I want a hard exam handful, everyone, anything, only, like

Andreas42

I am as nervous as everyone else and feel like I could study for at least 6 more months and still not make scores in the 90s.... Having said that, since this is graded on a curve the optimal test would be EXTREMELY tough.

This is becuase this will seperate out those who at least studies for a few months v. those who didn't do hardly anything (even if its only by a handful of questions). That would also make it easier to be in the upper half of the bell curve for those of us who studied our tails off!!

Good luck to everybody!

comp_sci_kid

I agree! I do want to see lots of tricks, questions based on the smallest material and just overall challenging questions. It's all relative...and if we know the material, it shouldn't affect our scores that much.

Best of luck to everyone, see you on the flip side

KungFuPanda

homie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be better to make it easy. You need a
> true way of separating out the top 40%. You're
> doing a disservice by making the test where only
> 10% get it right and then rest of the 90% randomly
> guess and then 33% of them pass.
>
> Th 2011 am mock was stupid hard. you could get 90%
> of the components right and then get the answer
> wrong.


+ 1 .. 2011 was stupid hard and i bet passing rate would be less than 35% if they had a high MPS.

ryanlb

Why do i have a feeling that im going to be the first one sitting for the exam? lol

lucasg85

If the test is EXTREMELY hard, chances are that all of us who studied for the last x amount of months will know just enough to do it out and pick one their trick answers, where some schmuck who doesn't know anything has a 33% chance by just randomly guessing.

chaojimali

@Bilal: lol .. Good luck for the test anyways .. Hope we all do good

yalo

I completely agree with the 2011 am being stupid hard. I i got about 40% on it (dont remember exactly), which is just a tadhigher than one is supposed to get by randomly guessing. On the PM i got 75%. I belive I know this stuff, just not to the point where I have memorized it like I have a photographic memory. There should not be such a discrepancy, they just made it to hard, where knowledge is no longer being tested. Instead instant recall and blind regurgitation of materail was tested.

profil

PC79,

I understand your point but disagree.
If they make test extremely hard that will cause too many Type I errors - too many qualified candidates will fail due to stress, tricks, least likely/most likely misreading etc. That will solve Type II errors problem though - it will be impossible for unprepared folks to guess their way to the finish line.

The goal for good quality test is to balance these errors, not too easy not extremely hard.

If you spent quality time with material and know the stuff you deserve the right to be fairly tested on exam day.

BTW, taking into consideration recent history we should see something more reasonable on exam. Last year lowest passing rate in 6 years most likely is going up this year. I might be wrong in my predictions but let’s keep the positive thinking.

Best of luck to everyone tomorrow!

stalkey

This is what makes me mad. I know how to convert using the Current rate method and the Temporal method. I'm having trouble memorizing the table that shows exposure to X will cause a gain/loss when the LC is Appreciating/depreciating.

Chances are on the exam they're just going to show net monetary assets or something and the currency rates and ask if there is a gain or loss. Someone who just knows the table is getting it right and I'm probably getting it wrong even though I probably put in more work.

SFoyil

It's not graded on that type of curve. Obviously they don't release exactly how it's done, but the best guess is they take the highest score and then a certain percentage below that. For example, if the highest score is a 96% and they decide to take everyone within 30%, it's possible that you could get a 100% pass rate if everyone scored above 66%. In practice this would never happen, but the theory is they don't have to fail a certain number of people.

In other words, you don't have to root for people to do worse than you. Bad karma people. GL