Thanks for your comments S2000michigan but I am not going to agree with you because when I started mentioning that there was something wrong during the grading process and when I used the wording “the question dealing with currencies” one of the participants asked me not to mention such thing here. I guess that his warning was subjected on the provisions of Standard VII according with we were prohibited from discussing any specific exam topics.
Why I should follow this specific standard but the CFA Institute is allowed to breach the standards it has divesed and is promoting without to even care if someone writes a complaint in an argumentative way as I have done?
Can someone give me some cliff notes here. Is this guy claiming he left an entire section blank and was graded in the 51-70 range for it? How is that possible?
That is the claim. Asking everyone else to leave one blank on the next Lvl 3 exam & see if there is some hidden agenda from the CFA. Hecray. Nothing to see here anymore. Move along…
1.If you propose to pursue the Charter(You should having cleared L2),then till the time exam pattern changes,the key to you will be acing the PM(>70% in all,it’s doable)and minimising the damage in AM(getting at least 4>70…there are many quantitative questions in AM too ,which will help you accomplish this). Blaming the AM is only half the story, anyway.Are we “blemish free” in PM?
2.If you want to pursue and are so sure that we get 51-70 in blank questions,you may leave ALL QUESTIONS blank,and try your luck!Each question is graded by a different examiner,and no one will know you did this.
I do not think this would work though.That would lead you to 1.
3.If you have given up on the Charter,seekother measures,than hitting the forum.It’s of no help.No body on the forum can take a decision in the matter.And you have the Institute’s response.
4.The institute does not need our Character Certificate.We need the charter.Even if some of us may harbour our own notions of their subjectivity.
I may be missing something but after having read the thread, i have the feeling that the most of the people here comment on anything else but not the main issue - the intransparent grading policy of the CFAI.
I believe the real problem is that CFAI reportedly has found a gradeable material in an unanswered question. And CFAI was unable to deliver a plausible explanation. Some might say that the story is made up or at least flawed. Maybe, quien sabe…
@Icebreaker: In my opinion the whole CFA grading stuff is pretty rigged and intransparent. But I still play this game because I need this d****d certificate. I’ll hopefully get it at the end. If not - I’ll not blame the CFAI but only me. Because even a system is flawed and unfair, one can find a way to beat it.
ok another suggestion. since you got 51-70% on a question you did not answer, DO NOT ANSWER anything this time around … you will then get 51-70%. (per your statement).
This story goes back to senior year of my high school.
Standing on the 17th hole on the final round of the tournament I was hanging on to a 1 stroke lead over 2 players. At the time the hole played as a 520 yard par 5. But it is a beast of a hole with a water hazard on the left side of the fariway stretching from the tee box to 320 yards. The hole doglegs left ever so slightly with OB on the right with a big bunker. The landing area if you choose to hit the big daddy is around 30 yards wide. The green is elevated, guarded by a creek to the right that crosses the fairway at 350 yard mark to connect to the big pond on the left. Just left of the green are 2 very deep bunkers.
I was nervous and was not sure what to hit off the tee. But as usual I fully committed to hitting the big daddy. I had visualized this shot the night before. I even visualized the wind in my face, slight shaking of my hands, the smell of the pond and the sounds of ducks singing…My shot was going to be aimed at the left corner of the right bunker with a draw. I nailed the drive with a baby draw 310 yards down the middle. One of my competitor dunked it in the water off the tee and the other dude hit a 3 iron off the tee. Standing over my second shot, I went for the green with my 4 iron. Slight uphill and 200 yards to the pin.
I hit my 4 iron pure flying 10 feet left of the pin and landing 15 feet in front of the cup and the green slopes to the right (towards the creek). The ball seemed to roll like a putt taking a slight break to the right and into the cup for a double eagle!!!
I ended up winning the tournament by 4 shots.
I think the Bulgarian analyst should just practice hard, visualize on passing the exam, and just rip it on test day…who cares about this item set, this many points, etc…just do it!
Perhaps I didn’t used not the correct words. Under “intransparent” I meant issues like you don’t have right to see your exam papers as they are ownership of the CFAI which IMO ties up your hands in a potential dispute with the Institute. “Intrasparrent” is also the practice of setting the MPS - it is like a scheme that is used to keep the passing quote low with no criteria which are disclosed in advance, prominently, in plain language and effectively (to use the CFAI way of disclosing CoI).
Also, based on individual stories read here, disputes where a candidate is reported to have done a violation (e.g., a candidate has reportedly given the appearance of cheating or glancing another candidate’s papers) would almost never consider the opinion of the candidate subject of the accusation. A candidate’s word seems not to have the same weight as the reporter’s word which appears to me unfair.
How can CFA Institute distinguish between candidates who honestly say that they didn’t cheat from those who lie and say that they didn’t cheat?
How do you know that their testimony is “almost never” considered? Perhaps it is always considered, and often discounted as being self-serving (i.e., questionable).
1.If a PCS is initiated,does it always go against the candidate-If not,isn’t it possible that the candidate’s side is considered?
2.Proctors apparently do not have a reason not to be neutral.Candidates do not apparently have a reason to be neutral-If the treatment of two sides is differential,it is not unjust,it is logical.
3.Transparency-How many despcriptive exams,as a percentage of all descriptive exams,do you think,return the evaluated answer sheets?How many of those allow evaluation of disputes arising out of those exam sheets?Again,for evaluation whose version should be final?Student’s or Institute’s?
4.MPS settting process IS subjective,to candidates,the declarations on the website notwithstanding.But do you think it is possible to set a % like 70/65 % for every year ,in advance,especially when part of the exam,at level3 ,is descriptive itself…Or are we ready for high volatility in the percentage of candidates passing/failing each year?Wouldn’t it be better to judge on the basis of relative performnce of candidates in a particular year,based on that year’s paper,or a standard setting,for how should a well prepared candidate perform based on the actual quaetions in a year?Presumably the institute takes pain to do that.And i guess that should be treated as fair?