“How ironic that the majority of people complaining of the change in format are the same people that benefited from the change in format at level 2 when it became exclusively multiple choice.” that doesn’t make any sense…none of us have any say over what the format is when we take the exam. When I was going through the program, as much as I wanted to pass and as hard as I studied, I never wanted the exam to be made easier. Again, there was no point in putting in the effort if the damn thing didn’t represent a true accomplishment. Any of these taken on their own…all item set at level two, moving to 3 choices instead of 4, offering level 1 2x per year…probably doesn’t degrade the charter, but you start adding them all up and you have to ask at some point if it does.
eureka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The CFA should be as much a test of your ability > to read quickly as of your investment knowledge. > CFA’s minted after 2009 will definitely be slower > readers, which generally indicates poor investing > ability. How are they supposed to read the > tickers on the bottom of CNBC. Those things move > fast. now that’s a point. joey take note you monosyllabic bully.
Monosyllabic? you all take exam past oh-8 are wuss.
i don’t see how this is not going to make it easier…lets assume the following. If passing is 70, and you assume the following: 1) You know an answer with 100% certainty 2) You make a guess…so none of this narrowing down to 2 or 3 crap. Under a 4 question format if you know 60% + getting 1/4 of your guesses (out of 40%) right you reach 70. Under a 3 question format…if you know 55% + getting 1/3 of your guesses (out of 45%) you reach 70. That is a signficant difference
cfastudent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your employer won’t care if it’s out of 3 or 4, > but over time if the exam and charter develops a > reputation for being easy or easier than it is now > he/she may not care if employees have the charter > or not since it is not viewed as representing > much. Get it? The charter itself does not mean much in terms of professional abilites. You don’t get paid “X” amount of money because you have the charter, but rather because you have skills your employer is willing to pay for. Memorizing Shweser secret sauce and answering MC questions at the end of the year hardly qualifies you as a finance genius, just separates you from those who could not do it because they’re too lasy or don’t have the commitment and motivation. Again, as you said, the CFA is a brand they need to protect, and I am sure they have consulted people a lot more qualified than me and you to determine if 3 choices are better or 4.
jasonindc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i don’t see how this is not going to make it > easier…lets assume the following. > > If passing is 70, and you assume the following: > > 1) You know an answer with 100% certainty > 2) You make a guess…so none of this narrowing > down to 2 or 3 crap. > > Under a 4 question format if you know 60% + > getting 1/4 of your guesses (out of 40%) right you > reach 70. > You’re assuming that the passing score will remain at 70. Which does not make sense as they admit that good students (who have to guess a few times) will benefit from the change in format, leading to higher scores. You’ll probably need 75% to pass in the future. > Under a 3 question format…if you know 55% + > getting 1/3 of your guesses (out of 45%) you reach > 70. > > That is a signficant difference
I also guess that the % of non english native speakers taking the exam is increasing. So minimizing the time spent on reading questions might decrease their disadvantage compared with US or UK guys.
mo34, no one said it makes you a financial genius to have the cfa, but regardless of how many high priced consultants they enlisted to tell them that the change won’t affect the difficulty–you can see from what people are posting on this board what the perception is. And that is my point, brand image is all about perception. Anyway, I hope you’re right. I worked hard to earn the charter, I just hope it continues to be viewed as a relatively high academic type of hurdle–not a series 7…that’s all.
According to CFAI: "There is no fixed passing score on CFA exams. If there were fixed passing scores, all other factors equal, a reduction in the number of answer choices would likely result in more candidates passing the exams. That is not the situation. The passing score of any CFA exam is directly related to its level of difficulty as assessed by CFA charterholders in a formal standard setting process. " Basically, the passing score is going to be higher. Trust me, you will not see passing rates of 70% next year. They are going to offset this change by making it harder to pass.
I’ve been thinking about this more and it’s upsetting me more. There are some good points here: a) This represents a really material change in the exam that widely affects the perception of the status and difficulty of the CFA charter and charterholders weren’t consulted. That’s a problem. b) The statement that psychometricians told us this wouldn’t have any effect is empty. Who cares what a bunch of pseudo-academics said? (As a former psychometrician turned statistician, I do not have lots of respect for psychometricians) How about CFAI show us the evidence? c) The effect of this kind of thing interacts a lot with the kinds of questions given. A really standard multiple choice kind of question is the “A true; B true; both true; neither true”. Knock one of those options off and we have changed the question enormously. d) The kind of question where this change has no effect is the question where either you know the answer or you don’t, e.g., The Battle of Hastings took place in: 1064 1065 1066 1067. In this case, the effect of guessing is that you get an additional 1/3 vs 1/4 of the answers you dont know. If you know roughly 2/3 of the material this is a difference of about 3% on your score which can be easily adjusted. The questions where this makes huge difference is where all the answers are subtly different and 4 choose 2 comparisons is twice as difficult as 3 choose 2 comparisons. For CFAI to maintain the same level of difficulty on the exam, they have to stick with “Hastings” questions not subtle comparison questions. Which one of those skills is better for a financial analyst? Why should we think that psychometricians know anything about what kind of skills are useful for financial analysts? e) True/False questions can be very difficult and a 240 question test of all true/falses can be arbitrarily hard so even on the other side of three choices is a hard exam. The problem is that to be hard, true/false questions are nearly trick questions that are often about semantic distinctions that are not core learning (If the 10-yr interest rate rises, a 10-yr risk-free, option-free bond will always decrease in value. T or F). You should think true, but the answer is false because I can make it a coupon bond, muck with the entire yield curve, and make 10 yr rates rise only slightly. It’s not a pedagogically useful question but the more restricted the number of choices, the more you have to rely on stuff like this. f) Every multiple choice test I have ever taken has four choices - all the Series X exams, all the PSAT/SAT/GRE/GMAT/LSAT/MCAT tests, prior CFA exams, CPA exams (I think), actuarial exams (last I checked), and probably countless I don’t know. Why would CFAI be the first to change? Is it really that much harder to think of a fourth alternative in finance? (yes, after “Buy”/“Sell”/“Hold”, I don’t have many other choices). What will be everyone’s perception of this? g) How does this interact with Angoff? I think Angoff is a little stupid on multiple choice exams to begin with, but this is getting pretty ridiculous. The Angoff standard is currently “What the minimally qualified candidate knows and can guess” and now it becomes “What the minimally qualified candidate knows and can guess with even higher probability than before”. Does that seem like a ringing endorsement of a charterholder’s expertise? Anyway, I think the exams will stay equally hard because I can make a true/false CFA exam that would be very difficult to get > 70% on. That means I can make one with 3 choices that is very hard. The problem is that the test is going to look different with more emphasis on knowing factoids and less emphasis on comparing reasonable choices. That means that the test isn’t becoming more or less difficult, it’s just driving a curriculum change or at least an emphasis change in the curriculum. I don’t like that change (I didn’t like the change from essay format for about the same reasons).
Your point about Battle of Hastings is a more nuanced aspect of this I hadn’t thought of. Good point. For people in the industry, the CFA exams have a somewhat deserved reputation for being more than a simple exam. The charter is more similar to an advanced degree for exactly the reason you are getting at–that is to say, you have to learn and absorb the material and then apply it. This requires critical and analytical thinking. This is what makes the “essays” challenging to many people. (totally agree about that change at Level 2 as well, never should have occurred). There is no doubt in my mind that this change is a significant weakening of that. This phrase nails it: “…The problem is that the test is going to look different with more emphasis on knowing factoids and less emphasis on comparing reasonable choices. That means that the test isn’t becoming more or less difficult, it’s just driving a curriculum change or at least an emphasis change in the curriculum. I don’t like that change (I didn’t like the change from essay format for about the same reasons).”
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’ve been thinking about this more and it’s > upsetting me more. There are some good points > here: > a) This represents a really material change in the > exam that widely affects the perception of the > status and difficulty of the CFA charter and > charterholders weren’t consulted. That’s a > problem. > > b) The statement that psychometricians told us > this wouldn’t have any effect is empty. Who cares > what a bunch of pseudo-academics said? (As a > former psychometrician turned statistician, I do > not have lots of respect for psychometricians) How > about CFAI show us the evidence? > > c) The effect of this kind of thing interacts a > lot with the kinds of questions given. A really > standard multiple choice kind of question is the > “A true; B true; both true; neither true”. Knock > one of those options off and we have changed the > question enormously. > > d) The kind of question where this change has no > effect is the question where either you know the > answer or you don’t, e.g., The Battle of Hastings > took place in: 1064 1065 1066 1067. In this case, > the effect of guessing is that you get an > additional 1/3 vs 1/4 of the answers you dont > know. If you know roughly 2/3 of the material > this is a difference of about 3% on your score > which can be easily adjusted. The questions where > this makes huge difference is where all the > answers are subtly different and 4 choose 2 > comparisons is twice as difficult as 3 choose 2 > comparisons. For CFAI to maintain the same level > of difficulty on the exam, they have to stick with > “Hastings” questions not subtle comparison > questions. Which one of those skills is better > for a financial analyst? Why should we think that > psychometricians know anything about what kind of > skills are useful for financial analysts? > > e) True/False questions can be very difficult and > a 240 question test of all true/falses can be > arbitrarily hard so even on the other side of > three choices is a hard exam. The problem is that > to be hard, true/false questions are nearly trick > questions that are often about semantic > distinctions that are not core learning (If the > 10-yr interest rate rises, a 10-yr risk-free, > option-free bond will always decrease in value. T > or F). You should think true, but the answer is > false because I can make it a coupon bond, muck > with the entire yield curve, and make 10 yr rates > rise only slightly. It’s not a pedagogically > useful question but the more restricted the number > of choices, the more you have to rely on stuff > like this. > > f) Every multiple choice test I have ever taken > has four choices - all the Series X exams, all the > PSAT/SAT/GRE/GMAT/LSAT/MCAT tests, prior CFA > exams, CPA exams (I think), actuarial exams (last > I checked), and probably countless I don’t know. > Why would CFAI be the first to change? Is it > really that much harder to think of a fourth > alternative in finance? (yes, after > “Buy”/“Sell”/“Hold”, I don’t have many other > choices). What will be everyone’s perception of > this? > > g) How does this interact with Angoff? I think > Angoff is a little stupid on multiple choice exams > to begin with, but this is getting pretty > ridiculous. The Angoff standard is currently > “What the minimally qualified candidate knows and > can guess” and now it becomes “What the minimally > qualified candidate knows and can guess with even > higher probability than before”. Does that seem > like a ringing endorsement of a charterholder’s > expertise? > > Anyway, I think the exams will stay equally hard > because I can make a true/false CFA exam that > would be very difficult to get > 70% on. That > means I can make one with 3 choices that is very > hard. The problem is that the test is going to > look different with more emphasis on knowing > factoids and less emphasis on comparing reasonable > choices. That means that the test isn’t becoming > more or less difficult, it’s just driving a > curriculum change or at least an emphasis change > in the curriculum. I don’t like that change (I > didn’t like the change from essay format for about > the same reasons). Joey sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion.
Don’t all forget that with more options, you get more clues. How often have you been clued on the topic if not even the answer itself by reading an option that contained a buzzword you were missing, or a thought that you didn’t think of, etc?
Anyway, CFAI better not f%^k us on the shingle match.
jasonindc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i don’t see how this is not going to make it > easier…lets assume the following. > > If passing is 70, and you assume the following: > > 1) You know an answer with 100% certainty > 2) You make a guess…so none of this narrowing > down to 2 or 3 crap. > > Under a 4 question format if you know 60% + > getting 1/4 of your guesses (out of 40%) right you > reach 70. > > Under a 3 question format…if you know 55% + > getting 1/3 of your guesses (out of 45%) you reach > 70. > > That is a signficant difference No offense, but you’re wrong. If people never pick the fourth option after reading the test, then changing it from 4 to 3 choices won’t have ANY effect. Furthermore, someone who guesses on that many questions can’t possibly get a 60 or 65% on the test without knowing enough to at least limit the choices to 2 or 3. I could care about the person who paid 600 dollars to get a 25% who can now get a 33.3% by totally guessing, but I’m not an idiot. The CFAI could do two things: add more plausible answers or cut the useless ones. The first will make the test harder, the second keeps the test just as hard. There is no reason why pass rates will change after this change takes place. I finished each part of level 1 in about half the time needed. Anyone who can’t read the entire exam and answer the questions in that time period doesn’t deserve to pass it.
“I finished each part of level 1 in about half the time needed.” I don’t get it. Today I drove my kids home in half the time needed and covered half as many miles as necessary.
Maybe they want to give the appearance on an easier test to get more candidates?
wow, I am just hoping that I pass L3 this year and not have to worry about 2009!
This is a bad move on CFAI’s part. Are they that f*cking lazy that they can’t write another answer for every question? This is ridiculous - it’s going to make the test easier or at the very least APPEAR easier; either way CFA charterholders lose. This sucks, I’m calling CFAI and complaining. Someone should put together something formal to stop this; I’d bet that 75%+ of charterholders would not want this to happen.
TJR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe they want to give the appearance on an > easier test to get more candidates? They’ll probably see a jump in L1 candidates. Many bozos will like they’re chances with the new format. Next step would proabably be to offer L1 4 times a year.