Hi @Jaskarn There is a huge difference this year: In December GARP basically did not change the syllabus, with the exception of again rotating 100% of the current issues (a practice that I am on record opposing, but T9 only weighs 10%). Since I started teaching the FRM over a decade ago, GARP has never done this before, the churn was always at least 25% often nearer to 35% or 40%. Also please note: May 2017 P2 pass rate was higher than Nov 2017 Part 2 pass rate (54.0% versus 51.9%) and further in both 2016 and 2017 the Part 1 pass rates have not really been significantly lower (2016: 44.5 vs 33.8; 2017: 42.0 vs 42.4%; these are differences of mere 30 to 40 bps). Otherwise, I think it depends on the theory of why this pattern was true. Below are my observations/speculations. Basically, in terms of history, my assumption is the simplest (à la Occam's razor): the syllabus does not change within a calendar year, and the May candidates simply have less time to prepare. I hope that's helpful, thanks!
From my previous speculation on the historical pattern (which may have lost its mojo):
From my previous speculation on the historical pattern (which may have lost its mojo):
... I wish I knew definitively the answer to (3) but the GARP staff is not different to my knowledge (the practitioners vary but there is no reason to expect it's a seasonal cause). Here are my mere thoughts:
- I would expect a major factor is simply that candidates have six additional months, in theory, to study unchanged material. For argument's sake, given the exact same material and same standard, we'd expect better performance in November given the material doesn't change yet there is much more time. For example, how many attempt both P1 and P2 in May versus November? (I don't know). Well, for those (brave) ambitious people, given the breadth of material, I would certainly expect higher pass rates in November! (if there is a material number of P1+P2 takers, the first thing i'd do with EDA is parse them out to see how much they alone contribute ...)
- Related, November candidates have the benefit of May feedback. Social media changes the game. In recent years. the last exam is basically eventually almost dissected.
- This exam change (once a year) is more significant for the FRM than, say, the CFA
- Also, while I do not know the details, it is reasonable to expect that GARP "learns something" from May to November with respect to the recently changed material. GARP's learning, on the other hand, could cut either way ...
- Related, to the extent really new material (ie, just introduced in 2016) is "new learning" for exam creators (GARP), there is slightly more uncertainty with respect to calibration of question difficulty. For example, for a brand new reading, a question might be written that, upon inspection of the exam outcomes, turns out to be extremely difficult (e.g., I would sort the questions from highest percentage correct to lowest) such that it would not be repeated in November.
- The volatility is interesting, to me, simply because GARP's methodology does allow for them to roughly manage a pass rate outcome. Statistically, this volatility suggests to me that the interquartile (IRQ), or really I mean the range between the top 5% and the passing X%, might "tighten" on them a bit from May to November (i.e., a bit of clustering toward the upper deciles), which could be supported with narrative. I suppose. In any case, it's very interesting to me that GARP resists managing the outcome to a straighter line (I don't disagree, it's just interesting and makes me wonder too). Thanks!