Scored Above 70% in all CFA programme on CV, Violation (Yes or Not)

[olajideanuoluwa001]

If someone included in the personal statement section of his/her Cv that he/she passed Leve 1/2 of the CFA programme scoring above 70% in all subject area, but clearly indicated that this does not purport superity over others.
Is this allowed or a violation, I need your views.
Thanks.

 

[JDP1845]

My gut instinct is it is not a violation as long as it is factual information, but I am not very confident that I am correct. This is in line with passing all the required exams on the first attempt, but may be too specific?

 

[IHateMyLIFO]

I think as long as you don’t imply (or explicitly state) that passing with above 70% somehow makes you more competent or will deliver better performance because of it, you should be ok

 

[Harrogath]

Indeed it is a violation, you just must say that you passed the CFA I and II exams (not the score in each subject), that is why CFAI does not release exact scores, just bands or intervals. Telling on your CV you passed with 70+ you are implicitly saying you are better than others that also passed but got mixed results.
The thing that you are allowed to say is that you passed the exams on your first try, but it is also not much ethical out the CFAI code of standards (I mean real life ethics and moral).

 

[tickersu]

I don’t believe it’s a violation- you’re making a statement of fact (assuming it’s true). If they explicitly tell you that you passed with +70% for all subjects in the score report, it would be okay to say it (but without implying superiority or better performance).
There is a difference between saying:
1) “I passed Level I and Level II on my first attempts, and I scored >70% in each section both times.”
2) “I passed Level I and Level II on my first attempts, and I scored >70% in each section both times, clearly making me the best candidate.”
Statement 1 is okay- you have simply stated facts that were provided to you by the Institute. It is a fact that you scored at least 70% on those score bands– that is a statement you can make.
Statement 2 is not okay because it has the implication of being better due to your performance. You can’t verify this “best” candidate statement– it’s not factual and it is misleading.
If you look at any of the other resume threads on AF, some people ask if it is rude or arrogant to say “passed with >70% in each section”– none of the replies (that I recall) state that this is a violation, simply because it isn’t.

 

[IHateMyLIFO]

If that’s true, it doesn’t make much sense why CFAI would allow one and not the other. Saying you passed on your first attempt is equivalent to saying that you scored above 70% on each section, in terms of implying that you are better than others IMO.

 

[tickersu]

Harrogath wrote:
Indeed it is a violation, you just must say that you passed the CFA I and II exams (not the score in each subject), that is why CFAI does not release exact scores, just bands or intervals. I don’t think this is why the Institute only releases score intervals. If they gave exact scores, they might have to explain why someone with a 67% passed (strong ethics) and a 69% failed (very poor ethics). The exact scores might tempt people to make an ordinal ranking (as you have suggested), but this could be done with scoring bands as well (# of topics above 70%, for example, although, not as granular). An exact score would also allow people to estimate the MPS with higher certainty than we have now; it would also (likely) lead to more candidates insisting their paper was incorrectly graded if they missed the MPS by a fraction of a percent (for example).
Telling on your CV you passed with 70+ you are implicitly saying you are better than others that also passed but got mixed results. Where is the subjectivity in saying “I achieved >70% in every section for both exams,”–assuming it is a true statement? If you want to say that this is implying someone is better, you certainly would think that saying, “I passed all levels on my first attempt,” is implying someone is better than those who took more than one attempt. However, we know that this statement is allowed if it’s truthful.
The thing that you are allowed to say is that you passed the exams on your first try, but it is also not much ethical out the CFAI code of standards (I mean real life ethics and moral). Again, using your logic, how doesn’t this statement imply “being better” than those who didn’t pass on the first try?

 

[tickersu]

IHateMyLIFO wrote:
If that’s true, it doesn’t make much sense why CFAI would allow one and not the other. Saying you passed on your first attempt is equivalent to saying that you scored above 70% on each section, in terms of implying that you are better than others IMO.

I agree with you. I believe Harrogath is mistaken.

 

[Harrogath]

If you passed the exams, then you passed the exams, which means you are qualified as a CFA level 1,2,3 passed. Why would you explicitly tell in your CV you passed on your first try and/or you scored 70+ in all topics? That would implicitly say that you believe you are better than others that also passed the exam but got mixed results. So better try to do not write it on your CV. However, if the recruiter or future boss asks you in the interview how well you went on the exams of course you have total right to disclose it, but only in that case. (Here the public and private disclosure difference of such a things)
Telling you passed on your first try is the most common case because it emphasizes the fact that you achieved exam-passes in lesser time, obviously without implying you are better than others because of that. If you passed, then you passed…period.
I assure you that no one writes 70+ on their resume.

 

[Harrogath]

I understand you guys, that’s not a violation because the code does not talk about that directly, but it can go very close to a violation of professional ethics in my opinion even out of the CFAI code; and it looks totally bad for me (I mean writting it on your cv, obviously you can comment it to anyone you want but care about the situation you are involved).
I encourage candidates or passed candidates to do not write it on their cvs, hope you all understand.

 

[SHoot85]

Harrogath wrote:
If you passed the exams, then you passed the exams, which means you are qualified as a CFA level 1,2,3 passed. Why would you explicitly tell in your CV you passed on your first try and/or you scored 70+ in all topics? That would implicitly say that you believe you are better than others that also passed the exam but got mixed results. So better try to do not write it on your CV. However, if the recruiter or future boss asks you in the interview how well you went on the exams of course you have total right to disclose it, but only in that case. (Here the public and private disclosure difference of such a things)
Telling you passed on your first try is the most common case because it emphasizes the fact that you achieved exam-passes in lesser time, obviously without implying you are better than others because of that. If you passed, then you passed…period.
I assure you that no one writes 70+ on their resume.

you undoubtedly wouldn’t care, but you come off quite bitter/jealous/insecure. there is no violation here. if there was a violation it would be extremely easy for CFAI to adopt this example in the curriculum as it’s undoubtedly been thought of before, but I cannot recall such an example.
i personally scored over 70 in all subject areas for level 1, but i PERSONALLY wouldn’t disclose such on my cover letter b/c it does come off a little “try hard/arrogant”. that doesn’t mean it’s a violation. if you’re comfortable with it, and you’re okay with the fact that some employers might actually reject you specifically b/c you mentioned/included that b/c you may come off as a d-bag, then by all means go for it.
i also see no difference in terms of what one is conveying between this and passing on first attempts. they are both pretty impressive feats imho, but better kept to oneself as a source of confidence/pride.

 

[tickersu]

Harrogath wrote:
If you passed the exams, then you passed the exams, which means you are qualified as a CFA level 1,2,3 passed. If the Institue says you passed with each section above 70%, then you passed with each section above 70%– not seeing any difference here.
Why would you explicitly tell in your CV you passed on your first try and/or you scored 70+ in all topics? I wouldn’t, but we’re not discussing why someone would do that. We’re discussing that you claimed it to be a violation, when it isn’t.
That would implicitly say that you believe you are better than others that also passed the exam but got mixed results. Your logic is incomplete, because you claim this can’t extend to the “passed on first attempts” statement.
So better try to do not write it on your CV. Agreed, but for different reasons. However, it’s perfectly within the rules to do so if it is true.
However, if the recruiter or future boss asks you in the interview how well you went on the exams of course you have total right to disclose it, but only in that case. (Here the public and private disclosure difference of such a things) You’re making up your own rules, my friend. You can disclose it, in public or in private, however your score bands appeared from the CFA Institute.
Telling you passed on your first try is the most common case because it emphasizes the fact that you achieved exam-passes in lesser time, obviously without implying you are better than others because of that. If you passed, then you passed…period. And if you passed with everything >70% you passed with everything >70%, period. But, you can easily make an argument that someone who passed in less time is implying they are “more capable”, the same way you’re arguing that someone who says they passed with >70% in everything is implying they are “more capable”.
I assure you that no one writes 70+ on their resume. Some people on this forum have said that they do or that they intend to, so I wouldn’t go making blanket assurances. I think it is unlikely for people to do it for two reasons: 1) most people don’t have the option to write >70% in every section (especially over multiple levels) and 2) people who have the option to write it probably see it as having the potential to rub others the wrong way (arrogance, pomp, etc.)

 

[tickersu]

Harrogath wrote:
I understand you guys, that’s not a violation because the code does not talk about that directly, but it can go very close to a violation of professional ethics in my opinion even out of the CFAI code; It doesn’t have to be explicitly stated in the code, but it’s not even implied. In fact, the code implies that (complete) objective and factual statements can be made in this circumstance (i.e. passed on first attempt). Unfortunately, your version of professional ethics isn’t what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the CFAI code and standards.
and it looks totally bad for me (I mean writting it on your cv, obviously you can comment it to anyone you want but care about the situation you are involved).
I encourage candidates or passed candidates to do not write it on their cvs, hope you all understand. I certainly understand your concern. I can easily see someone being careless in how they present the “>70%” info on their resume/cv.

 

[Harrogath]

The other fact, and yes, it is a fact, we didn’t talk about is what 70%+ in all subject means.
For example, let’s guess you scored 70+ in all subjects, but no one knows, even neither you what exact % score you got. You maybe got barely 71-75 in all subjects. But another candidate that got 5 topics 70+ and 5 topics 50-70 could have gotten in the 50-70 zone 68 - 70 score and in the 70+ zone 95 - 100 score.
Who is better? The correct answer is none of both. They both passed, that’s what I want you all to understand. Saying 70+ means nothing, could be misleading due it is not a factual or certain information. And if you trying to differentiate yourself from the rest of candidates, you just doing wrong.

 

[IHateMyLIFO]

Harrogath wrote:
The other fact, and yes, it is a fact, we didn’t talk about is what 70%+ in all subject means.
For example, let’s guess you scored 70+ in all subjects, but no one knows, even neither you what exact % score you got. You maybe got barely 71-75 in all subjects. But another candidate that got 5 topics 70+ and 5 topics 50-70 could have gotten in the 50-70 zone 68 - 70 score and in the 70+ zone 95 - 100 score.
Who is better? The correct answer is none of both. They both passed, that’s what I want you all to understand. Saying 70+ means nothing, could be misleading due it is not a factual or certain information. And if you trying to differentiate yourself from the rest of candidates, you just doing wrong.

You’re right, no body actually knows the score they got, so one person who got 70+ on all topics could have a vastly different score from someone else who got 70+ on all topics. And yes, we all understand that no one is “better” because of getting 70+, but stating or writing this is factual and not misleading (unless someone lies and says they got 70+ when they didn’t). Bottom line is that the choice is left up to the candidate or charterolder, although it could, of course, be taken the wrong way.

 

[tickersu]

Harrogath wrote:
The other fact, and yes, it is a fact, we didn’t talk about is what 70%+ in all subject means. It’s quite simple, really. It means you scored at least greater than 70% correct in every subject– nothing more, nothing less.
For example, let’s guess you scored 70+ in all subjects, but no one knows, even neither you what exact % score you got. You maybe got barely 71-75 in all subjects. But another candidate that got 5 topics 70+ and 5 topics 50-70 could have gotten in the 50-70 zone 68 - 70 score and in the 70+ zone 95 - 100 score. This is precisely why any comment about exam performance cannot exceed what is reported to you by the Institute– it is limited to the score bands.
Who is better? The correct answer is none of both. In the Institute’s eyes, they both passed, so they are equal. If you had the precision of knowing the exact scores, some people might say the candidate who has less volatility is better, and other people may say the candidate with the higher raw score is better. The Institute, would still tell you they are equal (so this is the interpretation I choose to guide myself if needed).
They both passed, that’s what I want you all to understand. This wasn’t a point of misunderstanding…
Saying 70+ means nothing It means you scored >70% in all sections.
could be misleading due it is not a factual or certain information. It could be misleading if you misrepresent it. However, if the Institute gives you this information in your score report, it is absolutely factual and certain (your score band is known with certainty by the CFAI). You just can’t say anything beyond what the band tells you with certainty.
And if you trying to differentiate yourself from the rest of candidates, you just doing wrong. So, again, with your logic is it also wrong to differentiate yourself by saying “passed on first attempt”.
The bottom line is that the Institute disagrees with your interpretation of this being a violation. That is all that matters.

 

[tickersu]

IHateMyLIFO wrote:

Harrogath wrote:
The other fact, and yes, it is a fact, we didn’t talk about is what 70%+ in all subject means.
For example, let’s guess you scored 70+ in all subjects, but no one knows, even neither you what exact % score you got. You maybe got barely 71-75 in all subjects. But another candidate that got 5 topics 70+ and 5 topics 50-70 could have gotten in the 50-70 zone 68 - 70 score and in the 70+ zone 95 - 100 score.
Who is better? The correct answer is none of both. They both passed, that’s what I want you all to understand. Saying 70+ means nothing, could be misleading due it is not a factual or certain information. And if you trying to differentiate yourself from the rest of candidates, you just doing wrong.

You’re right, no body actually knows the score they got, so one person who got 70+ on all topics could have a vastly different score from someone else who got 70+ on all topics. And yes, we all understand that no one is “better” because of getting 70+, but stating or writing this is factual and not misleading (unless someone lies and says they got 70+ when they didn’t). Bottom line is that the choice is left up to the candidate or charterolder, although it could, of course, be taken the wrong way.

I was typing my last post and after I posted, I saw that you and I both ended with a “bottom line” statement… Harrogath must be using subliminal mind tricks to put us into a similar thought pattern haha

 

[JayWill]

In my opinion, it would not be a violation of the Code and Standards nor would I consider making such a statement unethical, assuming it was factual. However, would it be appropriate given even the small chance that it could mislead the public? I’m not so sure. I’d say the wording would have to be constucted very carefully to be completely clear, and provide some basis for the reason the statement is being made in the first place that goes beyond appearing superior or smarter. Something like “… which is a testament to his/her strong work ethic and dedication to a task”.

 

[Harrogath]

Tickersu you replied: “It means you score at least 70% correct in every subject - nothing more, nothing less”
That would be correct to say. Have you ever said “I at least scored 70% on every subject”? I guess not, you surely have said I got 70+ on each subject which is wrong, and misleading. If CFAI tells you that info is just for your personal insights and for future study strategies. You can share it, but please do not give such importance to that, is stupid lol. You just passed the exam and a 50-70 score candidate could have better final score than you, it is totally possible.
And please do not write between lines, that is not the correct way to make a reply. Formulate and idea, write a paragraph and I will do the same. This forum does not allow to copy and paste your writtings, ok? Thanks.

 

[SHoot85]

Harrogath wrote:
Tickersu you replied: “It means you score at least 70% correct in every subject - nothing more, nothing less”
That would be correct to say. Have you ever said “I at least scored 70% on every subject”? I guess not, you surely have said I got 70+ on each subject which is wrong, and misleading. If CFAI tells you that info is just for your personal insights and for future study strategies. You can share it, but please do not give such importance to that, is stupid lol. You just passed the exam and a 50-70 score candidate could have better final score than you, it is totally possible.
And please do not write between lines, that is not the correct way to make a reply. Formulate and idea, write a paragraph and I will do the same. This forum does not allow to copy and paste your writtings, ok? Thanks.

dude, you need to learn how to separate OPINION vs. FACT.
FACT: Nowhere does CFAI state that writing on your resume/CV that you passed Level 2 with all subject areas of 70% or more is in violation of the Code.
FACT: CFAI gives a million examples of what DOES violate the code, and this is not one of them.
OPINION: you don’t think it’s a good idea to do so.
OPINION: you don’t think someone who passed with 70 or more says anything about the candidate’s performance on the exam relative to others.
OPINION: you don’t think anyone should/would want to give this info in public.
please recognize the difference; it’s not hard to grasp. these are not violations, but not all people are the same as you or have the same values, and are free to do as they wish if they are not in violation.