haebooty:
Nightmare55:
bchad:
Nightmare55:
I am difinetley talking about a Phd in finance. I saw my friend taking it in 3.5 years and how smoothly it went without even half of the stress encountred with level 2 exam.
I raised this point here because alot is comparing CFA to MBA which I found it overly unfair.
So again, as for a Finance Phd, and talking mainly about Obtainability, CFA is harder to obtain. A finance Phd guy researching one topic under the supervision of a professor will not fail in most cases. While charterholders, many of them, fail level 2 and three quite often and some of them faild level 1 even before they earn the charter.
A question: what would you say when some charterholders spent about 6 years to obtain it?
The CFA does not require you to do original research (if anything, original thought hurts you on the exam, it’s designed to be about performing rote types of analyses commonly performed by investment analysts and portfolio managers). One of the reasons Ph.D. folk sometimes have difficulty on the CFA exam is that they know enough that they can talk themselves out of the correct answer because of additional knowedge that they obtained in their studies (experienced analysts also have this problem sometimes). Overthinking also interferes with time management, so in some ways it helps to be newer to the material, because you don’t have so many alternative ways of looking at things.
The hard part of a Ph.D. program is creating, defining, and testing new knowledge in the field. That’s defniitely harder than doing the CFA exam, hands down.
Getting a dissertation defense committee to actually read your stuff and agree to meet on a common day at a common time is also harder than CFA prep.
A Ph.D. finance student is usually finished with all the kinds of knowledge in the CFA program by the time he or she takes their comprehensive examinations (sometimes an oral examination as well). That’s usually at the end of 2 years or possibly 3. The material is frequently more in-depth than the stuff on the CFA exam, certainly the quantitative stuff tends to be. It may not cover some of the things like ethics or investor policy statements.
The CFA is designed to be done while you are holding down a job. That means that you have to find free time to study, which is difficlut, but you are not usually a poor student while you are doing it.
They are both difficult processes, but to say “the CFA is harder because you do it in 3 years instead of 6” is just amazingly bad analysis.
Starting with your last sentence which appeared to be quoting me. Well, I didn’t say this or implied so. I was simply saying that Obtaining the CFA charter is more difficult since you may fail even if you crammed like hell unlike Phds who don’t usually fail.
I know what Phd guys do. And what you said regarding that they go through all CFA materials with more depth is completely nonsense and inaccurate, unless you are talking about very few universities in the world which should be consiedered outliers. I don’t know any Phd program that requires you to master 16 or 17 books.
In addition, Phd guys have main focus is on their thesis not on each and every investment tool as in the CFA charterholder. I know people who received their Phds without reading one word about derivatives or fixed income yet they are called now Doctors.
Moreover, the level of stress that you encounter during you CFA studies is more likely to add to its difficulty which we don’t see it with most of Phd guys who’ve got enough time to make their research.
Finally, that was my point of view and you have yours.
You are an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about. I have a phd from the University of Michigan, in addition my wife, friends, family members and collegues have them in Economics as well as the hard sciences from other top programs (Caltech, MIT, University of California, Oxford, etc.) and the two processes are not even remotely comparable, any statement otherwise shows your complete ignorance on the topic as to what it takes to graduate with a phd from a respectible program.
At my wife’s work in her department of the US Treasury, no one has failed any of the CFA exams and for the first test most rarely study beyond 30 hours or so. While the later two require more preporation and study, the first one is trivial if you have half a brain and any sort of work experience or education.
Your statement about most people finishing once in a phd program is also patently false as large numbers of people are weeded out and fail to graduate with the degree they orignially enrolled to pursue. This however, might not be true at lower tier universities where, not to sound pretentious, but, getting a phd from is largely valueless. The value of a phd is highly contigent on many factors including school, department, adviser, resulting publications, etc., unlike the CFA which is uniform. Even within a single university degrees might be highly valueable in department and not in another.
While on the topic of education, some previous posts mentioned MBAs. Having taken MBA courses and being knowledgeable of the programs, most MBAs are trivial degrees to obtain even in top programs much less others; they are usually composed of dumbed downed verisons of more rigorous courses in other departments and their value stems from social connections developed while in them. I do not say all are trivial since certainly some tracks in some programs are rigorous and represent a significant achievement to obtain, but these are certainly a small minority. The most difficult thing about most programs is getting accepted and once in simply require time, money, and an ability to tolerate the most obnoxious people you will ever meet as classmates.
[editted to include the quote]
at your wife’s work no body failed CFA exams from first attemp and nobody studied beyond 30 hours!
I met a lot of fools…but you are literally the foolest ever
Vandelay_Industries:
JonathanC:
I don’t think anyone expects employers to value the CFA Charter over real world experience. After all how can anything get done properly if people don’t have experience actually doing things on the job and in the real world? Banking/Finance is a mentorship industry and young entrants need to demonstrate that they can work with the fundamentals of finance so mentors (who are capable of teaching) can help young grads develop real world skills.
What holding that Charter, or being a L1, L2, or L3 candidate/graduate really does is give entry level candidates an advantage over those who do not have these accomplishments. That’s the purpose of education, really. In this day in age when competition is fierce for University graduates, the ability to demonstrate commitment and general intellect as well as a basic understanding of finance fundamentals, there is a healthy balance between too little education and too much.
The CFA is definitely not too little nor is it too much. It’s a well respected deisgnation that turns heads and makes candidates stand out from those who have chosen not to engage in learning more about the finance realm. Not doing it will most ceretainly not make opportunities in the finance realm intangible for new grads, but may limit their candidacy for those roles that offer more room for career advancement.
so you are suggesting that th CFA only be used as a distinguish credential of effort/aptitude for entry-level positions, similar to a college degree? Perhaps that is true, but it doesn’t seems like many people get it that early. In fact, with 4 year work experience requirement it’s not even possible to have it without work first.
I think most candidiates/pursuers of the charter hope that it does count for some real-world work experience. Otherwise, what would be the point? If the person with 3 years more experience than you ALWAYS got the job, the CFA would be a total waste of time. People would just sit and bide their time and let their experience accumulate. Instead, they believe getting the CFA can expedite the process somewhat and count for a few years experiece
I am not quite sure if i understand your comments fully because it seems to me a bit contradicting.
So as we can see in the exam rooms, there are many university students attempting the CFA to get recognized and hopefully get a foot in the industry, this is unarguably the largest population in the exam room (as least a significant portion).
And for experienced professionals, i think you have to distinguish or evaluate their experience, many people have worked in “business” or just working in general for a long time doesnt’ necessarily mean they have better credentials than someone with a CFA charterholder in the eyes of an ibank/ asset mgmt firm, etc. So i guess the appropriate question is if CFA charterholder a substituate to relevant work experience.
And i think the answer is no. if the job requires a CFA and would screen OUT any candidates with out a CFA charter, then that job is likely an entry level job.
If you have relevant work experience and apply for something more meaningful you are likely hired by referrals and you can’t subsitute that with a CFA charter, IMHO.
Auburn
May 13, 2015, 4:20pm
#103
Let’s accept for the moment that Nightmare55 is correct and that PhDs from “respectable” universities (I assume in Finance, right?, we’re not talking comparative gender studies here) require much more than the CFA. Fine. Big difference is that after toiling in academe for 6+ years, for the most part teaching bored and ignorant undergrads (yes even at Michigan!!) while trying to find some dust pocket around which to create a dissertation headed for an obscure publication and read by only 10 other people in world (less than poetry!), the PhD (even from a “respectable” university) ends up fighting for non-tenure track adjunct positions in 4th rate rural universities or community colleges and makes less than $30K per year. The starting salaries of non-respectable MBA programs are at least this amount, take a LOT less time, and have a reaonsably quick payback. Most hapless CFA Charterholders end up with much more.
Maybe a sprinkling of PHDs end up at the Treasury and live useful lives, but the majority seem to me to live the quintessential lives of “quiet desperation.” Looking down one’s nose at the CFA or the MBA is pretty much stock in trade for PhDs floundering in their own self-embellishments, as they have no money.