At least I didn’t suggest drinking whiskey and raising babies at the same time!
------ or many of us CFA = Working full time + studying + raising a kid + keeping your better half happy… I hope that if they have already accommodated your studying for the first 2 levels, you should finish the job and get the credentials to make it all worthwhile. I disagree. Bringing your kids into the equation (literally, in this case) is almost certainly a veiled appeal for sympathy. And there is no advice there (a hint of encouragement, though, I’ll concede that much). As for why I would bother typing such a thing, I do so b/c posters (like yourself) imply that somehow the CFA is more difficult for them than for other people. Implicit in this is that gaining the charter is a greater achievement. Incidentally, this violates the spirit of the CFAI’s Code of Ethics (e.g. not giving a precise %age score to discourage discrimination b/n Charterholders, b/c all are created equal). People that mention their kids (I am type-casting) are saying “my life’s even harder than yours b/c…”. This is extremely naive. My brother has a newborn, so I am not completely oblivious to the stress parents experience. But maybe I work 100hrs in i-banking (probably worse), maybe I have a learning difficulty (probably worse), maybe someone in my family is seriously ill (probably worse)… I wouldn’t mention it on this board as if to say “whatever you’re going through, you have no idea how tough life can be…”. The message is not a positive one. I think it’s sad that I have to point this out. Or maybe it’s just me.
Etienne I don’t take offense at what you wrote… but taking my post as a whole, i would like to highlight the portion: "i felt the same way as u, with regards to questioning why i was perservering… but the fact is that L3 candidate means very little, whereas CFA Charterholder means a little more. At least it shows that you are smart and diligent enough to pass a rigorous exam. To me, the CFA denotes character and tenacity as well as a basic level of financial knowledge and a good overview of issues. " I would hope that the above paragraph is taken as 1) encouragement and also 2) advice, in the sense that it emphasizes the increase in “value” or “markability” of a person when he moves from being a L3 candidate to a CFA charterholder.
Etienne, I believe we are allowed to state percentages as long as we disclose that “It does not imply superior performance” and phrase it as a factual statement. Similar to stating “Charter completed 3/3”. I am not referring to kids as “a reason why my Charter would have more value”, but rather as an extra motivation to get it done. I can’t imagine someone bragging about how he/she completed his Charter with “n” kids.
The only thing worse than someone looking for sympathy because of choices they have made are those coming up with reasons why their situation is just as bad. Everyone cuts their own deal.
i’ve seen many a friend take the CFA while unemployed. many have failed. you’d think the extra time would be a huge benefit, but they found it hard ot keep focused. in reality having only a certain time when you can study creates routine and also makes you as efficient as possible. that’s not to stay working all day and then going home and studying doesn’t suck.
mo34, What you say is accurate, but the CFAI’s ethos of not wanting a top-tier, second-tier, and third-tier of Charterholders is reflected in their failure to tell candidates simply “you scored X% in the exam.” (Hence the propagation of the 40/60/80 rule with its wide margin of error…)
I think it’s generally accepted that regardless of whether you passed 3/3 or had 6 kids and a brain tumour removed whilst studying, to put on your CV anything beyond “JoeBloggs, CFA” would be pretty sad,and self-congratulatory (regardless of the fact that you are being 100% factual and compliant with the Code of Ethics). Most people know that the CFA has some value, but it definitely will not be treated with awe by established Hedge Funds or Private Equity funds. To overpromote the CFA on the CV would be pretty silly.
wilier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it’s generally accepted that regardless of > whether you passed 3/3 or had 6 kids and a brain > tumour removed whilst studying, to put on your CV > anything beyond “JoeBloggs, CFA” would be pretty > sad,and self-congratulatory (regardless of the > fact that you are being 100% factual and compliant > with the Code of Ethics). > > Most people know that the CFA has some value, but > it definitely will not be treated with awe by > established Hedge Funds or Private Equity funds. > To overpromote the CFA on the CV would be pretty > silly. If I pass next June, I am actually thinking of adding on my CV the fact that I passed all 3 exams in the minimum timeframe of 18 months. I remember Schweser having a similar example in one of its problems and as long as it’s factual, it’s allright. Isn’t the CV a way to differentiate yourself? Only writing CFA will only get you lost in the shuffle if ever the potential interviewer receives many similar candidates. Mentioning you completed the program in 18 months won’t put you over the hill against a superior candidate but could very well do so against a similar one.
former trader I think you make a valid point about differentiation. In my experience, the importance of passing 3/3 diminishes given the amount of relevant work experience you have (which seems to be the thing employers focus more on). For fresher recruits, 3/3 may provide more effective differentiation (although I still find it a grey ethical area given that the reason/intention for putting this on a CV is to “imply” superiority over some other CFA charterholders! It could be argued, of course, that this is factual information and is not a violation of the CFAI ethics, but my gut tells me that it’s not in the spirit of what was intended by the CFAI standards). P.S. I don’t actually care too much about the issue, but do find it slightly bewildering how the loophole exists. Why can’t they just make a rule limiting the declaration to , “JoeBloggs, CFA. Achieved Charterholder Status in 2007”? That is factual and prevents differentiation, which was the intention of the Standards.
Agree with wilier about the loophole. I do have a question though. If one were to fail level 1 eight times, fail level 2 five times, and fail level 3 six times before passing, is there a way to know? If an employer calls CFAI to confirm whether or not the employee is a CFA charterholder I don’t see the CFAI saying, “yes, but it took him 14 tries”. The answer is more likely going to be something to what willier said, “yes, he achieved his CFA charter in 2008.” So if that’s the case, writing 3/3 or 3/17 is meaningless because it’s not verifiable. Am I right? or do they actually do say how many times you took the exam.
Gut feel is that you are right, kant. The only way I could see someone getting busted is if they said “3/3” AND “in 18 months.” I recently moved firms and they asked for a print out of my CFA results, which would of course reveal the dates.
Why would it matter either way how fast you went through the program. If you failed any of the exams, you’re questioned on your intellectual horsepower, work ethic, and passion for finance If you went 3/3, you’re questioned on your time commitment to personal goals vs. loyalty to work. Also, the expectations place on you because you passed the CFA exams may be higher than the abilities you have that allowed you to pass an exam. Bottomline, who cares how long it took. They may be very good reasons why you didn’t as well as WHY YOU DID pass the exam.
UAECFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would it matter either way how fast you went > through the program. > > If you failed any of the exams, you’re questioned > on your intellectual horsepower, work ethic, and > passion for finance > > If you went 3/3, you’re questioned on your time > commitment to personal goals vs. loyalty to work. > Also, the expectations place on you because you > passed the CFA exams may be higher than the > abilities you have that allowed you to pass an > exam. > > Bottomline, who cares how long it took. They may > be very good reasons why you didn’t as well as WHY > YOU DID pass the exam. completely agree. if i saw someone passed in 18 months i might wonder how much the person was actually working. on the other hand if it took a person 8 years with 5 fails i’d wonder too.
what’s a CV?
Etienne: is it still possible to print out old results from cfa site? The only one i can see is from june07?
Willier, Exactly the way I feel about this. First, adding 3/3 or any other statement would make it sound like a “big deal” for me that I did not fail at any of the tests, which might signal that I was in the habit of failing before that and I am proud of my lack of failure this time. Second, I hope that any potential employer would value me on other more relevant real world achievements than simply my capacity to study 2 hours per day for 2 years.
------------ Re: Working full time+studying=!!! Posted by: aspiring-analyst (IP Logged) [hide posts from this user] Date: December 13, 2007 01:32PM Etienne: is it still possible to print out old results from cfa site? The only one i can see is from june07? All I know is that I didn’t have a problem getting my Level I (Dec 06) and Level II (Jun 07) scores printed. On the subject of to say “3/3” or not, I’d go with “not” for a slightly different reason: I think those that care will ask, in which case you (hopefully) say “3/3” non-chalantly, as if it were water off a duck’s back. You might even try to look slightly bemused - perhaps even offended - that someone has YOU the question. Seriously though, my new employer did ask what breakdown I got at Level I and whether I was confident of passing Level II. But then I came in to interview 4 times (total c.15hrs!) so it’s not necessarily surprising that we got into such minutae.