Struggling to get over 50% in the AM mocks.
Not sure if I’m being overly conservative in some cases, but I looked at these forums and seen people getting 70-80% plus in them.
300hrs assesses the MPS to be ~56% for the whole exam (AM and PM).
Presuming mocks are an accurate predictor of performance on the day, should be worried?
Eh - I always have to keep in mind that anyone that has found and also posts on these forums are real gunners. I would keep on trucking and focus on that areas that 1. you feel you can master and 2. you’re still struggling with, even slightly.
As an example, I feel like I’m close on Fixed Income, but still get messed up on easy issues. Therefore, I’m working on that hard. In contrast, I donated the book on derivatives to my local library with a post-it note saying ‘Good luck!’.
By gunners I presume you mean very good? haha
You are suffering from “consolation bias”. If you base your performance on 300 hours MPS estimate Then be prepared for unpleasant surprises as well
Firstly - excellent bias!
Secondly, what would you say is a good score in a mock, if you are discounting their estimate of MPS?
The Quality of AM varies across prep. Providers. Now that the institute has discontinued publishing the previous AMs you are rendered relying upon the third party provider. Some are excellent, some are playing and some are dangerously bad. Crap if I may say. So from a quality providers perspective any score less than 65 in AM is a corridor or uncertainty.
But the results I am referring to are previous CFAI exams which are provided by Kaplan from 2010-2018, not their own handmade exams…
Your D day performance will always vary +/- 10% of your regular mock score. You could try out the variance yourself by attempting all papers from 2008-2018. See the mean score and the std. dev. or the AM scores. Expect the same kind of deviation I. Your exam as well. So 65-10% is what I meant