Give me your opinion. insanity, material, relative, opinion, foolish

Dapper425

So I'm about to finish my first pass through the material - which consists of reading and notes...my second pass is where I beef up and do EOC. I don't want to say that Level 3 seems "easier" than Level 2, that would be a foolish assumption, obviously. But I find myself asking after each chapter when @#$%& is really gonna get tough, and it never happens. Bear in mind when I say "tough" I mean relative to the insanity of Level 2. Basically, I feel like Level 3 is more manageable and about a solid conceptual understanding of the material as opposed to the madness of Level 2 - both grueling conceptually and by the sheer volume of material and formulas.

Am I talking out of my ass or does anyone agree with me? Again, I'm asking this because after Level 2, I was expecting Level 3 to just the biggest beast ever created, and at this point, it seems pretty manageable.

NakedPuts2011

Take it from someone who has tried it before, Level 3 is all about the exam itself.

justin88

@Rearden72

I too have the same feeling and am like what is going on here. The formulas you need to know are seriously 1/5 the volume and intensity of level II

also, Level III is covering topis that were taught in Level I (DJIA index calculation...i mean come on now)

liangfeng

level 3 its about how you do in the morning section under time crunch. There is a thread on this forum where people have posted their results for both morning and afternoon sections. Look at the results and see that many folks bombed the morning section. You may know a section or all of the material very well, but once you get that time crunch mixed in with some questions, you have never seen before...its a deadly combination IMO.

Afternoon is pretty much similar to what you have seen in level 2. You are expected to ace the afternoon section (not just pass it by itself) if you have any chance of passing this beast. Keep in mind that all the folks you are competing with have passed level 2 and many of them are repeaters who may know the material very well.

bodhisattva

markCFAIL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yah but on level I and II you didnt get asked to
> "state the key differences between GAAP and IFRS
> accounting for proportionate consolidation"
>
> It's a totally different ballgame when you have
> that multiple choice to trigger your memory, I've
> done a few practices and it's tough to have all
> the stuff ready to go in your head. Nothing is
> particularly difficult in terms of content, it's
> the fact that you have to know it stone cold at a
> level to where you can recite it, which honestly
> is kind of stupid in my opinion, it's all
> memorization/drilling and no learning.
>
> Formulas are formulas, give me tons of them, i'll
> memorize and plug/chug. Ask me to state the due
> diligence items and describe them for an
> alternative investment or hedge fund? Uh oh......

This.

I'm finding that I need to memorize huge swaths of the materials. As you markCFAIL said, if you don't know something like "state the differences between MeanVariance and MonteCarlo," you might as well skip it. It doesn't seem to matter that you grasped it conceptually, if you don't know it specifically... you're sunk.

After a couple exams I found that some questions were actually much much easier than I made them out to be. When it says state X reasons why you should use Asset Liability mismatch, etc... start off with some of the must BASIC/OBVIOUS reasons. Its hard sometimes to know what they really want, but more often than not it again appears to be just simple answers.

Analti_Calte

Appreciate the input, guys. Makes sense - half the folks smart enough to pass L2 end up failing L3, which basically has half the amount of material...there most definitely is an X-Factor.