Earlier, I would have guessed sometime around early Feb (possibly late Jan if everything goes smoothly), but, in light of:
… I think VA might be onto something with this:
1 Like
I want results now! I’ll be pressing f5 on the CAS website everyday until I get them.
1 Like
Sounds like everyone s confident. Not boding too well for me as I’m counting on CAS not curving the pass mark so I can still have a chance 
1 Like
I’m actually expecting CAS to curve it down given the new exam form and the difficulty level.
1 Like
Curving it down as in more would pass? Yeah sure I’d take that.
Given that everyone had 1-2 years to prepare and the new format, I’d expect a higher [expected pass ratio]. I hope CAS sees it that way also and don’t make up new MQC standards on the fly.
1 Like
As much as I would like to see what xyz said, I think you nailed it kadsura. Especially with a 3 week window and potentially longer with reschedules? No way they have enough credible information to make a variable pass mark per week, therefore just easier to raise it for all.
1 Like
I imagine the pass rate for this sitting will be around the typical 40-45%. The exam was a bit on the harder side but the spreadsheet format makes it so that time is much less of an issue. I really doubt the CAS will significantly adjust the MQC standard based on the format and 3 week window.
2 Likes
I think given the exam difficulty, everyone getting an extra 7 months to study and the excel format it will be a reasonable pass ratio and the CAS won’t make any adjustments when in reality they should pass more people than usual.
2 Likes
The CAS doesn’t adjust the pass mark to try to hit a specific pass rate. They adjust it based on what they think a minimally qualified candidate should know. The idea that they’ll raise the pass mark because people performed better isn’t realistic imo.
The length we had to study and the format should not affect the MQC mark at all. If you remember when they did CBT for 5 before, the pass rate ended up being over 60% because people performed better. It’s possible the new format causes us to see a similar (but probably smaller magnitude) increase in pass rates for exams just because people will now be able to work more quickly and have more time to think through the exam questions.
2 Likes
1 Like
The MQC’s are so arbitrary along with very poor exam quality. Spring 2018 they put an hour’s worth of algebra to throw candidates off. If that was how it worked we would see higher pass rates this time. I guess we will have to stay tuned for the pass rates.
1 Like
I don’t think the MQC thresholds are arbitrary, and I definitely don’t think the exam quality is poor. I agree they have been getting harder and Spring 2018 definitely had some unnecessarily complicated algebra, but I don’t think that means the exam is low quality or anything. Overall, I think the exams do a pretty good job of testing whether the candidates have a high level of understanding of the basic material. Of course there are some small mistakes here and there, but I wouldn’t call them poor exams by a long shot.
You’re right though, we’ll just have to stay tuned. I’ll start counting down to February after I sit for 9 on Wednesday…
1 Like
They may not be completely arbitrary but the pass ratios aren’t consistent from sitting to sitting suggesting they sure don’t do a good job at setting the MQC
1 Like
The pass ratios not being consistent could just mean that batch of candidates were more or less prepared than the other sittings. And I do agree that I think the standards for MQC have been trending up over time, but that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary.
2 Likes
It could mean that candidates were more or less prepared but that wouldn’t explain some of the large swings we’ve seen in the pass ratios.
1 Like
Agree it’s hard to discern the difference between these, however, I’d guess there’s more variance in the CAS’ definition of MQC than there is in candidate preparedness.
1 Like
How does “consistent pass ratios” indicate how good the CAS is at setting the MQC?
CAS’s use of MQC is really a misapplication of the actual MQC theory. As best as I’ve heard, the MQC standard for a problem is set at “how many points would the MQC score on this problem?” when the theory is based on whether or not a MQC would know the problem as a whole (and originally used to assess a multiple-choice test).
2 Likes
One example is exam 5 fall 2015 to spring 2016 31% pass ratio to 46% pass ratio. Very very likely that spring 2016 was much easier than fall 2015. They probably should have set the MQC higher on spring 2016 given how easy the questions were.
How does the level of difficulty of a question play into whether or not a MQC would know the material?
All that the level of difficulty of a question would impact would be the time required to answer it. However, I don’t think that the CAS takes this into consideration.
(Note: I’m well aware of their timing calibration, but last I heard, they use “uber-passers” to do this calibration, not an MCQ.)
fully discussing something in a footnote would be more difficult than a quick calculation and would play into whether a MQC would know the material.