首页 | 学习中心 | 注册 登录
返回列表 发帖
LorrinCFA

Rank: 2

UID
223382 
帖子
296 
主题
72 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-4 
1# 跳转到 » 倒序看帖
打印
tT
发表于 2011-7-13 11:50 | 只看该作者

Actual Exam vs. Q-bank

I recall that level 1 exam had a lot less calculations than I found in Q-bank. Did anyone find the same thing? And also, will this be the same thing on level 2? I sure hope so.
收藏 分享

yodacaia

Rank: 2

UID
223454 
帖子
341 
主题
12 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-7 
2#
发表于 2011-7-13 11:51 | 只看该作者
The actual test has a lot less calculation than schweser, a lot less. I found that I didn't use my calculator that much. But less calculation doesn't mean its easier.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Friday, May 21, 2010 at 09:21AM by joseph213.

TOP

iteracom

Rank: 2

UID
223456 
帖子
371 
主题
11 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-2 
3#
发表于 2011-7-13 11:52 | 只看该作者
I remember [and I think I posted here on AF, actually] that the difficulty of the exam for L1 vs my Schweser books was just about even. Not too much harder, not too much easier.

As far as the amount of calculations, I'd say you're probably right. Schweser [and probably most other providers] tend to "overweight" problems that are quantatative because it's so cut and dried - there's clearly a right and wrong way to translate foreign subsidiary earnings, for example.

In the actual exam, I think I probably only took out my calculator for every third or fourth problem, maybe even less. However, I'd echo what Joseph213 said - less calculation doesn't mean it's easier. A lot of what they give you, especially at higher levels, is less of the "How do you calculate this ratio" and more of "What does this ratio mean when..."

TOP

jarobi04

Rank: 2

UID
223400 
帖子
317 
主题
11 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-2 
4#
发表于 2011-7-13 11:53 | 只看该作者
What does it mean when what? You didn't finish your sentence.

TOP

luda002

Rank: 2

UID
223403 
帖子
404 
主题
29 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-2 
5#
发表于 2011-7-13 11:54 | 只看该作者
What does this ratio mean when X goes up, as opposed to if X goes down. Or Does this ratio go up if Y is calculated this way, as opposed to calculated the other way. A lot more intuition understanding of the concepts behind it as opposed to plain formula plug ins.

I'm assuming of course thats what he meant.

TOP

iteracom

Rank: 2

UID
223456 
帖子
371 
主题
11 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-2 
6#
发表于 2011-7-13 11:54 | 只看该作者
Yes, I meant to trail off. The exam didn't have a lot of questions that were just focused around "Tell us the formula for inventory turnover and then calculate inventory turnover". Rather, there were plenty of questions that were something like "Calculate inventory turnover for the last two years and tell us what this trend means when viewed in conjunction with the accts payable trend."

I guess what I meant is that the calculations factor in heavily en route to the answer, but they want you to calculate the nitty-gritty number and then kind of switch to the 5,000 foot view of "OK, what's this number telling us?" As I mentioned, I hear that as you progress up to Level III, this gets to be more and more the case. You need to know the formulae, but ultimately, they're gonna test you on both the calculations and your interpretation of it.

TOP

返回列表