Meet the Bulgarian analyst arguing that the CFA marking scheme isn’t fair

Thanks to all of you for your comments! It’s clear that someone shoud at last speak up about the practice of unfair grading no matter I will be sanctioned or not, no matter I will be dispeled from the program or not.
I am sure that the CFA Institute manipulates these Level 3 exams by controlling the portion of the CFA Level 3 retakers in the poll of Level 3 exam takers. That’s why they try to leave a false impression with the people that the probability of passing the exam is higher that it actually is since the probability of the exam to be passed providing that you’re a retaker is higher. On the other hand it’s money for them. That’s why they speak these very nice statements about the program to drive you to register for the same exam again and again.
 
Is there a worst place than this forum to have a serious debate about how the level 3 exam is graded?
Probably not, and this on account of the ill-assorted, far too polarized panel.
On the right the ones who are still living the orgasm of having been congratulated by the institute. For some the feeling of accomplishment will last few months, for some has not yet faded after years, for some it will last forever.
This cohort of perfectly decent people, when in presence of one who has the impertinence to argue that not all is right with the level 3 constructed response grading, turn into a pack of rabid dogs, their wrath unleashes instantly and has no boundary, no mercy. Their mind admits no doubt: the graders were infallible throughout the month-long grading, there were no inconsistency, no dodgy shortcuts, everything was perfect in this, the most perfect of all possible worlds.
Lest where would their triumph go? that cherished sense of self esteem, that warm, fuzzy feeling? It wouldn’t have the same infinitely sweet taste, would it? Let the orgasm go on. And on. And on. Theirs is a perfectly human reaction, let’s be clear. Only hardly conducive to a critical attitude towards the procedures governing level 3 constructed response grading.
On the left those (me included) who,
- having stared with incredulity at their results for a couple of hours, the words “what the f**k….?” repeated over and over,
- having grieved for a month or so,
- having emerged, scathed but not beaten,
are now bracing themselves for the new onslaught all the while thinking that the relationship among 1) level of curricular competence, 2) performance on exam day and 3) exam result is not as linear as they would have hoped.
In a bullet point - A pointless debate in so far as the distance between two sides of the argument is only going to increase with every post and there is no chance of finding a middle ground.
My two cents’ worth: level 3 constructed response grading sucks. Badly.
But.
If one wants to play at this table one has to go with the house rules and there is absolutely no room for complaints. Absolutely none.
 
an exam with a 50% passing rate, and a candidate pool of L2 veterans? what did/do you expect?
your compaints about the grading were given very special treatment (beyond a retab), so what are you complaining about?
maybe focus on mastering the curriculum and you’ll have plenty to complain to this forum regarding errata, useless authors, bad proofing etc.
 
There’s an undefined critera of personal attributes of CFA level III candidates who are unable to earn the charter and it’s not because they don’t try enough or the CFAI grading practices. I sometime feel it’s the people who “check the box” throughout level I & II and they truly believe they deserve the outcome just because they ran through the motions. Common practice at work, college and life but for some reason Level-III does an excellent job at weeding out this motionless attempt at earnng something they’re probably not (yet) qualified for.
In summary (and in case you missed the point) you just might not have the right criteria to pass and earn the charter. I suggest some serious deep self-reflection contemplating this - you might find that you’re one of these people i’m referencing.
 
When I was in 11th grade, I was in a pre-calculus class. One day the teacher decided to show us a proof that √2 is irrational: the classic reductio ad absurdum proof that’s been around since Euclid’s time.
He reached the end of his (so-called) proof and proclaimed, “There’s your contradiction: the numerator has to be an even number!” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t a contradiction: he stopped two steps too soon. (He had to show that the denominator must also be an even number, and the contradiction is that we had already ensured that the numerator and denominator had no common factors.)
I’ve worked through countless Level III morning exam questions with candidates. Invariably, those who have failed the Level III exam have committed the same error as my high school math teacher: they stop one or two steps short of the point that they’re trying to make, trusting (apparently) that the grader will make the connection.
Graders are specifically instructed not to make the connection: if you haven’t written it, they’re not to infer it.
A perfect example arose a year ago. I got a phone call from a candidate who failed the 2014 Level III exam, largely because of his poor performance on the morning exam; he wanted me to tutor him. We started in January, after the morning questions and answers were published. I told him to continue his studies and, when he felt ready, to reanswer the morning questions. The results were very telling. On one question for which the proper reply was that the client had to earn a higher return on their portfolio, he wrote that the client had to increase their risk tolerance. He knew that by investing in riskier securities they could earn a higher return, and I’m sure that the grader knew that by investing in riskier securities they could earn a higher return, but, unfortunately, the grader didn’t know that the candidate knew this, and the candidate didn’t help the grader to know that.
Time and again, this candidate stopped one or two steps short of the point he was trying to make. And that’s why he failed.
I apparently cured him of this tendency: he passed the 2015 Level III exam.
I suggest that the people who are complaining about the unfairness of the grading policy instead take a long, hard, honest look at how they’ve answered the questions. That’s where they’ll find the reason for failing the exam.
 
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As a former Candidate on CFA Program I cannot be more concerned with something which(for now) looks like careless and unprofessional work of Social Media Team of CFA Institute.
The Original Poster claims that he deliberately left some of AM Session questions blank. The unanswered questions, ostensibly, got non-zero grade. If it is true, it is putting a long and ugly shadow on grading process of other (answered) question of this particular and other Candidates. This kind of shadow, if promoted in media, could well cause severe (even grave) damage to the reputation of CFA Institute and the integrity of CFA Exam (like if the answers are not properly graded, what kind of exam integrity could be at all)?
Fortunately, this kind of event could be easily avoided if professional Social Media Team was at place. For instance, it could be handled this way:
*********************************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************************
Candidate: You gave points to my unanswered question.
CFAI: You are wrong.
Candidate: I am sure I am right.
CFAI: What are the questions which you left blank and got the grades?
Candidate: Question X and Question Y.
CFAI: We are suspending our reply to the day when AM questions are public.
Candidate: I am going to Social Media.
CFAI: No problem.
…
The day after the answers made public…
CFAI: Here is The question X and the first line of your answer (all the answer cannot be learned from the first line). Here is the first line of handwritten answer of question Y. Can you recognize you handwriting, Mr. Candidate?
Case ended and the spotless reputation of CFAI has been restored.
*********************************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************************
What did Social Media people advised to do to CFAI management?
They (as far as I can see from the results in the field) made all the contrary:
  • they engaged in long and pointless discussion making the Candidate angry
  • they did not presented any evident to their position making him more suspicious.
  • at last, they declared the case ended, locking themselves into limbo when he turns to media coverage
Now the case went public. Even if Original Poster does not have resources to manage a full-fledged case against CFAI, many, many people are taking note.
As a AF veteran I can witness that this year and 2014 were unprecedented with the number of Candidates and former Candidates ready to speak up in spite of risk to meet shaming and controversy. It’s obvious: the Level 3 exam in its current format is celebrating its 10 year mark;the number of disenchanted ‘returning’ Candidates who are ready to tell their stories is arriving to its critical mass. Stories like one we read in this thread has been inspiring other people to think over, maybe they will speak up the next year.
Without a clear strategy how to deal with it, you, Charterholders and successful Candidates are in danger that your designation could be smeared with integrity questions. If I was in your shoes I would urge the Institute to refresh its stuff and to bring some real SMM professionals into the picture.
Original Poster,
In the next days (before this thread will be locked or deleted) you are going to get lots of negative response. People who really did not read your case will express their opinion on your IQ, ethic standard and professional ability. You will also see many of the people who will ignore your case and write long and material-unrelated posts telling that CFAI is always right.
It’s all all right. Some of the guys are teaching CFA Curriculum (and therefore their financial well-being is based on if you are ready to retake), the probability to get unbiased reply from them is like a probability to get recommendation to buy Toyota car in Ford dealership. Some others are feel themselves heroes while humiliating other people.
Listen, maybe me and you will never get the Charter. But you know what? In 2006 people who dared to doubt the future of MBS market looked crazy. Big things sometimes is too hard to predict.
To Future Commentators
People who would like discuss my IQ, my career, my track record on CFA Program or to invite me to be engaged in some type of female masturbation (like people did on the thread of my letter to CFA President) please do not think I’ll have time to read it before, say, November: I am far too busy in real life. Look for another victim.
P.S.
I could understand that my case, or that of Bertran or Godism was hard to handle by Social Media people of CFAI: we all made well on PM, failed AM, claimed we knew AM material and that was not way to show us we are wrong without opening our on answers; that was the thing CFAI was not ready for. But the Original Poster’s case is so vivid and so easy to handle… I am still shocked of their amateur approach, really.
 
sharpy606 wrote:
OMG , here we go again !!
Click to expand...
Yes…Any objections to the truth?
…please PM me when you’ll have your next year AM results. Just to see if your motivation has been changed.
 
Again, suppose there is a 10-point essay question. Part A is worth 6 points and part B is worth 4. I get to this question, I have no clue how to answer it, so I leave the entire thing blank. Suppose CFAI “throws out” the 6-point part A because the question is deemed to be unfair or flawed. Do I then have a 6/10 for that question, causing my mark on that question to be greater than 50% ????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top