burnsy562000

4tay, I think that is a little too much conspiracy theory for me, it doesn't make sense.

The more I thought about it, the more I actually realized it doesn't matter how many below average people take the test. A lot of people on here were all happy talking to people who didn't know anything thinking they were helping the curve when in reality they likely did nothing to influence it at all.

Think about this:

If they score the test strictly based off of the old method of 70% of the top 1% of scores we are only competing against the top 1% people, no one else, meaning that if the top 1% get 95% it doesn't matter that 60% of the people may get 50% on the test.

If it is based off the Angoff method which seems to be consensus, we are again competing only against what the CFA institute deems to be an acceptable passing score, not based on a curve determined by unprepared candidates. If poor test takers really influenced it there would be a much higher passing rate because it would normally distribute and you would likely have 50-55% being the average(maybe not just using it as an example).

So I think all we can hope for is either that the top 1% score at best 95(if this still factors into it) or that the CFA institute feels the test is harder than normal and sets the MPS lower.

just my opinion of course.

Ben