It’s not necessary for someone to have taken finance classes to do the CFA. It’s all plain english.
Engineering requires a math base etc. i would argue it being harder
Difficulty of Program = Amount of work * intrinsic difficulty of understanding material * level of mastery required to pass * 1/likelihood of being accepted into program.
Let’s see how these line up:
amount of work: CFA: 6 months of part-time study times three exams (1.5y total). Ph.D.: 2-3 years of full time study, plus a dissertation 1-3 years extra… Ph.D. wins here.
intrinsic difficulty of understanding material: these are arguably similar, although people can argue (and I would agree) that the Ph.D. goes into greater depth (in finance), particularly on the math and econometrics part. Usually, a Ph.D. will have to specialize to do the dissertation, and that may mean that the Ph.D. has slightly less breadth than the recently-completed CFA. Though the Ph.D. candidate who has just finished comprehensive exams is a person who probably knows more about their subject in general than they will know for the rest of their lifetime.
level of mastery required to pass: CFA readings cover a lot of stuff, but there are actually a lot of fairly simple questions on the exam. You don’t notice them because your mind is focused on the harder stuff. At best, you can say that the level of mastery required is similar to Ph.D. classroom exams (and I think the greater depth implies greater mastery anyway). The level of mastery and number of objections you have to field when defending a dissertation is substantially greater. Ph.D. is at least the same and very likely greater here.
likelihood of being accepted into program: CFA requires a college degree, $1000, and (arguably) a history void of securities fraud. Nearly 100% of applicants accepted into program. Ph.D. requires a college degree and a $100 application fee, plus acceptance by the program. At top schools these can be something like 20 slots for 300+ candidates. Ph.D. wins here hands down, though you can improve odds a bit by applying to multiple programs.
There really is no criterion on which the CFA comes out as harder than the Ph.D. At best, you can argue that they are comparable on some levels, but even that requries overlooking a lot of stuff that the Ph.D. candidate has to do that the CFA candidate doesn’t. And even if the material in the CFA program is tough at times, the level of mastery required to pass is actually not that deep, when you get down to it.
The one place where the CFA *might* beat out the Ph.D. is that the actual test day may be more stressful. In a Ph.D. program, you have comprehensive exams and you have dissertation defense. In CFA you have three six hour exams. However, I would argue that those are minor considerations. Akin to asking if a 100 yard dash is harder than a mile run?
Why do people care, exactly? No one outside of this thread really expects the CFA to be equivalent to the Ph.D… It sounds like some CFA candidates are saying “Waahhhh! I want to argue that my CFA is just as meaningful as being trained to develop and test new financial understanding.” Why can’t I be called Dr. after taking the CFA?? In fact, all the CFA really means is you have some exposure to 1) methods of valuation, 2) principles of portfolio management, 3) some basic economics, 4) some very basic statistics, 5) you learned a bit about not screwing your clients over if you think there’s much of a chance you might be found out, and 6) don’t call yourself a Charterholder if you haven’t paid the institute…
I have both. Both are challenging. The specific challenges of each are a little different. If the CFA were as difficult to complete as the Ph.D., there’s no way I would have gone through that again. I think both are meaningful and I’m proud of both. I expect different kinds of things from Charterholders and Ph.D.s, and you should, too.
The CFA is much tougher than a PhD. Take it from me. I have three doctorates - Computational finance, Behavioral Finance & Derivates. I’ve achieved them all in three years so one per year. And yes, I was invited by the World Bank to preside over their board of decision making in coming up with creative ideas to legally fornicate under-developed nations and help the Jews take over the world. But that’s supposed to be a secret that no one is supposed to talk about. OH BTW, Obama was in the meeting too.
Given all that, I thought the CFA would be a cake walk. But after reading the first page I now understand why it is so difficult. For beginners, who would think technical indicators come under quants? And who thought that ethics still existed? Sheesh… And then comes the whole balance sheet shenanigans. I mean come ON. You need to be a freaking genius to get this done. I bet the reason why Buffett does not have a CFA is because he KNOWS he will fail at it.
So, congratulations my boy. You are now compeating for a charter that is much more difficult than getting three PhDs from Harvard, MIT & LSE respectively.
P.S. Yes, I used to time-travel to make up for the time difference between US & London. If we meet outside the forum someday, I will show you how.
FWIW - I know many PhDs (in Finance) who subsequently got their charter, and a few who went the other way (CFA then PhD). Everyone in the first group said the PhD was harder. Everyone in the second said the same.
CFA is mostly about time spent on task. the material for the most part isn;t that deep - there’s just so damn much of it.
PhD requires much more technical depth - econometrics and the higher-level math involved in some of the asset pricing/derivatives and corporate game theory stuff can be a real bear. And it also requires the ability to think much more rigorously. Some of it is probably self-selection rather than how the program changes you, but you learn to spend a lot of time on assumptions and technical definitions. It comes across as “inside baseball” to those not trained that way. But that’s how new research gets done- look at the picky stuff, change that, and see what happens.
i am into academics and 2 days back i had an call for a faculty profile from a very good pvt college in India.
I cleared all the rounds due to knowledge from CFA l2 and l1 studdies.
But in last stage i was rejected saying i dont have international research papers 
But i believe CFA > Research papers if u want to teach as CFA really drills concepts in u
BUT ALAS for them r papers > CFA
Dude, as Itera said, CFA is plain English, it’s not a rocket science (and it’s coming from someone who passed 3/3, putting one month of work in Level 2 and two months in Level 3, however, I was full-time student)… But I know at least a dozen individuals who breezed through the program 3/3 in 18 months like me while working full-time 60 hours/week jobs in ER/IB/corporate banking/rating agencies etc. Coming up with original idea for research and working on it is much harder to me than reading couple of books and memorizing stuff. I’m not easy it was easy journey, those few months were probably the most stressful period in my life, even more than unemployment period but research stuff is not easy. I know as I’m working as economist, and even after 2 years in industry I’m yet to come up with some original idea.
PHD’s are not all that great by the way. You severly limit yourself in positions in the real world. Most PHD students go straight to academia. A PHD is obviously harder than a masters program or any type of cerfication. That is is not question there. However, the PHD is not what many employers are looking for nor will they want to hire a PHD recent grad.
There are certain credentials that at a glance you can see whether a person is suited or not. Also these same credentials and designations is whats marketable, and thats the important part.
Its a simple analogy
“we all know top tier restos that charge $300 for a hamburger is top notch! Maybe the BEST and maybe the best suited to give you that awesome wow factor and taste, HOWEVER mcdoanlds is still the billionaire franchise at 5 bucks a burger”
Think about that for a second…