Bloomberg Level I CFA Exam Prep: A Smarter Approach to Study for the Digital Age

I just accessed the free trail but as you mentioned in the article, I am worried if it is actually a good platform. My other choice would be Wiley. I like the look and feel and it seems thorough. I don’t know whether to take the risk with Bloomberg.

Choices for candidates just keep improving, big change from just a few years back.

How about when I’d like to learn offline though? For example, in my office where lots of websites are restricted? Are there properly formatted printouts available?

Any word on when or if they’ll be coming out with a level 2 version?

Interesting. I was thinking of taking the BAT a few months back: looks like Bloomberg are going into the education biz big time. Good for candidates, although I hope they’ll come out with something for L3 before my time comes…

I signed up for the essentials package and so far I really like how effective it is in tailoring the topics that I’m studying and in what order. Its so effective, that I am almost getting concerned its a little bit too light on material because I feel like I’m grasping everything really well with little difficulty. Granted, it starts you out with Economics and Quantitative Methods which I have a pretty good background in but I’m just hoping it isn’t skipping over too much to provide the appearance of efficiency.

For other industry exams I have taken I have always studied best with questions, questions, questions so if you are the same way this platform might be for you.

Kaplan is going to need to step their game up (maybe they can finally make use of that Stella acquisition’s IP). Wish this was around when I took Level I.

@ensenmason I think the response to their initial L1 product will determine how quickly they’ll invest in L2 and L3. This is unfortunately a common approach for all providers entering the CFA market.

I’ve taken a little over 12 hours worth of studying using this program and it seems pretty cool. I would like to see how the adaptive technology works out; the expectation of study time possibly being 200 – 250 hours instead of about 300 hours sounds attractive. Since this program is new, I would really like to see the future results of candidates who used this program and passed and after how many attempts they passed.
I’ve only had a couple problems with it so far. One is there can be quite a bit of typos in the lessons, numerically in the math and verbally in definitions of concepts (you’ll notice if you’re paying attention; it gave a definition and later said that’s what it is not after it said that’s what it is). Also, in my 12 hours, I have encountered one conceptual error and quite possibly another. I hope they have a team or mechanism to proofread and catch anymore of them. I wouldn’t want to learn the mistaken concepts of the subjects.
Another little bit is that the FAQs say you can expect a tutor to respond within 24 hours. A couple responses took a little longer than that. But, their responses are very clarifying, very elucidating.
As with a lot of technologies, the first model isn’t perfect and may have a few bugs in it or improvements that need to be made (I remember this happened to i – pad on its release). If they keep working on this, this appears that it may become a superior alternative for CFA study material. I’m still going to use it and hope there are no more errors or that it is being improved upon. I liked Sophie’s article, but I felt like these things I noticed should be considered as well by everyone else interested in this, especially considering it cost at least $599 (seems not a problem if you could get your employer to cover it).