Is Ethics the deciding factor????

[Hanna]

chad.sandstedt wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

chad.sandstedt wrote:For the Level I exam benchmarking program nobody has submitted a failing score on ethics and passed the exam. The benchmarking has been completed for both the June 2012 and December 2012 exams.

Thanks, Chad!
I assume that by a “failing score” you mean below 50%.
Do you know whether this relationship – a failing score in Ethics = failing the exam – is policy, or mere coincidence?

I don’t know if it’s official policy but there seems to be something that prevents a Level I candidate from passing if they receive less than 70% on ethics. For Levels II and III the relationship is strong but people have passed with ethics scores below 70%.

Scoring <70% on ethics didn’t stop me from passing level 1, so I call BS on this one.

 

[nyr4953]

itera wrote:
^ Yes, there is an upside ethics adjustment. This is a Fact.
But saying you will certainly fail with a < 50% score in Ethics is totally False.

I scored <50% for Ethics Level II and received a passing mark. Urban Legend

 

[insight2812]

Someone could use publicly available data (score reports, score posts, etc if this exists) and create a multifactor model to determine pass rates. This would be indicator. Would be interesting to see this across levels. Apply those concepts!
Also, OP: If you “gave” the exam, you would have been a proctor, no? I believe you mean that you “took” the exam or “sat” for the exam?

 

[8EEZBaby]

I can attest to this. My friend scored <50% in ethics in the Level II exam last year and passed. I saw the breakdown myself. In fact he only passed FRA and Equity and failed the rest (<50%) . “MPS” he put that number to the test!!

 

[Lea124]

8EEZBaby wrote:
I can attest to this. My friend scored <50% in ethics in the Level II exam last year and passed. I saw the breakdown myself. In fact he only passed FRA and Equity and failed the rest (<50%) . “MPS” he put that number to the test!!

That means the MPS could not have been higher than 64%.
Edit: never mind, just saw it was Level II.

 

[yabbadabbadoo]

I got above 70 on ethics for L1 and below below 50 on ethics in L2, passed both times.

 

[whystudy]

Most of the time ethics will be the deciding factor. I am surprised none of you guys have even mentioned anything yet especially the CFA charterholders
If you read the guiding principal. You will realize the CFA Insitutite uses the modified Angoff Standard Setting Method. Google and read up on that and how they derive the weight.
Ethics will always be weight heavily thus the MYTH is true; (expected
performance of a just-competent candidate on each question
on the examination.)
“The Angoff method has been used as a criterion for the
establishment of the MPS for the Level I examination since
1996, for Level II beginning in 2005, and for Level III beginning
in 2007. CFA Institute retains independent psychometricians to
conduct standard setting workshops for each exam.
This method involves a large and diverse group of CFA charterholders.
The lead psychometrician divides participants into
two smaller groups for each level of the examinations. Each
participant reviews the entire examination, question by question,
and makes an independent judgment on the expected
performance of a just-competent candidate on each question
on the examination.”
http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/Documents/the_cfa_progra...

 

[VR]

whystudy wrote:
Most of the time ethics will be the deciding factor. I am surprised none of you guys have even mentioned anything yet especially the CFA charterholders
If you read the guiding principal. You will realize the CFA Insitutite uses the modified Angoff Standard Setting Method. Google and read up on that and how they derive the weight.
Ethics will always be weight heavily thus the MYTH is true; (expected
performance of a just-competent candidate on each question
on the examination.)
“The Angoff method has been used as a criterion for the
establishment of the MPS for the Level I examination since
1996, for Level II beginning in 2005, and for Level III beginning
in 2007. CFA Institute retains independent psychometricians to
conduct standard setting workshops for each exam.
This method involves a large and diverse group of CFA charterholders.
The lead psychometrician divides participants into
two smaller groups for each level of the examinations. Each
participant reviews the entire examination, question by question,
and makes an independent judgment on the expected
performance of a just-competent candidate on each question
on the examination.”
http://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/Documents/the_cfa_progra...

In my opinon, this does not seem accurate. The modified Angoff method uses a subjective weighting to help determine the minimum passing score and has nothing to do with the ethics adjustment.
Though each question is given a different weightage in determining MPS, each question carries equal weightage when individual candidate’s answer sheets are graded (only exception being ethics).
Ethics adjustment (according to the institute) affects candidates with scores in a narrow range around the MPS (so it’s after MPS has been established and Angoff plays a role only in establishing the MPS). Scores in this range may be adjusted up or down on the basis of the candidate’s performance on the Ethics section of the exam (this is verbatim from the institute website). Hence this has no connection to modified Angoff method which is a part of the standard setting process.
Also the above ethics adjustment is slightly contrary to what itera believes - that there’s no negative impact if you fail ethics. From the institute’s language it looks like there can be a possible negative impact in that if a candidate is at or within the narrow range of the MPS (for example within +/-0.1% of MPS - this is just a guess I dont know the actual range and I’m pretty sure the range varies each year for each level) and if the candidate scored less than 70% in ethics there’s a chance the score may be adjusted down. This is probably impossible to figure out from looking at the score card.
Otherwise I would agree with itera (and others) that if a candidate is well above the narrow range around the MPS, failing or passing ethics probably bears no relevance. And the institute is generally not punitive in grading so I’m not sure if they actually revise the scrore down based on poor performance in ethics (despite their statements to that effect). Nevertheless it still remains a possibillity.