How do you think the pass rate breaks out?

One does not simply pass the CFA wrote:
I disagree with that assessment. I passed L1 and L2 on the first try with a good margin on both yet failed band 10 L3 last year. I had become a bit lazy in the few days ahead of the exam as I felt confident I knew the material enough to pass. I thought I did well in the exam and was shocked to have failed. This year I upped my game and my studying significantly having experienced failure for the first time and now knowing that I could very well fail and that - at least for me - level 3 was not easier than 2 or 1 as I had thought.
So overall, I think I have an advantage compared to first time takers. I studied harder and better knowing what to expect. I dont see why a first time taker who passed L1 and L2 on the first try should have an advantage over me who had done the same thing before the exam last year. For these reasons I do believe that re-takers have a slight advantage at least and probably a higher passing rate but there are no rules and I am sure that the essay fits some people better than others independently of wether they are re-takers or first takers.
Click to expand...
We’re in about the same situation. I breezed through L1 and L2 and was super confident going in to L3 last year…got stunned though and WAS NOT confident coming out of L3 last year. Ended up band 10 as well. Think I got it this year but never know.
 
I disagree with the assumption that retakers have significantly higher pass percentage than first-time takers. This is just anecdotal, but there are countless charterholders who passed everything on first attempt and also a good number of people who took L3 3 times + and still didn’t pass.
 
Phoenix T. wrote:
Logical - learning twice and considering that the topics does not change should enhance the chances. Refusing to see the logic is a type of behavioral bias… Not sure which?!
Click to expand...
There’s a reason why one does not pass an exam on his or her first try. It can be anything really, but one thing for sure is that all of them are bottom 50% of all who took the test, and by definition, half of them received grades of band 5 or lower. I’m just skeptical how much of knowledge will be retained among those folks. Maybe people who received band 8 or higher might have an edge, but it’s not like people look at the materials all the time throughout the year.
“Benefits” of re-taking the exam are far less compelling compared to level 1 candidates… given a lot people fail due to lower score in AM, but without really knowing why (other than the areas you need to work on), you don’t really know exactly how you should improve your game compared to previous levels. Also, it’s safe to say most people don’t start studying right after they fail when they still have some distant memories of the stuff, and maybe some of them even start later than first-time takers as they “know” the materials better.
I do think people with higher bands are more likely to retake (maybe not, idk), so if the retaker population consists of say 80% of those with bands 7 or higher, then I’d buy into the idea of retakers having a higher chance of passing, but I don’t think that’s the case either. I think most of us would want to finish it regardless of the band you end up.
 
If you’re band 10 and studied harder, you should have an edge and I hope pass…gl
 
I find this quite bovious really. There has to be a slight advantage for re-takers compared to frist-timers. A student who passed L1 and L2 easily and failed L3 has (until now) the same skills as another who passed L1 and L2 easily and is a first time taker of L3 (as that student has not passed or failed he is neither better nor worse to the re-taker).
Now that this is established, the only difference will be studying / preparing for the exam. It is more likely out of 100 first time takers that some students will underestimate or underprepare for the exam while it is less likely for 100 re-takers that some students will underestimate or underprepare it.
Of course there are many more parameters but according to that rational I would bet on a 55% pass for re-takers vs. 45% pass for first-time takers and this applies to all the levels really. It is kind of common sense but I am happy to be proven wrong. Please argue rather than just sharing your “impression”.
 
JDP wrote:
Phoenix T. wrote:
Logical - learning twice and considering that the topics does not change should enhance the chances. Refusing to see the logic is a type of behavioral bias… Not sure which?!
Click to expand...
There’s a reason why one does not pass an exam on his or her first try. It can be anything really, but one thing for sure is that all of them are bottom 50% of all who took the test, and by definition, half of them received grades of band 5 or lower. I’m just skeptical how much of knowledge will be retained among those folks. Maybe people who received band 8 or higher might have an edge, but it’s not like people look at the materials all the time throughout the year.
“Benefits” of re-taking the exam are far less compelling compared to level 1 candidates… given a lot people fail due to lower score in AM, but without really knowing why (other than the areas you need to work on), you don’t really know exactly how you should improve your game compared to previous levels. Also, it’s safe to say most people don’t start studying right after they fail when they still have some distant memories of the stuff, and maybe some of them even start later than first-time takers as they “know” the materials better.
I do think people with higher bands are more likely to retake (maybe not, idk), so if the retaker population consists of say 80% of those with bands 7 or higher, then I’d buy into the idea of retakers having a higher chance of passing, but I don’t think that’s the case either. I think most of us would want to finish it regardless of the band you end up.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I agree with anything you said.
 
I’m just sharing my logic, or “impressions,” and I can be way off. The impetus to write a whole bunch was to call out the 75% retaker pass rate seems to be on the high end of what I can imagine. I was a band 9 level 1 retaker, so if anything, I’m all in for more % of retakers to pass
 
I find it hard to believe someone that cleared level 2 is incapable of passing level 3.. i believe passing the exam comes down to execution and the final 10-20 hours of study which should be spent on organizing your notes and brushing up on weak areas..
someone that is band 8-10 was clearly close and possibly just a single multiple choice question away from a passing score.. neverthless if said person returns next year and makes no changes to their prep and execution the result may likely be the same. Point is that the people who pass are doing something different and it may take some candidates multiple tries to “get it”
 
@JDP
I agree with the argument. I do not think there is a significant accumulation of knowledge between two exams. You tend to forget a lot of it and have to start from the beginning, at least in my case. I believe the real difference however lies in the fact that you are more likely to go the extra mile in your studying fom experience. More importantly you are less likely to underestimate it. My case might be rare but I simply underestimated the exam, I am not like most here, and I had not researched properly the exam so I only did 6 schweser mocks compared to 5 in L2 and 4 in L1. Now I know that on average, sudents do 5 mocks at L1, 6 mocks at L2 and 10 at L3… It’s a big difference and I did that this year. It changes a lot obviously.
So the argument is that I do not think I am the only one who under-researched or under-prepared when taking L3 the first time. This does not apply really to people here who does extensive research but as you can see I just joined the forum and used to peek at it randomly before. I assume I am not the only one n that case but I may be…
 
Everyone who has argued that re-takers have a higher passing rate than first timers thus far has been comparing re-takers to themselves in the prior year. That is not the proper comparison. You should be comparing apples to oranges when in actuality you’re comparing apples to apples from a year ago. Just because re-takers do better than they did the first time they took it DOES NOT mean that re-takers do better than first timers as a group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top