标题: I feel cheated out of an opportunity [打印本页] 作者: studyn 时间: 2013-8-6 10:01 标题: I feel cheated out of an opportunity
I think the candidates take the exam more seriously than CFAI. I studied hard and I was hoping to demonstrate how well I know the important stuff. Instead, CFAI chose to ask AM questions that do not reveal who has mastered concepts but rather shows who can regurgitate trivia from the footnotes. What a stupid way to set an exam. I feel cheated - if I fail while X passes, I won’t feel that X has better knowledge of the fundamentals that I do.
I have taken tough exams before and I never felt this way. Usually they were difficult because of the complexity or the difficulty in bringing disparate ideas together. That would be perfect for Level III in CFA since it does tie all the different threads together in a few important areas - e.g. portfolio management, capital market expectations, strategic allocation and risk management.
Instead, CFAI concentrated on isolated crap that makes no difference in real life. Shame on them.作者: bcp901 时间: 2013-8-6 10:01
Is is possible to pass without having answered one full question in the AM session. ? If there is sectional cuttoff separately in morning session, then i dont know how is that possible.
deeply worried.作者: bpdulog 时间: 2013-8-6 10:01
Thanks Baystreet. That gives some hope. Fingers crossed.作者: AnalystForum 时间: 2013-8-6 10:01
Conspiracy theory stuff -
does someone in CFAI have an ax to grind against Schweser and other “Cliff Notes” people? The poor Cliff Noters are going to emphasize the core portion of the curriculum, and CFAI does not want to pass candidates who don’t read their textbooks but read the Schweser Notes alone. That’s one reason why the AM paper was so obscure.
Next year, Schweser will try to include the trivia that showed up on this year’s paper and CFAI will keep one move ahead by setting a paper geared towards whatever Schweser did not think was important enough to include. So the Cliff Notes guys could never win.作者: Andreas42 时间: 2013-8-6 10:02
OP, the alternative perspective is that there were some people that learnt the obscure things as well as the core concepts. There are only two ways for CFA to measure this. One would be to hold 20 x 6hr exams for each level so that you can be comprehensively assessed on all material. Or hold 1 exam that includes a random assortment of concepts. The fact that a few obscure things show up allow the people that REALLY know 100% of the material to distinguish themselves from those that know, say 90% of it.
It is frustrating though… I’ve been there and feel your pain.作者: maratikus 时间: 2013-8-6 10:02
The frustrating part is that, in real life, internalizing 90% of the material really well is far more important than knowing 100% of the material bookishly. I thought CFA was a practical exam, not so theoretical, but I was wrong. It’s not like finance is theoretical physics with their flights of fancy about superstrings. It’s the most practical subject that exists. Which is why the academic focus was jarring.
EDIT:
It’s not a bad idea to hold 5 3-hour exams and then they can test everything thoroughly; you won’t hear me whine about obscure material.作者: bulosehi 时间: 2013-8-6 10:02
Maybe that’s the way they intend it - morning for obscure stuff, and evening for straightforward stuff..作者: IAmNeil 时间: 2013-8-6 10:02
man… i can’t recall any AM questions already.作者: Analyze_This 时间: 2013-8-6 10:02
So your issue isn’t that obscure stuff comes up in the exam - its that the obscure stuff shouldn’t be in the cfa material in the first place. I think there is some merit in that argument. I don’t think the exam should just focus on the ‘core’ concepts. Because then people who took shortcuts (eg, schweser to name one) would be unfairly rewarded and those that painstakingly covered all of the ‘candidate body of knowledge’ as defined by CFAI would be unfairly punished.作者: former 时间: 2013-8-6 10:02
Good point SFA, but.
Overall, my point is that CFAI should stop worrying about whom they are rewarding/punishing and focus on what they want candidates to truly know. So yeah, in theory they want us to know the whole CBOK including GIPS trivia. In reality, to help us be better analysts, they should concentrate on the bedrock concepts like portfolio management. A really good money manager could easily fail the AM exam, which is a pity.作者: OmarAdnan 时间: 2013-8-6 10:02
“A really good money manager could easily fail the AM exam, which is a pity.”
Completely agree with your last point 1recho. This statement completely symbolises what the exam was all about this year.作者: sabaruch 时间: 2013-8-6 10:03
What footnote stuff you are talking about OP? I found most of the material was from book and Schweser too covered most if not all of them. Q-2 and Q-3 were little tricky but apart from that all questions in AM was fair game.
PM was beast and very very tricky. I don’t how did I do in that.作者: Viceroy 时间: 2013-8-6 10:03
I think the problem is that the exam can only cover maybe 20% of the curriculum. So even if you know 90% of the material, you could be unlucky and get ~50%. Whereas someone else that only knows 20% could be very lucky and get ~100%. But everyone knows this going in. Even small gaps in your knowledge can have a big impact on your result.作者: krause2 时间: 2013-8-6 10:03
I used Schweser this year and none of the questions in the AM were stumping and I felt were in the CFAI material over the other providers作者: RoastBeef 时间: 2013-8-6 10:03
The test can be frustrating but some perspective helps.
The idea that there are candidates out there that just learn the “trivia from the footnootes” and pass the exam is really unrealistic. Even if 20% of the exam was obscure information, if the candidate only focused on obscure concepts they would still be at a loss for 80% of the exam.
In reality the candidates who pass have a very good grasp of core concepts and a lot of the “obscure” parts as well. There are no candidates out there gaming the system and only learning 20% of the material and passing. If there were then they should start playing the lottery with that type of ability.
The CFA does not want an exam that tests core concepts over 5 or 6 3 hour exams. The purpose is not to have another graduate degree program i.e. If you have enough time and money you will get it. They want an exam that hopefully differentiates candidates. They are attempting to do that by creating a test that is broad enough and random enough that you must master nearly all the concepts in order to pass. Not just memorizing each concept one at a time.
Nevertheless, it can be frustrating. But remember, many people fail multiple times. No one in the industry cares how long it took you to get it as long as you finally do.作者: spreads 时间: 2013-8-6 10:03
I thought I was well prepared for this exam.
Relative to level 1, I thought there was very little “only time this shows up is in one paragraph”.
Don’t hate the exam for lack of proper studying!!!作者: SpyAli 时间: 2013-8-6 10:03
I think the way CFAI works out its exams is quite reasonable - at least from a consistency basis. Consistency doesn’t mean “always the same” though.
Remember back when Ben Graham and other guys tried to set p this professional organization, what they thought about was to have some consistent way of evaluating securities. But everything was evolving since then even including its academic Financial Analyst Journal. During Treynor-the-Editor-In-Chief time, he tried to introduce various new ideas on portfolio management into the journal to enrich the materials. An adapting mind is what a modern financial analyst needs in this era of changing.
I personally find reasing CFAI curriculum is fun, notwithstanding at the beginning, I used notes to just pass the exams. But when I started working in the investment and financial fields, I found it is the grasp of details that differentiate an outstanding analyst from the majority of average ones. These details are not easy to find,not readily present in financial statements released or Bloomberg news. You need to think independently and digest the information to come up with your own unique point.
From that perspective,I don’t see any reason why exams cannot be based on the footnotes. Plus, I believe CFAI still base the majority of the materials on its curriculum.
Hopefully you don’t feel offended by my response!
