In terms of difficulty - no. In terms of passing rates - no. In terms of successful efforts of AIMR / CFA Institute to promote it as difficult exam that leads to successful career in investment field - yes (but they are making more and more reservations as number of candidates and charterholders grows).
I haven’t taken Level 3 yet, but based on Levels 1 and 2…probably not. I would probably have to throw out several different schools’ written qualifying exams as being way harder than the CFA exams.
If we restrict to just standardized finance exams then maybe. But among all exams worldwide I think there’s many exams much harder.
I don’t know what fund you work for, but I’ve been working for one of the big banks for almost 4 years now and this view that finance isn’t STEM is inconsistent with my experience, and frankly inconsistent with the view of most people (senior and junior) that I know in the field.
It is definitely true, however, that finance isn’t as attractive to the “best and brightest” these days (the technology field has definitely established itself as the field to be in). But even so, I definitely think that finance has established itself as a STEM field.
I originally came from a STEM background where employment prospects were pretty bleak, largely due to a reliance on grants or lack of funding. Couple that with low remuneration as well and it’s a no brainer.
Material itself is not difficult or intensive. Somewhere in the CFA website, there was a mention about it being at the Undergrad level
The test method of 6 hours for all topic put together in 2 papers means every topic has 1 or 2 questions. This leaves nothing to choice.
It tests CBOK than intelligence or what you gain out of experience.
Of late the average age of the participants has probably dropped, that makes it a bit more difficult to pass for middle aged professionals as younger participants have a better memory and hence an edge in a curve based test of average difficulty (not to mention the difficult questions are thrown out).
You bring up a very good point with # 1. Although, I’m sure they mention postgrad / masters level.
There are many program partner postgrad courses out there. I studied an MSc Investment Analysis at one that “…covered 70pc of the CBOK”. The exams are significantly more difficult, perhaps due to lower levels of support and testing methods as you mention.
True, but if you only knew the right answers to half the questions on the exam and blindly guessed on the remainder the expected value would be a 67%. A MPS of 65% on an exam that a candidate, on average, would score 33% by default if they just showed up and marked “A” for all answers shouldn’t be too difficult to pass, so as long as the candidate is prepared.
That has to be the trend. When the candidate pool is getting larger, and candidates get better prepared for early easy exams as more exams have been given, the only way to keep pass rate and MPS relatively stable is to make the exam harder.
huh? so when the candidate pool gets larger, the pass rate also increases?? The absolute number of passers will increase but why is there a positive correlation between pass rate and candidate pool?
Technically there’s no correlation, you are right. But, the knowledge body of CFA program will not change drastically and candidates will, on average, be better prepared to “previous easier exams” (at least for L3 because AM part is made public) as more exams have been given, that pulls up the pass rate if you don’t make the exam harder.