.5%
48%