Mapping sample questions to AIMs

[Alexey A]

Hi there. Just started looking at the P1 materials, so probably I'm asking about a well-known thing, sorry. I can't map the sample questions to the 2014's AIMs. For example for P1.T1.302, Risk-adjusted discount rate, there are quite a lot of AIMs in you PDF, but only one of them (Construct a risk-adjusted discount rate for an asset or project and apply that rate to estimate the value of the asset or project) is in the 2014 GARP AIMs. Questions:

• What does .302 mean? Is it your internal topic classification? Is it supposed to cover a number of specific AIMs, or it's not necessary?
• Can I be sure that your sample questions cover the whole scope of the 2014 FRM material (in whatever order)?

Thank you !

 

[David Harper CFA FRM]

Hi @Alexey A

It's a good question

• .3xx signifies that the question was originally written & published in 2013. Similarly .
  • .2xx signifies 2012 and
    
  • .4xx signifies a question written in 2014 and therefore is very recent
• When I write new questions, I follow the sequence of the then-current AIMs but, as you can tell, the questions are not necessarily mapped to itemized AIMs (1:1), rather the questions map to a cluster of AIMs because they attempt to map to the underlying concepts.
  
• Your citation of question P1.T1.302 is a great example of why itemized mapping (one question to one AIM) would have been arguably inferior:
  • T1.302 was written in 2013, using the 2013 syllabus of course, and it contains (as usual) three questions (302.1., 302.2, 302.3) which are mapped (assocated) to a cluster of four AIMs. (actually, with clauses, you could argue 5 or 6)
    
  • T1.302 illustrates my method: three questions were mapped in sequence to the AIMs, but I made a judgement call about how many AIMs were included. For a simple reason: I was paying more attention to the reading and its concept, I did not get too much seduced by the AIM instance. (Often, I do try to map one question to one AIM--that's my "default" aspiration--but in many cases, it's obvious that won't be very robust to AIM edits)
    
  • And, in retrospect, that turned out to be (in my biased opinion) a good judgement call for .302: when GARP revised the AIMs (as you imply), they basically collapsed (reduced and eliminated) the several 2013 AIMs into the one (or two, if you like) 2014 AIM: "Construct a risk-adjusted discount rate for an asset or project and apply that rate to estimate the value of the asset or project." In this way, .302 turned out to be a robust question which applies with equal relevance (and calibration of granularity!) to the 2014 syllabus.
    
  • To summarize: .302 by definition maps to the 2013 AIMs for the reading, but our method prompted me to map it to a cluster of AIMs which basically was revised/collapsed to two 2014 AIMs; but the question remains perfectly valid to the 2014 because it prioritized the concepts. (.302 is exactly why I don't get seduced by GARPs's first version of the AIMs for a new reading)
• Re: "Can I be sure that your sample questions cover the whole scope of the 2014 FRM material (in whatever order)?" Well, let's be specific.
  • At any given time, there are new readings for which we have not yet written practice questions. In this sense, we are always a bit short of the whole scope (nobody could do this, anyway, but further, it's a bit deliberate: I have willingly left gaps in favor of re-covering more vital topics. "Whole scope" should not be the #1 criteria)
  • But where we have written questions, due to my methodology, I think the answer to your question is basically: Yes, because the questions map to the concepts and use the AIMs as a means to control sequence and coverage
  • In addition to the workflow reality (i.e., quality questions require time to write), the premise here is actually the imperfect role of current AIMs: they are not really literal instructions, they are merely "detailed knowledge points" (GARP's phrase) which grammatically and semantically iterate over time.

Sorry for the length, this semester we are going to add more support-instructions for this method, and I need to edit this down for clarity ...

 

[Alexey A]

Thank you David for the very detailed answer. My perfectionism is now settled down