|
- UID
- 223278
- 帖子
- 283
- 主题
- 138
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-11
- 最后登录
- 2016-4-21
|
@legacy
I definitely know that last time in December the passing rate was close to 30% rather than 35%. And I know the gold standard of 70% passing score, so that is what I entered in the linear equations above.
Off the analysis now:
Here is a philosophical argument against the MPS, if cfa does use this method. The MPS method seems to not account for easiness or the toughness of the test. Let us say a very easy test came (not too dissimilar from what happened in June 2009). Now, top 1% would be very close to 100, lets say 98. The MPS would say any candidate who scored 70% of 98 passes. This translates to 68.6. But what MPS does not account is HOW MANY and WHAT % of people are falling in this zone of 68.6>= to <= 100. So potentially you can have 50% of the candidates in this zone! Percentile based scoring would eliminate this bias and would ensure only 30% candidates pass. Of course the criticism there is that in case a smart batch of candidates appears, then the average candidate is at a disadvantage. So neither scoring approach is totally fair. Nor is an ad-hoc score because that would also not account for the easiness or the toughness of the test. A 70% score in Dec 08 test definitely meant more than 70% score in June 2009.
I do think cfa should have an either/or scoring approach under which if a candidate scores more than 70% then he passes for sure or if the candidate scores in top 25th percentile then the candidate passes for sure. But if the candidate is not in top 35th percentile or has not scored above 65% then he or she must not pass. So there is a small wedge between which can act as a buffer for the toughness or the easiness of the test and can be discretionally manipulated.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 03:57PM by mfin27. |
|
发表于 2011-7-11 20:03
| 