- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated Sep-178:11 am by WesMantooth.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
Up::0Dec CFA Level I 2013 Results Roundup – The Highest Pass Rate Since June 2009
Posted by Christine Martinez The results are out – how did you do? After a long wait – the question that has been bugging you has now been answered. At just a few minutes past 9am ET, the results…
-
Up::4
I’d be super curious to know how your band scores from level 1 correlate to your result or potential result in level 2!
I’m hoping that the majority of people who get good band scores on 1 usually do well on level 2 also…I’m assuming this is the case but it would be cool to see the stats on it! Something along the lines of your odds of passing level 2 based on your level 1 score… -
Up::4
Oops sorry, band score was not the correct term to use, I’m meant to refer to the range of scores that you get on each topic (<50%, 50-70%, 70%+) and your calculated range of possible scores on the whole that 300hours provides you with based on these. Good catch @hairyfairy thanks!
So i guess I was hoping for an odds of passing level 2 based on your potential range of scores from Level 1. -
Up::4
I don’t know, if you filtered the data for only people who completed a minimum # of practice exams on both exams, wouldn’t that improve the results drastically (probably a few filters you could use to further improve the data)? I agree you’ll never be able to make any drastic conclusions but I bet you could pull a few facts at a respectable level of significance. For example, I’d go out on a limb and predict that some sort of regression could be put together with people who scored +70% across all topics and attach a coefficient that would be significantly different than zero with at least 90% confidence…
-
-
Up::3
@wesmantooth Linking data across years is something we’ve not done before, but certainly possible. If I get the time I’ll see if I can dig into it. 🙂
-
-
-
Up::2
I would guess you want to assume that the data would come only from those who had a similar level of preparation in both exams. In other words, and with some exaggeration to make the point, data from someone who worked hard for Level I and slacked off for Level II is spurious. My guess is that correlation is extremely high if you get rid of the spurious data, but I don’t think that in practice you can get good enough data to conclude anything with a decent level of significance.
-
-
-
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.