Practice Tests: 85%+; Actual Exam: 56%

90 replies [Last post]
anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

Just had to vent guys.Took the 7 today and got burned bad. I was quite shocked and dissapointed.
My advice to the rooks in my situation: follow your gut instincts on how to study. I was told to read the book once and hit the practice exams and then use the book as reference. I had Dearborn and was killing the exams after two months of "studying" and what I did in the actual exam reflected nowhere near what I was "trained" to do. This is old school guys just like in high school: if you don't know the material through and through you WILL fail. I thought I knew a lot but I didn't know as much as I thought I did.
There was not more than a handful of questions that resembled what appeared on the drills. In fact, had I gone old school and just studied the book over and over, I do not doubt I would have passed.
I'm thoroughly dissapointed as everyone who knows me knows how much I wanted this license.
 

Dirk Diggler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-12-30

anabuhabkuss wrote:
Just had to vent guys.Took the 7 today and got burned bad. I was quite shocked and dissapointed.
My advice to the rooks in my situation: follow your gut instincts on how to study. I was told to read the book once and hit the practice exams and then use the book as reference. I had Dearborn and was killing the exams after two months of "studying" and what I did in the actual exam reflected nowhere near what I was "trained" to do. This is old school guys just like in high school: if you don't know the material through and through you WILL fail. I thought I knew a lot but I didn't know as much as I thought I did.
There was not more than a handful of questions that resembled what appeared on the drills. In fact, had I gone old school and just studied the book over and over, I do not doubt I would have passed.
I'm thoroughly dissapointed as everyone who knows me knows how much I wanted this license.
 

That's the lowest score that I've ever heard of. What's your next move?

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

What else sir? I'm going to take it again ASAP.  It's been six hours later and I'm still in shock and I won't lie about not being highly discouraged about my career path right now.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

How current were your Dearborn books?
What firm sponsored you?

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

the latest dearborn.
the firm that sponsered me...well let's just say they do NOT have a training program so i've been going at it alone at home. But I blame no one but myself for not succeeding today. I don';t care if I worked for Schwab or KFC.
i dont know what went wrong, I even hit the 90's a couple of times, made no lower than an 83 on the 250 question practice exams. Then I go to the place today, and the tell is literally telling "what the **** are you doing here you moron?". I slept for 10 hrs, had breakfast and was good to go.
However the test , for the most part, greek to me. Ironically, the only thing that brought that avg up was how well I did on derivatives (made 86% on the test today). everything else was subpar.
 

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

anabuhabkuss wrote:
, for the most part, greek to me. Ironically, the only thing that brought that avg up was how well I did on derivatives (made 86% on the test today). everything else was subpar.

Classic, absolutely classic failure.
Study options to the point you've got them cold and go into the exam having no idea what Hypothecation entails or if a Moral Obligation bond is taxable or tax free.
If I had to guess I'd say that you worked the same sample questions over and over again and when you started scoring about 90 on them you figured you were good to go.  You had a dozen or so 125 question tests but you only did some of them.  Would that be right? 
Perhaps you did the first one over and over again before moving to the second one and that by the time you had done five or six of them you were a combination of bored and pressured by the fact that your test date was looming.
People should never forget that the publishers of Series 7 study materials are doing it to make a profit.  Printing is not free, nor is shipping the books to you.  So if everything they know about the test could be shown to you on 200 pages of paper why bother to print and ship close to 2,000?
If you are doing sample questions on a CD or an on-line course you need to be extra careful not to be lulled into a false sense of reality.  If it's a good course, and many are not, it will have about 2,000 sample questions and if they were printed on paper, along with good explanations, you'd be holding about a ream of paper printed on both sides.
Then there's the quality issue.  When you buy a study course you are hoping to buy sample questions that look a lot like the real ones.  Well the reality is that that is not what you get more often than not.  Remember the real questions are not published into the public domain like so many standardized tests are in some sort of frenzy to make the playing field level.  The NASD is private business, not a public school, and if everybody fails they don't have a bunch of parents whining about their little boy or girl losing self esteem or some other drivel.
There are two vendors who are the best at showing you what real test questions look like. They are STC and Dearborn.
What about the others?  Read the two sentences above again.
 

ezmoney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

who eve told you to read the book once? and then hit the tests is sadly mistaken

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

I did not go over any practice exmas over and over.
The CD pulls from a pool of 2500 questions randomly and that's what I used to get tested. None of the questions in the actual exam came anywhere near what they looked like from Dearborn. When you get a question asking you which securities are exempt from tax at a certain area, given four choices each one have two securities and are asked to pick two choices (for a toal of four securities( you know, if anything, this exam is commited to memory based answers.
EZ is right, I shouldn't have listened to anyone from the get go and just read the book thoroughly. That was my mistake. I felt like I had a good overall knowledge of everything. I didn;t go in there knowing only options or muni bonds, I went in there with the wrong study approach and it cost me and I can see how many others would do the same.
Thanks for the advise guys. Truly appreciated.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

(yeah, sorry for the typos)

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

anabuhabkuss wrote:
I did not go over any practice exmas over and over.
The CD pulls from a pool of 2500 questions randomly and that's what I used to get tested. None of the questions in the actual exam came anywhere near what they looked like from Dearborn. When you get a question asking you which securities are exempt from tax at a certain area, given four choices each one have two securities and are asked to pick two choices (for a toal of four securities( you know, if anything, this exam is commited to memory based answers.
EZ is right, I shouldn't have listened to anyone from the get go and just read the book thoroughly. That was my mistake. I felt like I had a good overall knowledge of everything. I didn;t go in there knowing only options or muni bonds, I went in there with the wrong study approach and it cost me and I can see how many others would do the same.
Thanks for the advise guys. Truly appreciated.

 
I passed the test with a 92, and followed the methodology that was suggested to you.  However, here is what may NOT have been pointed out to you......when you take a practice exam go through your results and analyze them.  Pay particular attention to whether or not you are missing questions that pertain to certain key areas such as muni's and options.  Too, when you get a question wrong, go back to the book as a reference and figure out WHY you got the question wrong.  You don't need to worry about the questions you answered correctly, you're fine on those concepts.
 
Good luck.

maybeeeeeeee's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-24

If you are going to take the test again, do not use the Dearborn material.  It is too easy and does not give you an accurate picture of the test, as you have seen
Use the Pass Perfect material.  It is a very good reflection of the actual test.
 

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

joedabrkr wrote:
I passed the test with a 92, and followed the methodology that was suggested to you.  However, here is what may NOT have been pointed out to you......when you take a practice exam go through your results and analyze them.  Pay particular attention to whether or not you are missing questions that pertain to certain key areas such as muni's and options.  Too, when you get a question wrong, go back to the book as a reference and figure out WHY you got the question wrong.  You don't need to worry about the questions you answered correctly, you're fine on those concepts.
Good luck.

It is crazy to think that just because you answered a question correctly on a practice quiz that you have the subject down and are "fine on those concepts."
You may have guessed correclty or you may have gotten it right for reasons that were not correct, or work only on that particular scenario.
For those who are reading this but still studying.  There are entire months that go by when nobody anywhere in the country scores in excess of 90%.
The average passing score hovers around 75%.
Anytime somebody tells you what they got, subtract 10 to 15 percent.
"I got 90" actually means "I got 78."  It's human nature to want to brag.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

maybeeeeeeee wrote:
If you are going to take the test again, do not use the Dearborn material.  It is too easy and does not give you an accurate picture of the test, as you have seen
Use the Pass Perfect material.  It is a very good reflection of the actual test.

Why do you think that the training directors of the large firms disagree with that?
Do you suppose that STC and Dearborn share about 80% of the Series 7 business because they are too easy and/or do not give an accurate reflection of the real test?
How about FIRE?  Are they making their presence known?
CCH?  Ever hear of them?
The Series 7 School?  Know those guys?
Pass Perfect is out there, but they are far from the best.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

I am rescheduled early next month and have scheduled myself off of work for a week to take the class. I won't lose again. I'll let you guys know how it turns.

frumhere's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

I worked somewhere and this guy that I knew failed it 3 times (non-production environment) and it turns out all he did was memorize the practice exams, not the material.  good luck

RR352's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-03-15

Big Easy Flood wrote:For those who are reading this but still studying.  There are entire months that go by when nobody anywhere in the country scores in excess of 90%.
The average passing score hovers around 75%.
Big Easy,
Do you really believe what you just posted that months go by with no one scoring in the 90's? What a joke, the test is not that difficult if you understand the information.  The problem is that everyone today  wants someone to tell them only what they need to know.  No one wants to take the time to understand it so they can apply what they have learned. Just tell them what they need to know so the can pencil it in on the test.
I scored a 93, and I have the paper to prove it, another guy I took it with got a 96, another broker I worked with got a 96, a friend of mine just got a 94 on it last week.  So I am not sure what months you are talking about.
Big Easy Flood wrote:Anytime somebody tells you what they got, subtract 10 to 15 percent.
"I got 90" actually means "I got 78."  It's human nature to want to brag.
The above is a typical comment. My favorite comment would be "You studied too much." followed by "it does not matter you you get as long as you pass." 

Dirk Diggler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-12-30

I only got an 87. I got paid $3500 per month to study for 3 months and I don't believe I averaged an hour per day of studying.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

RR352 wrote:
I scored a 93, and I have the paper to prove it, another guy I took it with got a 96, another broker I worked with got a 96, a friend of mine just got a 94 on it last week.  So I am not sure what months you are talking about.

As I said, when somebody says that they got a 93 somebody who has been around awhile will think, "Yep, and I'm the King of England."
Yes there are people who score in the 90s, but they are not as common as one would believe if they listened to what they hear.
New York is teeming with people who were in the World Trade Center when the planes hit and they barely made it out.
When Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's home run record there were about 35,000 fans in the stadium  Today there are at least a million people who will swear on a bible that they were there.
And yes I do believe that there are stretches of time when nobody in the country scores in excess of 90% on Series 7.  Not often, but it does happen.
Don't tempt me or I'll tell youj about the time I got it on with Demi Moore, or was it Courtney Cox?  Really, I promise you it's true.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

Dirk Diggler wrote: I only got an 87. I got paid $3500 per month to study for 3 months and I don't believe I averaged an hour per day of studying.
 
Are you bragging that you were able to steal from your employer, or suggesting that you're really bright.
You missed more than thirty questions.  Just think of how good you could have done if you had been serious about what you were doing.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

It was on the late 90's, but I got a 96...missed 9 questions out of 250 and still have the paper to prove it.  I used Dearborn, and the test strategy described above.  Heck, I was probably the bum who advised this poor guy to go use that methodology.  I'm not sure why it didn't work...I've used that same methodology to pass the 7, 63, 65 & 24 and never scored lower than 80% (on the 24...by that time, I had truly scaled down my efforts and probably spent a total of 40 hours prep time).
At any rate, I'm sorry that it didn't work for you...guess that just proves that not every method works for every student.  Next time, go with your instinct and do what seems to work for you.

executivejock's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-29

For sure one can memorize the answers, but not the theory in Dearborn.
If you review and really focus on the theory you will do better. CCH has a different format with the virtual class. Either way good luck!

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

Indyone wrote:At any rate, I'm sorry that it didn't work for you...guess that just proves that not every method works for every student.  Next time, go with your instinct and do what seems to work for you.
Thanks!

skeedaddy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-16

anabuhabkuss wrote: I'm thoroughly dissapointed as everyone who
knows me knows how much I wanted this license.

My advice: Take it as an omen and move on. Often times, what starts bad,
ends worse.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

hey no offense, but that is the biggest steaming pile of BS that I have probably ever heard of. It was probably taught to you by a daddy who slapped you everytime you made a mistake.
But, I am glad to hear that you've never had a client reject your business. Because if you had, well, omen and all right?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Anytime somebody tells you what they got, subtract 10 to 15 percent.
"I got 90" actually means "I got 78."  It's human nature to want to brag
Put!!!   It is you.   I got a 91% on my Series 7. Over 90% in 4 of the categories and the lowest being 66 to 70% in the Order Entry section, the rest at the 76 to 85% range. 
Want me to fax a copy of my test scores to you?    Hee Hee
I'm studying for the series 66 right now and I agree with the OP that you need to do it the old fashioned way.  Read the book and understand the reasoning and theory before you take the practice exams.  I do not expect to do as well on this test as the stuff (security law) is so incredibly boring I can hardly read a sentence without wandering off in my mind.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

A rule of thumb that will stand you in good stead is this.
If a girl says she got more than 90% on her Series 7 don't suggest she's anything other than world-class smart, obviously very attractive, and probably a great kisser.

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

Hey anabuhabkuss,
There's an unofficial theory that the worse you score on the test, the better you'll be in sales. I've heard that theory for nearly 15 years. Not if, but WHEN you pass next time, you should have a great career ahead of you. 
I like your attitude about not giving up. It will serve you well in this business! You'll need it to succeed. Good luck! 
 

Dirk Diggler's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-12-30

doberman wrote:
Hey anabuhabkuss,
There's an unofficial theory that the worse you score on the test, the better you'll be in sales. I've heard that theory for nearly 15 years. Not if, but WHEN you pass next time, you should have a great career ahead of you. 
I like your attitude about not giving up. It will serve you well in this business! You'll need it to succeed. Good luck! 
 

Take cpafp, for example. He can pass a test but he can't succeed in business.

skeedaddy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-06-16

anabuhabkuss wrote: It was probably taught to you by a daddy who
slapped you everytime you made a mistake.

My daddy never needed to slap me, since I never "flunked" a test.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Easy Flood wrote:joedabrkr wrote:
I passed the test with a 92, and followed the methodology that was suggested to you.  However, here is what may NOT have been pointed out to you......when you take a practice exam go through your results and analyze them.  Pay particular attention to whether or not you are missing questions that pertain to certain key areas such as muni's and options.  Too, when you get a question wrong, go back to the book as a reference and figure out WHY you got the question wrong.  You don't need to worry about the questions you answered correctly, you're fine on those concepts.
Good luck.

It is crazy to think that just because you answered a question correctly on a practice quiz that you have the subject down and are "fine on those concepts."
You may have guessed correclty or you may have gotten it right for reasons that were not correct, or work only on that particular scenario.
For those who are reading this but still studying.  There are entire months that go by when nobody anywhere in the country scores in excess of 90%.
The average passing score hovers around 75%.
Anytime somebody tells you what they got, subtract 10 to 15 percent.
"I got 90" actually means "I got 78."  It's human nature to want to brag.Yes that tendency exists amongst many, but not I.  I do not need to brag, for I truly scored a 92.  I studied extremely hard, every spare minute I had until the day of the test.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Easy Flood wrote:RR352 wrote:
I scored a 93, and I have the paper to prove it, another guy I took it with got a 96, another broker I worked with got a 96, a friend of mine just got a 94 on it last week.  So I am not sure what months you are talking about.

As I said, when somebody says that they got a 93 somebody who has been around awhile will think, "Yep, and I'm the King of England."
Yes there are people who score in the 90s, but they are not as common as one would believe if they listened to what they hear.
New York is teeming with people who were in the World Trade Center when the planes hit and they barely made it out.Frankly, as a New Yorker who had many friends there(including one who never came home) I find your usage of this analogy HIGHLY offensive in this context.  Then again, Put Trader, I'd expext nothing less from you.
When Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's home run record there were about 35,000 fans in the stadium  Today there are at least a million people who will swear on a bible that they were there.
And yes I do believe that there are stretches of time when nobody in the country scores in excess of 90% on Series 7.  Not often, but it does happen.So far you have given us NO REASON WHATSOVER TO CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
Don't tempt me or I'll tell youj about the time I got it on with Demi Moore, or was it Courtney Cox?  Really, I promise you it's true.No, thank you.  Spare us please.  Oh and by the way, I know what my scores were.  I'm not so insecure as to need your validation.  I suspect others feel that way too.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

I would think that many people could score in the 90's. 
However, it doesn't make sense to spend too much time studying since a higher score doesn't mean more income or make one a better advisor.
I scored in the mid 80's and I wouldn't know an option if one kissed me.  I did not have the time to read the material.  I decided to study options last and I never even took a practice exam involving them.  On the test, I couldn't even eliminate an answer.
Anyway, if I could score in the 80's without reading and knowing nothing about options, plenty of people could score in the 90's.
P.S. I think my success was partially caused by taking practice exams from more than one source.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

joedabrkr wrote:
Frankly, as a New Yorker who had many friends there(including one who never came home) I find your usage of this analogy HIGHLY offensive in this context.  Then again, Put Trader, I'd expext nothing less from you.

Stop whining.  My point is that as time goes by people tend to adopt stories that are not true as if they were.  People who were not in the WTC start to claim they were, people who scored 78 on an exam start to claim it was 92, and people with $20 million AUM begin to discuss their $75 million AUM.
joedabrkr wrote:
No, thank you.  Spare us please.  Oh and by the way, I know what my scores were.  I'm not so insecure as to need your validation.  I suspect others feel that way too.

My validation?  Where did you come up with the idea that I am validating anything?  In fact what I am doing is suggesting that the vast majority of people who claim something or other are inflating it.
People lie all the time about things that are difficult to verify.  Among the most common lies told by adults are lies surrounding how much they earn, how much education they have acquired and/or how well they did in school.
It is so common that entire books are written about why people lie.
Given that reality why in the world would such lying not extend to this forum?

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

anonymous wrote:
I would think that many people could score in the 90's. 
However, it doesn't make sense to spend too much time studying since a higher score doesn't mean more income or make one a better advisor.
I scored in the mid 80's and I wouldn't know an option if one kissed me.  I did not have the time to read the material.  I decided to study options last and I never even took a practice exam involving them.  On the test, I couldn't even eliminate an answer.
Anyway, if I could score in the 80's without reading and knowing nothing about options, plenty of people could score in the 90's.
P.S. I think my success was partially caused by taking practice exams from more than one source.

There is a lie. From start to finish it is a lie.  This guy probably scored 70 on his second attempt.
Who's to know?  How do you verify it?
Well, you use common sense.  Starting with the FACT that everybody who studies for the Series 7 is scared to death of options.  Every advisors warns that options are the most difficult component of the exam.
With that reality does it make sense that somebody would go take the exam without even looking at options?  Does that really make sense to you?
Then there is the idiotic idea that somebody who is taking a test some how magically knows when they have done "Just enough to pass."
Finally I ask, where does self respect come in?  What kind of a person is proud of how little effort they put forth?  Somebody whose life theme is, "You think you screwed off?  Let me tell you how much I screwed off!" is destined for career failure.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Since options were the hardest part and I knew that I had very little time to study, I decided that I would study them last.  It turned out that I never had time to study them. 
I had two choices.  1)Take the exam without knowing options or 2)Delay taking the exam.  Since the worst case scenario was simply that I would fail the exam and have to take it over, I decided I might as well just take it.  I thought that I had about a 50/50 chance of passing the exam.
I know that I got less than 50% on the options section, and I would assume that I got about 25% since I wasn't even able to eliminate any answers.  This means that I got over 90% on the rest of the test.
Self respect does not come into the equation.  There are only so many hours in a day.  Every hour spent studying for a test is an hour that I'm not with my family or not helping my clients.
There was absolutely nothing that I picked up from studying for the exam that helped me become a better planner for my clients.
There is absolutely no reason to think that a good test taker who properly studies would not have a reasonable exectation of scoring in the 90's. 
From your posts, it simply sounds as if you don't think that it can be done because you couldn't do it.  Possibly, you did score in the 90's, but you don't think others can do it because you have a need to feel that you are smarter than the rest of us.
P.S. If I studied for the same amount of time and did study options I think that my score would still have been the same because I would have studied the other sections less.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

anonymous wrote:
Since options were the hardest part and I knew that I had very little time to study, I decided that I would study them last.  It turned out that I never had time to study them. 
I had two choices.  1)Take the exam without knowing options or 2)Delay taking the exam.  Since the worst case scenario was simply that I would fail the exam and have to take it over, I decided I might as well just take it.  I thought that I had about a 50/50 chance of passing the exam.
I know that I got less than 50% on the options section, and I would assume that I got about 25% since I wasn't even able to eliminate any answers.  This means that I got over 90% on the rest of the test.
Self respect does not come into the equation.  There are only so many hours in a day.  Every hour spent studying for a test is an hour that I'm not with my family or not helping my clients.
There was absolutely nothing that I picked up from studying for the exam that helped me become a better planner for my clients.
There is absolutely no reason to think that a good test taker who properly studies would not have a reasonable exectation of scoring in the 90's. 
From your posts, it simply sounds as if you don't think that it can be done because you couldn't do it.  Possibly, you did score in the 90's, but you don't think others can do it because you have a need to feel that you are smarter than the rest of us.
P.S. If I studied for the same amount of time and did study options I think that my score would still have been the same because I would have studied the other sections less.

If you worked for me I'd fire you in a heartbeat for being a liar.
Additionally, you will not make it in the business.  Those who won't even bother to study for a qualification exam don't have the work ethic it takes to make it in the long run.
Better practice saying, "You look very nice in that suit, sir.  May I suggest a tie or two?"

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

anonymous wrote:
P.S. If I studied for the same amount of time and did study options I think that my score would still have been the same because I would have studied the other sections less.

Something for those who are planning to take the Series 7 exam some day.
It is moronic to conclude that you have a chance in hell of passing if you blow off options or bonds.
It is true that there are not enough questions to fail if you score exceptionally well on the rest of the test, but there are forty of them and that's a lot.
That means that about 1 out of every 5 questions you see is going to be "Greek" to you.  It defies logic to think that anybody who is experiencing that much negative input is going to be able to maintain their confidence for the rest of the test.
What this joker is saying is that he was playing Russian Roulette with a five chamber pistol but that he was so confident that he scored in excess of 90% on everything except options.
Does that make sense to you, really make sense to you?
If somebody told you that options are the hardest part of the test would you intentionally not study them?
Does that make sense to you, really make sense to you?

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Put, welcome back!  
Thanks for setting me straight.  I thought I was an honest, hard working, successful business owner who always put my family and clients first.
Now, I know better. 
Please give me some job hunting tips.
 

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

I actually agree that it is moronic to blow off studying options.   I would never recommend that anyone do what I did. 
I told you that I felt like I only had a 50/50 chance of passing.  Fortuanately, the exam was easier than I expected.
If I had more time, I would have certainly studied options and then I would have been one of those liars that scored in the 90's.
Confidence or lack thereof has little to no bearing on whether you answer a multiple choice question correctly.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Easy Flood wrote:joedabrkr wrote:
Frankly, as a New Yorker who had many friends there(including one who never came home) I find your usage of this analogy HIGHLY offensive in this context.  Then again, Put Trader, I'd expext nothing less from you.

Stop whining.  My point is that as time goes by people tend to adopt stories that are not true as if they were.  People who were not in the WTC start to claim they were, people who scored 78 on an exam start to claim it was 92, and people with $20 million AUM begin to discuss their $75 million AUM.
joedabrkr wrote:
No, thank you.  Spare us please.  Oh and by the way, I know what my scores were.  I'm not so insecure as to need your validation.  I suspect others feel that way too.

My validation?  Where did you come up with the idea that I am validating anything?  In fact what I am doing is suggesting that the vast majority of people who claim something or other are inflating it.
People lie all the time about things that are difficult to verify.  Among the most common lies told by adults are lies surrounding how much they earn, how much education they have acquired and/or how well they did in school.
It is so common that entire books are written about why people lie.
Given that reality why in the world would such lying not extend to this forum?Put you seem to be the only one who thinks I am whining on this board.Yes lying and twisting the truth and bragging are, to a certain extent human nature.  I am oh so thankful we have you here to be our bright beacon of truth and arbiter of all wisdom!  Wow....last time it took a couple of months for me to get tired of your arrogant puffery.  This time it is happening much faster.......

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

anonymous wrote:
Confidence or lack thereof has little to no bearing on whether you answer a multiple choice question correctly.

Are you saying this?  There are two guys sitting down at a Series 7 test.
One of them has studied his ass off, the other one did little, if any, preparation.
The first question pops up and what it says is:
Which of the following reduces the risk associated with writing an uncovered put option?
a.  Being long 100 sharesb.  Being short 100 sharesc.  Being long a call on the underlying stockd.  Being long a warrant to buy 100 shares of the underlying common
Are you saying that they will both be equally comfortable with the question?
I suggest that when one out of every five of the questions is along those lines the exam candidate is going to begin to doubt their ability to handle the others.  I not only suggest that, I know that.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Whichever one understands uncovered put options better will be more comfortable with the question. 
If someone doesn't know the answer, I do agree that their confidence level will drop.  My point is that this lower confidence level won't cause them to get the answers wrong when they know the answer.
The person who knows the answer will experience an increase in self confidence.  This increased self-confidence won't allow him to answer a future question when he doesn't know the answer.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

anonymous wrote:
Whichever one understands uncovered put options better will be more comfortable with the question. 
If someone doesn't know the answer, I do agree that their confidence level will drop.  My point is that this lower confidence level won't cause them to get the answers wrong when they know the answer.
The person who knows the answer will experience an increase in self confidence.  This increased self-confidence won't allow him to answer a future question when he doesn't know the answer.

I suggest that a wide receiver who catches a pass has more confidence on the next play than a wide receiver who did not catch the last one thrown to him.
Similarly, if a guy is taking Series 7 and sees question after question that he cannot even interpret he is going to begin to lose confidence in what he does know.
There is no way that confidence can be maintained in the face of continued failure.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Easy Flood wrote:joedabrkr wrote:
Frankly, as a New Yorker who had many friends there(including one who never came home) I find your usage of this analogy HIGHLY offensive in this context.  Then again, Put Trader, I'd expext nothing less from you.

Stop whining.  My point is that ....
Wow, Put didn't even deny it  

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

mikebutler222 wrote:Big Easy Flood wrote:joedabrkr wrote:
Frankly, as a New Yorker who had many friends there(including one who never came home) I find your usage of this analogy HIGHLY offensive in this context.  Then again, Put Trader, I'd expext nothing less from you.

Stop whining.  My point is that ....
Wow, Put didn't even deny it  

Deny what?

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Get answers wrong and one will lose confidence.  This still won't stop the person from answering questions correctly when they know the answer.
In my case, it did nothing to my confidence because I knew in advance that I wouldn't get the options questions correct.

7GOD63's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-29

This 7 crap sucks... I hate the 7.. I dislike the 800 page books.. I like to communcate, market and sell!!! GOD BLESS THE FUTURE!

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

7GOD63 wrote:This 7 crap sucks... I hate the 7.. I dislike the 800 page books.. I like to communcate, market and sell!!! GOD BLESS THE FUTURE!
Yep, who would think that a guy who handles people's money should know what he's doing?

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

   Yes, why should the auto mechanic have to learn about engines... Heck, just get in there and turn wrenches. Want to be a doctor?? Why wast all that time? Skip medical school and just start prescribing medicine.   As a matter of fact, I think all occupations should be based on a trial and error methodology.  Win some lose some.

Big Easy Flood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-29

babbling looney wrote:   Yes, why should the auto mechanic have to learn about engines... Heck, just get in there and turn wrenches. Want to be a doctor?? Why wast all that time? Skip medical school and just start prescribing medicine.   As a matter of fact, I think all occupations should be based on a trial and error methodology.  Win some lose some.
As we all know, the only thing standing between somebody and success in anything is opportunity.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Let's not pretend that passing the 7 means that someone knows what they are doing.
Med School and a Residency teaches one to be a doctor.  Passing the 7 does not train someone to pick stocks, bonds, etc.  and it certainly has nothing to do with planning.  It simply means that you are licensed to sell securities.  No meaningful knowledge that would help one help a client is learned. 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×