Candidates must obtain a minimum passing score (MPS) of 70% on the CFA Level I multiple-choice questions, a minimum score of 65 to 70% on the multiple choice questions of the CFA Level II exam, and a minimum passing score (MPS) of 60% on the multiple choice questions of the CFA Level III exam. Unfortunately, the CFA Institute does not disclose the official minimum passing score (MPS), which varies from exam to exam. We understand why the CFA Institute does this. Simply put, the minimum passing score (MPS) is the lowest score a candidate can get and still pass their CFA exam.
It is not published by the CFA Institute. This should not be confused with the CFA pass rate that is published annually, which is normally lower and represents the percentage of candidates who passed a particular exam. There are no approval scores by specific topic. Therefore, whenever your overall score exceeds the minimum passing score, you must approve.
In the early days, the MPS was a simple formula: 70% of the candidate with the highest score that year. If the candidate with the highest score obtained 90%, the MPS would therefore have 70% * 90% = 63%. Some candidates continue to mistakenly believe that this is the method used to determine the MPS today. Currently, the MPS is determined using a personalized methodology designed by the CFA Institute, and one of the main contributions is a series of workshops based on Angoff model.
Therefore, he overlooks being better than what the CFA Institute defines as a “simply competent” candidate. This may be indirectly influenced by the performance of candidates who take the same exam as you, but it's definitely not a determining factor. Therefore, comments such as “reducing the curve” are not exactly accurate. The position of the CFA Institute is that accreditation programs are designed to measure whether a candidate has the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to perform a certain job function.
They are not designed to indicate relative performance within those skills. The MPS may vary slightly from year to year depending on the difficulty of the questions asked; it is designed to be a coherent reference point for the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities. Releasing the MPS would focus on overcoming a specific “score”, rather than acquiring the knowledge necessary to function as a competent financial professional. Will the CFA Institute change this policy in the future? So why do we calculate the MPS? To estimate the MPS, we analyzed thousands of real, detailed and self-reported candidate results.
We could deduce the MPS considering extreme cases, that is, our method, in our opinion, was quite solid and increased in precision the more cases we had to analyze. Although the results are now presented differently, we have developed a new method for estimating MPS. We prefer to keep things under wraps for now, but we believe that our new methodology is just as robust, if not better, than our previous method. While we've seen some evidence that the CFA Level 1 approval score is returning to the long-term average, we would be cautious about recommending a lower MPS as a goal until more data points emerge. If you're preparing for level 2 of the CFA, I advise you to aim for a high passing score.
Don't rely on MPS being low; these days it seems unlikely. We will not get as many data points yet, since level 2 exams are held three times a year, but in future exams we will see that a pattern is emerging and we will see if the CFA Institute is right to say that it is temporary. But to be more sure, be sure to try to get a slightly higher score for your simulations. All exams are developed using psychometric data based on industry best practices and detailed exam plans.
The difficulty of individual exams may vary slightly, and we adjust the minimum passing score to compensate for this, but usually the adjustments needed are small, usually just a few points. The degree of difficulty of the May exams was the same as that of the previous exams, and this is the case whether we focus on paper tests or computer tests, which we introduced in February of this year for Level I. Computer tests are neither more difficult nor easier than paper tests. We use robust statistical analysis and processes to ensure that “requirements remain unchanged in each exam administration”, and we use well-established techniques by psychometrics to ensure that the exam is neither easier nor more difficult, since it is performed in a computer environment.
In our transition to computer testing, we did our best to ensure the continued integrity of the CFA exams and statutes. In short, computer testing isn't harder or easier. Computer-based CFA exams are not the same for all candidates, so the difficulty of individual exams may vary. When this happens, the MPS is also adjusted for that particular test.
Our MPS estimate is an added value, so your MPS may be higher or lower than our estimate “normally by a few points”. Therefore, you may be right to think that the MPS is higher for you. To continue this research, we need your help estimating the MPS of future exams for each level. We understand the trust you place in us when you do so and we will not share your information with anyone else and will only use it for anonymous analysis to continue to help current and future CFA exam candidates. Is there an estimate of the 90th percentile score? Can you share 90% of level 3 exams? It's impossible to have 90th percentile estimates for level 3 because the institute doesn't provide detailed results to candidates who have passed, only to those who don't.
Thanks for the detailed explanation ???? I have sent several follow-up emails asking for a review of my results. Has anyone been able to take a look? What is the MPS estimate for the Feb. 22 CFA level 1 exam? On January 19, I submitted my Level 2 grades to be evaluated. I was wondering how long it normally takes to receive a response from you.
Today I resubmitted my level 3 result. Could you send me a comment? Since this is an estimate, we try to include the value that is closest to what we estimate. If that value is between 66% and 67%, our best estimate is 66.5%. Suppose that the MPS for L2 is 72%, it means that we will pass it if more than 72% answer out of a total of 88 questions (AM+PM), that is, 88 questions (a.m.
+p.m.) according to you, will getting 75 correct answers help me pass my CBT level 2 exam? I already took my exam in November and I assume that 80% of the questions I answered are correct, so, in your opinion, is it enough for me to pass it? Honestly, no one knows for sure. If I had to guess, I'd say that assuming your 80% score is correct, you'd be fine. What is your estimate for getting a 90th percentile score on the August L2 exam? So, the estimated 90th percentile score for level 1 and level 2 on August 22 on August 22 is 79 percent? What is your estimate for getting a 90th percentile score at level 1 in August? Our 90th percentile estimate for the L1 on July 21 is 80%. I think it's pretty clear that the CFA is increasing the approval rating to generate more candidates and, therefore, more revenue.
They have recognized that their behavior leads to obtaining a CFA pass (especially if the level becomes a Veblen asset) (the higher the “price”, the greater the demand). By “price” I mean the cost and effort required. It's extremely disappointing that an organization like this has focused on profits rather than on genuinely educating its members in a fair way. The CFA could argue that the changes are only about raising standards, but would they continue with this strategy if the number of candidates were reduced? I highly doubt it.
So what can we do with this strategy? Our only option is to get rid of the CFA until they realize the candidates' needs. It's worth keeping in mind that the CFA Institute isn't just dedicated to exams. I have served on the board of directors of my local CFA corporation, so I have a bit of experience in this area. Even if one starts from the assumption of maximizing benefits, simply increasing MPS wouldn't make much sense in the long term. Raising the profile and prestige of CFA statutes should (and is) the goal of the CFA Institute, which generates demand for examination and certification.
The CFA Institute didn't publish the score reports in PDF format for the candidates who passed the third level on May 21; I'm not sure why. This is the first time this has happened. Retabulation is no longer available using computerized tests, since retabulation is just a new verification of your scores. Since they are now all done by computer, the concept of retabulation is redundant. I'm afraid there's no option for reconsideration.
The CFA Institute has taught us that the MPS is adjusted for each individual exam, so your MPS may differ from our estimates, which are aggregated values. You lost a lot of credibility after this L3 MPS estimate. Not even close, at least you raised it by 4%, but you still went down. In my opinion, misleading candidates with these “estimates” should only be avoided in the future.
Everyone should strive to achieve more than 75% and forget about the rest. We do what we can given what we have. If you read the full article, you'll see that the CFA Institute is now adapted to individual exams. So technically everyone has a different MPS. We have reviewed many doubtful cases, so we know that there are specific cases in which the MPS can exceed up to 5% with respect to our estimate, but by publishing a range, for example,We decided to establish a number that fits most cases and that will continue to be useful in the future.
We've always tried to make it clear that our MPS estimates aren't something to “aim for” on practice tests, especially if you're at the third level and you add essay questions where pretty much anything can happen. You mentioned that technically everyone has a different MPS. May I ask which CFA article you are referring to?Thank you. That MPS estimate for level 3 on May 21 is definitely wrong.
Please review it. Why do you think our estimate is inaccurate and what do you think is a more accurate estimate? As mentioned in the article, each exam has an individually adjusted MPS, so it's likely to be different for each particular case. Our estimate is an added value. Today I didn't pass Level 3 right in the MPS, do you think this breakdown is below 55%? I couldn't understand how the candidates know that the contents of their exams are different from each other. I suppose that's unless they've revealed the contents of the exam to each other.
However, I believe that this also violates the codes and professional ethics of the CFA. He trusted his methods for determining the MPS, but his estimate for level I could change from 72.5% to 74% (which is a big jump) without clearly stating the reason for it. In addition, the lack of transparency about the new methods used to calculate the MPS increases my doubts. If I send you my grades, can you give me an estimate of my grade? Of course, in exchange for a fee, I think the MPS exceeds 70% for this exam.
The MPS was also close to the 90% percentile. Do you think I should approve it with the results I have obtained? If so, would it be worth asking for retabulation? I have also responded to your email. Please do not use our MPS estimate as a basis for asking the CFA Institute to request a new tabulation. It won't work: our MPS estimate is an estimate.
I would expect those percentages to translate into a passing grade, unless they gave each category an MPS, which I've always heard they don't. For each his own, I completed my L3 with Schweser. It could show that the MPS L1 in May was slightly higher. My test scores are above the MPS.
And what's your method, if not just throwing away a random number? The results are clearly drawn to scale, but their MPS estimate is very inconsistent with it. I wonder why you provide your MPS estimates without mentioning anything about your method for estimating them. Is it because you can't defend your approach? After all, we make it very clear everywhere that she is our estimate, and not the only true member of parliament. Use it if you think it helps.
The cohort of each exam is different and the content of each exam period is different, so it's perfectly possible. I would say that with the numbers as they are, and assuming that the CFA Institute's methodologies on pass rates and MPS are what they say, this points to a lower average quality of candidates for the CFA exams on May 21. Any updates on potential CFA level III deputies? We won't have it until we get the results of the first CFA Level 3 TCC exams (May 2020). We can't predict what the CFA Institute is going to do, we can only analyze. I had the same experience as you.
The morning was very tough, with some questions that weren't addressed in Schweser's summary. The second part was also easier for me. At least knowing that other people had the same experience as you is comforting. I hope we have passed this exam. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but what's your best idea about how deputies will be calculated based on so many different versions of this year's CBT test? For example, what if a group gets a harder version instead of a medium version or an easy one? How can they make it fair for everyone? I think that candidates who are in the same exam window are taking the same version of exam.
What I mean is that the exam would be based on the same set of questions, but the exact iterations and combinations would be different. There would have to be some consistency within an examination period to, for example, be able to apply a single MPS. They may determine an MPS for each exam. It's probably the same “group” as in the February and March exams, given what we've seen in the March exams. Why hasn't this new way of calculating MPS been published before? If the CFA Institute only wanted to maintain the normal approval rate of previous years and therefore change the method in this way, would it be reasonable and equitable for candidates who scored above 70 but slightly below 72 on Level I? They estimated and believed that the maximum approval score should be 70% and did their best to achieve this rate, but in the end they failed to do so.
It is also possible that this time the exam was easier than in previous years, even implicitly, if it is assumed that the CFA Institute's methodology for determining the MPS is the same. Therefore, the logic that candidates who obtained a score of 70 to 72% “should pass” could be wrong: in previous exams they could also have obtained a lower score than the MPS (lowest). Ha ha ha, Danilo Alencar, this is a violation of the ethical code. I recommend that you delete this post or you're going to be fucked up really badly.
What do you think is behind the recent increase in MPS? Do you think it's just because the exam is easier or that they seek to fail candidates who were previously considered qualified to maintain the low 40-point pass rate and, therefore, exclusivity? I used to think that the Angoff Method was only intended to maintain continuity year after year in the type of candidate it approves, but the part of “allowing flexibility depending on the evolution of circumstances” makes me think. I agree with your interpretation: the Angoff method is supposed to be independent of the candidates' “performance curve”. But it is unlikely that I will get confirmation on this point, since the CFA Institute I imagine not. I would make no comment on that.
Do you have the sample size of how many reports were used to estimate each year? Therefore, the volatility comes from the different “difficulty” of the questions in each exam cycle. The December 18 questions may be perceived by charterers as particularly difficult (for a typical candidate who says “good enough”) given the curriculum, so a lower MPS is set. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of responses to my comment by email. You can also subscribe without commenting.
Online rescheduling deadline of November 2 to November 23 (online). The CFA Institute never releases the minimum score to pass its exams, which means that there is an entire industry questioning what the real MPS is. While the CFA Institute does not disclose anything regarding their passing scores, there are some indications that the MPS of level 1 CFA could be increasing. Although individual candidate scores vary, historically, only 41% of test takers pass this particular exam.
If the MPS of level II is increasing, 300Hours believes that the MPS of level III has fallen (suggesting that the exams are more difficult than they used to be). Despite everything that has been said about the low passing rate of the last CFA exams due to the delays caused by the pandemic, February's level I pass rate is still miserable from a historical point of view. The scoring system includes multiple-choice portions that are automatically graded, while the constructed answer portion of the level three is graded by hand. We do this because it can be useful for CFA candidates to have a target range of scores to aim for when taking practice tests.
Therefore, if the MPS has undergone a radical change to more than 70%, this means that the CBT exam format is easier to score compared to the old paper format.
