Isn't it high time we had the Level 2 exam twice in a year?

B

Brainy

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
It is an undeniable fact that the CFAI Level 2 exam is extremely voluminous, just as a longer time prepartion doesn’t necessarily guarantee a pass either. However, waiting a whole year to re-write the exam sometimes doesn’t help a re-sitter, especially those who failed their last attempt in a band 8, 9, or 10. These bands have been speculatively stated to be a ridiculous 5-6 questions, at maximum, from the MPS. So why wait for a whole year to “prepare” to ace just 6 questions?
For the above categories of candidates, I strongly think resitting the exam just a couple of months after their last attempt would be of tremendous help in acing this exam. For one thing, they are still fresh with the materials and just a little brush-up is all that they need.
We might want to argue about the wide length and breadth of the exam, and how having it held twice in a year could make it practically impossible to cover all intended concepts, but let’s remember that sitting for the exam whenever is a matter of choice, so only those who can stand the cold should walk around without clothes in the winter. Only those who think they stand a chance, should boldly resit a couple of months after the last attempt.
 
I think it’s good the way it is currently. It takes a lot more effort to create quality vignettes and questions for Levels 2 and 3, so the quality might be compromised by offering these levels more than once a year (even if only level 2 is offered more).
Frankly, if the MPS is below 70%, that seems generous, given that the curriculum is only challenging in its breadth, rather than its content. Additionally, 70% or lower isn’t anything spectacular–it’s not like we have a cutoff of 90% and those who get 89% are turned away. It’s (possibly) people scoring less than 65% (on a three-choice MCQ exam) who are turned away– if the CFA Institute wants to maintain recognition for a rigorous standard, I think it’s prudent for the Institute to turn away marginal candidates until they are better prepared, whether they missed by 5 or 6 questions, as you said. It also doesn’t seem that ridiculous, because it boils down to a simple fact– you made the cut of you didn’t. It’s not like they arbitrarily choose who passes and fails– that would be ridiculous.
It’s quite possible a marginally prepared candidate barely fails because of a “bad” test day, and it’s similarly possible that a marginally unprepared candidate is passed on by a “good” test day. Either way, they weren’t prepared enough to demonstrate their competency in the material (ideally, a competent candidate shouldn’t fail or pass because they “got the wrong or right test”)…
Basically, I don’t think it’s as simple as 5 or 6 more questions or that anything is “owed” to candidates who just barely miss the passing mark. I don’t think any extra benefits should be given to retakers that aren’t available to fresh candidates for a level (as you suggested the multiple offerings would help retakers ace the exam).
 
Brainy wrote:
It is an undeniable fact that the CFAI Level 2 exam is extremely voluminous, just as a longer time prepartion doesn’t necessarily guarantee a pass either. However, waiting a whole year to re-write the exam sometimes doesn’t help a re-sitter, especially those who failed their last attempt in a band 8, 9, or 10. These bands have been speculatively stated to be a ridiculous 5-6 questions, at maximum, from the MPS. So why wait for a whole year to “prepare” to ace just 6 questions?
For the above categories of candidates, I strongly think resitting the exam just a couple of months after their last attempt would be of tremendous help in acing this exam. For one thing, they are still fresh with the materials and just a little brush-up is all that they need.
We might want to argue about the wide length and breadth of the exam, and how having it held twice in a year could make it practically impossible to cover all intended concepts, but let’s remember that sitting for the exam whenever is a matter of choice, so only those who can stand the cold should walk around without clothes in the winter. Only those who think they stand a chance, should boldly resit a couple of months after the last attempt.
Click to expand...
No.
 
I agree with Brainy. The comment about quality Vignettes being compromised if offered twice a year wouldn’t be affected.
I dont beleive in the recognition of rigorous standards either. If you know the material you’ll pass and it doesn’t matter if it’s offered twice a year.
I passed my actuarial exams and found those exams much harder then the CFA ones and they’re offered twice a year. The quality of the exam and the recognition are not affected.
And the time of Level II is horrible. June. End of April would’ve been sweet. Doesn’t affect the summer months. If offered twice a year I wouldn’t even register for the June exam and would write the December exam.
 
If I am a charterholder I would advocate writing L2 once a year. If I am a L2 candidate who is scared of failing, I would want it to be offered twice a year. Unfortunately, I don’t think the CFAI cares much for the latter. I also have to trust that hard work and intelligence has a way of rising to the top, and will find a way to succeed regardless of the offerings. That being said I will have a vastly different opinion if I end up failing L2 lol
 
Hello Tickersu,
I sincerely doubt if quality vignettes and questions are created some months before the exam, rather I would opine that the CFAI has a massive question bank to pull questions from, and that they only make one or two tweaks to any selected question set for new aspects of the curriculum to be tested. Against this backdrop, conducting the exam twice in a year doesn’t affect things much, if at all it does. The rigorous standard will still be a constant “K”.
Yes, I agree that the CFAI should turn away candidates till they are well prepared and I have not suggested otherwise. However, my position is, some candidates who marginally failed could be “well prepared” just a couple of months after they had failed and do not necessarily need a year for this preparation, so why make them wait any further? Hope this point is clearer now.
Lastly, I haven’t suggested or implied any extra benefits for retakers, rather what I have stated is, some categories of retakers should be allowed to resit the exam if they feel up to it, and any newbie could too if such person so wish. This point can be read in conjunction with that in the second paragraph for a better understanding. In all, I doubt if this sounds like an extra benefit, really.
Thanks.
 
Da_mad_tiki, you are absolutely spot on! Your comment is fair and so unbiased. Thumbs up….
 
Brainy wrote:
Hello Tickersu,
I sincerely doubt if quality vignettes and questions are created some months before the exam, rather I would opine that the CFAI has a massive question bank to pull questions from, and that they only make one or two tweaks to any selected question set for new aspects of the curriculum to be tested. Against this backdrop, conducting the exam twice in a year doesn’t affect things much, if at all it does. The rigorous standard will still be a constant “K”.
Yes, I agree that the CFAI should turn away candidates till they are well prepared and I have not suggested otherwise. However, my position is, some candidates who marginally failed could be “well prepared” just a couple of months after they had failed and do not necessarily need a year for this preparation, so why make them wait any further? Hope this point is clearer now.
Lastly, I haven’t suggested or implied any extra benefits for retakers, rather what I have stated is, some categories of retakers should be allowed to resit the exam if they feel up to it, and any newbie could too if such person so wish. This point can be read in conjunction with that in the second paragraph for a better understanding. In all, I doubt if this sounds like an extra benefit, really.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I think they probably start developing new exam questions when they’ve finalized the curriculum (if new material is needed). If you’ve had the experience of creating exams or exam content, you should be aware that it can take time to develop valid and reliable material that isn’t easy to misinterpret (especially when you try to be considerate of nonnative speakers).

I agree with damadtiki that people who want more offerings are likely to believe they failed the most recent exam…Everyone has the same length of time between the exams, currently– if you could pass with a few more months that’s okay, but you weren’t prepared for the same deadline that everyone else had abide by. If something gets in the way, that’s life, things happen. Why not offer exams quarterly, then? This seems even more congruent with your idea…

Your claim based on speculation (your own words) that missing by 5-6 questions was ridiculous seemed as though you feel these candidates should pass, although, you never said that (probably just the way I interpreted what you said). You then went on to say that “these candidates” who barely fail would receive a “tremendous help” by having another exam coming in 6 months. You mentioned the specific group, and pointed to a benefit, I’m not sure how you weren’t advocating for a benefit for people who barely fail (essentially, implement this policy to benefit the near miss candidates)…

Also, I’m not a charterholder, so I have no incentive to fight this idea. I’m waiting for my Level 2 results. In the end, I’m not too concerned. This is only an exam, and regardless of my performance from this June, I won’t be sitting for another exam at least for a couple years (other interests and opportunities). It’s not a race, and 6 more months isn’t much time.
 
June is a stupid time of year for a finance exam. It’s right in the middle of when projects are trying to get closed for the summer break. February would be much better.
L2 is right at the level of difficulty where you need to take time off to study. This is not acceptable for a regulatory exam, either add another paper, offer more dates or watch another organisation take your role (ciia?).
no I don’t like to study in hotel rooms, or after working 12hr days. probably the unemployed student/housewife candidates don’t care about this.
 
Offering L2 2x/yr makes too much sense for CFAI to do it. Acutarial, CFP, CPA, Prof. Eng, all test multiple times a year, and have flexible test windows, making it much more convenient to prepare and test. CFAI is a organization run by CFA’s, so it’s in the Chart holders self-interest to maintain the exclusivity of the CFA certificate. Offering L2 only 1x/yr is one way maintain exclusivity, and that’s why they do it. There’s no other argument that justifies giving it only 1x/yr when other professional orgs give it mult-x/yr.
 
First time L2 taker here, and I’m fine with the once per year June offering. Makes it more of a challenge and really forces you to be ready come test day.
Really wish they could turn the results around quicker though. This 8 week wait is awful.
 
I will admit, I see the argument that because level 2 is multiple choice it could be offered twice a year. I just think there would be some hurdles to offering another level in December as well. You can’t deny the requirement of setting the MPS for L2 in addition to L1 in December, and they’ll likely need more exam questions to avoid retakers seeing the same questions if a candidate has to sit for one level 3 times in a row (and the questions need to keep current with the curriculum changes, big or small).
I primarily think that 6 more months won’t ruin your life, and I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that would cause the CFA Institute to implement the change. My opinions on this don’t matter– theirs do, though. (Although, I enjoy the discussion.)
 
……………..And the Institute would generate more revenue by doing this too. Though not its primary objective.
 
onlysimon wrote:
no I don’t like to study in hotel rooms, or after working 12hr days. probably the unemployed student/housewife candidates don’t care about this.
Click to expand...
Remember, students would be taking it less than a month after undergraduate graduation, likely while learning the ropes at their new job when their hours are the longest and ability to take time is the lowest.
Regardless, I do think the timing gives an advantage to the wrong people. If you are unemployed/underemployed, a grad student, or someone with an easier job, its much easier to get through the exams. Youd think CFAI would want to show preference to the folks in actual investment oriented roles in any way possible to keep the pool as competitive as possible.
 
hock wrote:
onlysimon wrote:
no I don’t like to study in hotel rooms, or after working 12hr days. probably the unemployed student/housewife candidates don’t care about this.
Click to expand...
Remember, students would be taking it less than a month after undergraduate graduation, likely while learning the ropes at their new job when their hours are the longest and ability to take time is the lowest.
Regardless, I do think the timing gives an advantage to the wrong people. If you are unemployed/underemployed, a grad student, or someone with an easier job, its much easier to get through the exams. Youd think CFAI would want to show preference to the folks in actual investment oriented roles in any way possible to keep the pool as competitive as possible.
Click to expand...
The other side of this is that someone already working in an investment-related role likely has a deeper product knowledge than a student, etc. so they could be more efficient in their studying.
 
Assuming you cross the finish line, someday, your opinion will change. Guaranteed.
#hashtagCFA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top