I saw a job advertisement a while ago asking with a requirement that you must of passed all three exams on the first attempt. Which led me to ask the question, how many people pass all three exams on the first attempt? If you take the passing % from the three exams i sat it would be 0.35*0.41*0.46 = 6.6% but surely if you pass the first two on the first attempt there is a greater chance of passing the third on the first attempt?
forth250 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw a job advertisement a while ago asking with > a requirement that you must of passed all three > exams on the first attempt. Which led me to ask > the question, how many people pass all three exams > on the first attempt? This is lame. > > If you take the passing % from the three exams i > sat it would be 0.35*0.41*0.46 = 6.6% but surely > if you pass the first two on the first attempt > there is a greater chance of passing the third on > the first attempt? As you point out, they aren’t independent events. So the numbers don’t hold. Some people are a lock before they even start. Most aren’t.
So if one were to base it on the posters in AF, the passing rate would be 0.75*0.80*0.90 = 54%!!! Now, this is lame! We need much more information on mortality than what is provided to us currently.
I have been thinking about this just because the 3/3 dbaggery is sooo huge here regarding this “achievement”. The aforementioned 6,6% look rather low but I believe it is even lower. Even though there are some people who are a lock I assume that most of the retakers especially L2 and L3 have a higher percentage of passing the exam than the average first timer. Several of my colleagues and including myself have done L1 and L2 just reading Schweser and hoping for the best which worked out without any failure. L3 is different and I had to learn that this last hurdle isn’t to be underestimated. When you take L3 for the second time u most likely adjusted to the essay stuff more properly and are really determined to kill it coz u don’t wanna wait to get a shot for the third time.
^ +1 My sentiments exactly. The exam’s mortality is actually higher than what is being disclosed. Another example supporting this statement is the fact that CFA does not count people who “give up” studying and neither even appear nor finish the exam.
your formula is wrong. 0.35*0.41*0.46 = 6.6% -> This is the number of test takers in entirety, which includes first timers and non first timers. In other words, your sample space is incorrect, for those quant jocks. You need a percentage based on who is the first time test taker and passed, I feel the 6.6% is too low, Most of my coworkers pass on the first try, 1.5 years and so have I
@ Tanteikun:- Spot on. This is not a perfect sample space which means it is much less than 6.6 percent.
In my case I guess calculation looks like this: % = 0,35 (who passed L1 as me in 2008) * % of those from 2008 L1 who passed L2 in 2009 (this number definitely less than 0,46 because of retakers) * % of those from 2008 L1 who passed L3 in 2010 (again this number is less than 0,49 because of retakers). So this rate will be way below 6,6%. Only CFAI has stats, so only they can calculate this rate accurately.
The number is almost definitely *higher* than 6.6%, given that people who pass L1 (L1 and L2) on the first try are more likely to pass L2 and L3 (L3) on the first try.
The number is higher than 6.6% in my mind. 6.6% can be interpret as the percentage of people who intends to undergo CFA therapy and eventually succeed. Now, substitute that with “number of people who are determined and smart enough to pass on their first try”, it has to be higher than 6.6%. The 6.6% also includes people who simply pass level 1 or level 2 without actually completing the program. A better estimate would be take a look at first time registrants to the exam and see their pass ratio.
use average passing rate for the past 10 years per CFAI’s statistics i.e Level I 39%, Level II 44%, Level III 59%. Assuming conservatively 30% of candidates for each levels are retakers. 39% * 44% * (1-30%) * 59% * (1-30%) = 4.96%
Only 30% retakers? That doesn’t make sense. The passing rate is around 40% for Level 1 and 2. The next year is made up of 70% first timers and 30% retakers? Don’t you think if retakers are only 30%, the passing rate would have to be much higher than 40%? (I understand people may take 2 or 3 years in between each levels), but 70% test takers are new applicants just seem ridiculously high for me given roughly 40% pass. (and the passing rate includes retakers!!!) Thanks.
Agree with ohai, rate is definitely higher than 6.6%. I think more than 6.6% of the population have already made their presence known in the 3 on 3 thread…
i was just trying to simplify the problem, i guess i failed by your standard. anyhow, i think the chance for any candidates start at level 1 and finish level 3 in three consecutive years is < 5%. seems to be higher here, as most people on AF are a lot more motivated…
Let’s step away from the 3/3 pass rate for a sec. The real question I have is, how in the world will these employers even know? There are those who register for L3 and don’t sit for it, but then the next year they do and pass. Is that considered 3/3?
I think we can all agree that 100% of those who pass level III have passed all three levels at least once.
Also have to factor in that it is a more competitive pool as you proceed down the path from Level 1, Level 2, Level 3; many comments here suggest that those with the capability to pass 1 are more likely to pass 2, and 3 respectively and I agree but a counterpoint is that you are successively swimming in a pool of larger fish and this is important because of their grading methodology.
No one denies that the pool is more competitive at each level, but how is this relevant to the discussion?
Because the MPS is not a hard and fast figure but one determined in large part due to the performance of all who take the exam. Obviously.
100 people sit for the level 1.
say 42 pass.
say 60% of these are 1st time takers, 40% retakers.
that makes 42*0.6= 25 1st time passers. These are the new sample.
Of these 25 people taking level 2, I would say 65% (not 45%, remember, these are the smart guys) will pass
that’s 25*0.65=16. These are now the relevant sample.
Of these 16 people taking level 3, I would say 80% (not 55%, remember, these are really the smart guys) will pass
that makes 16*0.8= 13 people who passed all 3 on first attempt
Bayes, anyone?
I think this number (13%) is much closer to the 6.6% discussed above