Were all the tricks legit??

[busprof]

whatsyourgovt wrote:
Test on a more difficult subject, expand the LOS, but don’t fail someone who has put in more than enough hours and understands the subjects simply because the question(s) are written in a vague and ambigious manner. As we see now, what this does is places more of an importance on gaming the test as opposed to outright knowledge of the material.

Writing difficult questions is part of the assessment process. I see a lot of students in my classes who Hoover up all the easy points but miss anything that’s not straightforward. They invariably respond with “I really knew the material, BUT…”. It’s my experience that anything to the left of the BUT can be ignored.
Unfortunately, once you’re out of the classroom, many problems aren’t straightforward, and must be solved in a limited time. So, I think it’s a fair approach.
It would be different if it were a 10-question exam. But over 120 questions, there will be enough variation of scores that CFAI can discriminate between candidates. The people who really know it cold do well on the exam, and the ones who don’t, don’t. The question is what happens to the ones that are in some band around the bubble.
I know someone who was fairly high up at CFAI and was involved heavily with curriculum and testing issues - they spend a LOT of time trying to write questions that are both of the appropriate level of dicciculty and do a good job of separating the sheep from the goats.

 

[cgy5478]

I think in 1 question they actually put the trap in bold to make sure you fall for it.
Very tricky indeed.

 

[meeee20]

haha..sp every1 agrees with that bold quants trap

 

[Would You Look]

The only “trick” i specifically remember was in a table of data needed for a question on the first FRA item set. Other than that, the exam is a blur to me right now…

 

[BobbyBraveheart]

Part of the game is being able to pick out the wrong answers as much as it is picking the right answers. For ethics questions I always ask myself before answering “what would CFAI want me to think”, or if a question I wasn’t sure about in the other sections seemed too obvious and easy then I would literally cross it out and not take it because it’s never that easy with CFA

 

[whatsyourgovt]

busprof wrote:

whatsyourgovt wrote:
Test on a more difficult subject, expand the LOS, but don’t fail someone who has put in more than enough hours and understands the subjects simply because the question(s) are written in a vague and ambigious manner. As we see now, what this does is places more of an importance on gaming the test as opposed to outright knowledge of the material.

Writing difficult questions is part of the assessment process. I see a lot of students in my classes who Hoover up all the easy points but miss anything that’s not straightforward. They invariably respond with “I really knew the material, BUT…”. It’s my experience that anything to the left of the BUT can be ignored.
Unfortunately, once you’re out of the classroom, many problems aren’t straightforward, and must be solved in a limited time. So, I think it’s a fair approach.
It would be different if it were a 10-question exam. But over 120 questions, there will be enough variation of scores that CFAI can discriminate between candidates. The people who really know it cold do well on the exam, and the ones who don’t, don’t. The question is what happens to the ones that are in some band around the bubble.
I know someone who was fairly high up at CFAI and was involved heavily with curriculum and testing issues - they spend a LOT of time trying to write questions that are both of the appropriate level of dicciculty and do a good job of separating the sheep from the goats.

I suppose i am a little jaded given i was one of those bubble boys last year (B9) and spent even more hours this year preparing but am still not 100% i passed.

 

[SimplyAdvised]

Asheru wrote:
Don t you remember that one question of quantitative method was a huge trap? I’m still not sure what the correct answer should be

Quant was the only section I felt certain I got perfect on, so reading this I don’t know what to think. Hard to get to the root of the matter sometimes.

 

[SimplyAdvised]

Sidtoaf wrote:
The exam is designed primarily for professionals already working and don’t have 600 hours of spare time in 6 months. For that reason it has to be kept simple. If you are a full time student with half a brain, I see no reason why anyone should fail this exam.

Here’s the big issue I have. I’m an investment professional and yeah, I don’t have 600 hrs to study, but instead I’m competing against these 22 year olds fresh out of school and unemployed* who can cram for these things like nobody’s business because their studying habits are still fresh and they have no ‘real world’ biases to cloud their judgement, it’s just rote memorization.
*I know you would gladly rather be employed and have less time I’m just speaking to the reality. I do not mean to suggest you’re lazy or unemployment is a choice.