When I was prepping for LIII (again) AIMR sent some reps to my city and I asked the question 'On average how many tests have recent new charterholders sat for?' I recall the answer was a bit over 4 because at that time I rejoiced that I was still above average. I said 4.5 but it was probably around 4.2-4.3. Funny thing about that LIII exam. I crammed heart & soul and failed that year. The next year I barely cracked the books, literally only reviewing my previous year notes over 1-2 days. I almost didn't take the test at all but decided to sit given that the exam was being held almost next door to my flat and I had already paid for it - figured I could just walk out if it was obviously a waste of time. Was stunned to find out I had passed. The difficulty of the exams varies dramatically from year to year, so perseverence pays off.
Thanks for the reply. Regarding year to year comparisons, what happens, I've been told, is that there is a targeted pass rate of X%. Some years, when the pass rate is very low, the curve is is lowered the following year (so as not to discourage us tuition paying candidates). At that time, there are also many repeat takers, so in that year the pass rate is too high, and the curve gets raised the next year.
Maybe this CFA studying is going to the brain, but wouldn't this just be the pass rate at each level multiplied times one another? so roughly: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 12.5%
...than 12 hours to D-day! Then you can test do some hypothesis testing on me. Will I behave my self tomorrow night and not get totally annihilated. REJECT THE NULL!!
what a joke, that whole organisation is like a big bettyford clinic meeting, i think they pass out big nuggets of prozac at the door......i read what the curriculum is supposed to include for all of the levels, seemed to be very basic stuff, i dont know for a fact, so dont take my word as gospel, but any organisation who advocates 'astrologcal finance' as a valid means of analysis is one that i have trouble allocating validity to...