By reducing the exam time, you reduce the number of questions, which means proportionately the number of questions that are included in the MPS increases and the required mark to pass, increases as well. If you only asked two questions and both were deemed to be part of the MPS, someone that got one wrong would fail the exam. If you instead asked three questions and two were deemed to be part of the MPS, those that got 2/3 would pass. A portion of the original group that failed would now pass - purely because you asked more questions. You haven't deliberately raised the MPS, it has been raised because you took out 30% of the exam, but kept the same amount of content, which makes errors far more punishing than before.
I think you may be right here, so as a candidate appearing for L3 next week should I worried about this or not because it's ultimately the same for everyone?
@@umerazam1214 I would be worried about getting a question wrong now, more so than in the past- don't assume that 70% in your practice exams is good enough. If they only ask 6 derivative questions in the exam (whereas in the past they might have asked 9 or 10) you can be fairly sure that you need to get 5 or 6 of them right. They haven't made the questions harder - they've just made it harder for themselves to get a good understanding of your true potential. It's the same for everyone - hence the fail rates have increased substantially. They don't pass or fail on distributions (as shown above).
I have the same thought as well, but we should also note that our human brain may be completely exhausted by the second half of the exam. Thus, scores on the second half of the exam are equally as punishing should the exam be in the old format. Whereas, when you just start the exam, you brain is fresh and ready to tackle any questions. Not to argue that your statement is wrong, just to put out the pros and cons for both method.
So JUST 24 charterholders decides what thousands of candidate should minimum know..... do this people give test themself first to see their score and decide or just by seeing question and decide what other candidate should know?
An excellent question that I posed you should also note are they looking at each question individually and making a theoretical judgement or taking the test in its new format.
Even worse than I thought. So far… still not sufficient transparency though. I will not recommend the CFA program to anyone. And I ‘passed’ level 1 and 2 comfortably first time so far. It’s too wishy washy and even in exams, too many questions are out to get you rather than actually check your understanding of a concept.
By reducing the exam time, you reduce the number of questions, which means proportionately the number of questions that are included in the MPS increases and the required mark to pass, increases as well. If you only asked two questions and both were deemed to be part of the MPS, someone that got one wrong would fail the exam. If you instead asked three questions and two were deemed to be part of the MPS, those that got 2/3 would pass. A portion of the original group that failed would now pass - purely because you asked more questions. You haven't deliberately raised the MPS, it has been raised because you took out 30% of the exam, but kept the same amount of content, which makes errors far more punishing than before.
I think you may be right here, so as a candidate appearing for L3 next week should I worried about this or not because it's ultimately the same for everyone?
@@umerazam1214 I would be worried about getting a question wrong now, more so than in the past- don't assume that 70% in your practice exams is good enough. If they only ask 6 derivative questions in the exam (whereas in the past they might have asked 9 or 10) you can be fairly sure that you need to get 5 or 6 of them right. They haven't made the questions harder - they've just made it harder for themselves to get a good understanding of your true potential. It's the same for everyone - hence the fail rates have increased substantially. They don't pass or fail on distributions (as shown above).
I have the same thought as well, but we should also note that our human brain may be completely exhausted by the second half of the exam. Thus, scores on the second half of the exam are equally as punishing should the exam be in the old format. Whereas, when you just start the exam, you brain is fresh and ready to tackle any questions. Not to argue that your statement is wrong, just to put out the pros and cons for both method.
It's really nice to see institute is hearing the candidates demand for transperency! Let's see the result for L1 NOV. All the best to L1 Nov guys!!!
God speed🙏🏾
Go thoko
Jjjj JJ jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jij in jjjjjjjjjjjjjiJJ in
So JUST 24 charterholders decides what thousands of candidate should minimum know.....
do this people give test themself first to see their score and decide or just by seeing question and decide what other candidate should know?
An excellent question that I posed you should also note are they looking at each question individually and making a theoretical judgement or taking the test in its new format.
Even tenet movie was more easy to understand than this 😶
Me Level 1 attempt is tomorrow. Wish me luck 🥰
Give me email id
All the best!
Best of luck 👍 aman
All the best
Best of Luck Aman!!
I am also thinking to opt CFA as a career, kindly share your email id so we could connect. It would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Even worse than I thought. So far… still not sufficient transparency though. I will not recommend the CFA program to anyone. And I ‘passed’ level 1 and 2 comfortably first time so far. It’s too wishy washy and even in exams, too many questions are out to get you rather than actually check your understanding of a concept.
CFA wants to keep its standard high to ensure the charter remain meaningful
Its not about standards, it’s about you paying for more exams so they can get the bills.
I don’t understand anything lol
Please give full detail about CFA programme about exam and certificate
আচালামালাইকুম আমি রাসেল