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

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

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.

[/quote]

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

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.

How current were your Dearborn books?

What firm sponsored you?

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.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

, 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.

[/quote]

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.

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

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.

(yeah, sorry for the typos)

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

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.

[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=maybeeeeeeee]

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.

[/quote]

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.

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.

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

[quote=Big Easy Flood]
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%.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]
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.
[/quote]

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." 

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.

[quote=RR352]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=Dirk Diggler] 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. [/quote]

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.

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.

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!

[quote=Indyone]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.[/quote]

Thanks!

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

I’m thoroughly dissapointed as everyone who

knows me knows how much I wanted this license.

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?

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.

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.

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! 

[quote=doberman]

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! 

[/quote]

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

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

It was probably taught to you by a daddy who

slapped you everytime you made a mistake.

[quote=Big Easy Flood][quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

[quote=RR352]

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.

[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

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?

[quote=anonymous]

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.

[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote=anonymous]

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.

[/quote]

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?"

[quote=anonymous]

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.

[/quote]

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?

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.

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.

[quote=Big Easy Flood][quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

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?

[quote=anonymous]

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

[/quote]

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 shares
b.  Being short 100 shares
c.  Being long a call on the underlying stock
d.  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.

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.

[quote=anonymous]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[quote=Big Easy Flood][quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

Stop whining.  My point is that ....[/quote]

Wow, Put didn't even deny it  

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Big Easy Flood][quote=joedabrkr]

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.

[/quote]

Stop whining.  My point is that ....[/quote]

Wow, Put didn't even deny it  

[/quote]

Deny what?

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.

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!

[quote=7GOD63]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![/quote]

Yep, who would think that a guy who handles people's money should know what he's doing?

   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.

[quote=babbling looney]   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.[/quote]

As we all know, the only thing standing between somebody and success in anything is opportunity.

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. 

[quote=anonymous]

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. 

[/quote]

Nonsense.  Understanding what you are dealing with will help a client.

Are you telling us that a salesperson who doesn't know the difference between a stock and a bond is going to be as good for a client as one who does?

Yes, you must know the difference between a stock and bond, but nothing in the 7 teaches you when one is appropriate for the client.

The 7 is good for weeding some people out of the career, but it does not teach very much usable knowledge.

It's a starting point and nothing more.  I would put it on a par with the MCAT.  Do well on the MCAT and a university will be willing to help you get the knowledge to become a doctor.  Pass the 7 and then a firm will help you learn how to sell securities.

[quote=anonymous]

Yes, you must know the difference between a stock and bond, but nothing in the 7 teaches you when one is appropriate for the client.

The 7 is good for weeding some people out of the career, but it does not teach very much usable knowledge.

It's a starting point and nothing more.  I would put it on a par with the MCAT.  Do well on the MCAT and a university will be willing to help you get the knowledge to become a doctor.  Pass the 7 and then a firm will help you learn how to sell securities.

There are many succesfull people that failed the 7 on the firm attempt ( Jack Grubman for example from the tech boom ) not that he is a good example but my point is.... there are many good producers that you might not expect that did not pass on the first attempt. Give it another try and then go kick some butt!

Do smart people fail the exam--or is failure something that happens to dumb folks?

If one has a lower expectation of themselves and others when it comes to testing perhaps they have a lower definition of what success is?

Smart people understand that their exam score doesn't put money on the table for their family.   The fact that a score is given doesn't stop it from being anything more than a pass/fail exam.

One of the top producers who I know failed the exam twice.  He's dyslexic and a terrible exam taker, but very bright.

Regardless, smarts is low down on the scale of what makes someone successful in this business. 

[quote=anonymous]One of the top producers who I know failed the exam twice.  He's dyslexic and a terrible exam taker, but very bright.[/quote]

I don't know about you, but a dyslexic rep sounds pretty scary to me..."let's see, was that order for 1,000 shares of WMT or WTM?"

[quote=anonymous]

Smart people understand that their exam score doesn't put money on the table for their family.   The fact that a score is given doesn't stop it from being anything more than a pass/fail exam.

One of the top producers who I know failed the exam twice.  He's dyslexic and a terrible exam taker, but very bright.

Regardless, smarts is low down on the scale of what makes someone successful in this business. 

[/quote]

A smart person would grasp "No passie no workie."

I'd be interested in hearing how anybody who is going to take a high stakes test can decide that they've studied enough to pass.  I believe it's ridiculous to conclude that somebody who scores a 70 on the Series 7 is actually capable of scoring in the high 90s but they let up becuase they knew they were going to pass.

I believe that everybody who takes the test does the best they can do, and that sadly for our business the best an awful lot of people can do is barely passing.

There is something scary about a man or woman who doesn't know 30% of what is being tested still being allowed to handle folks money.

The passing score should be raised to 85 or 90 and a college degree in something should be required.

To the original poster:



I hope you come across as more intelligent than you actually are,
otherwise you’re going to have one heck of a time winning
clients.  You don’t need to be a genious in this business but
clients expect a certain level of intelligence from the person managing
their future.  From your 56% you don’t seem to possess a level of
intelligence that will impress prospects.  I’m sorry but its the
truth.  The test is not even difficult - I got a 88% without
trying.  Would you want a doctor who failed his medical license
exam?

[quote=ShortNakedPuts]

I got a 88% without trying. 

[/quote]

That's a lie too.  To not try would suggest you just walked in there and sat down and took the test, having never opened a book or taken a sample test.

What drives so many people to suggest that they're jack off slackers?

[quote=Big Easy Flood]The passing score should be raised to 85 or 90 and a college degree in something should be required.[/quote]

As a person who meets both of those requirements, I'm all for it...

Seriously, there is some wisdom to that, and I think Put makes a good argument here (I can't believe I'm defending your bud, Joe).  My guess is that most successful producers, whether they actually DID or not, at least COULD meet those standards.  Perhaps an apprentice program would better prepare those young struggling candidates for the test, and to manage real portfolios.  Honestly, with some of the dim bulbs I've "competed" against, the industry could stand some weeding.  Sure, most of those needing weeding get just that, but unfortunately, only after they've inflicted significant damage on an unsuspecting public.

[quote=Big Easy Flood][quote=anonymous]

Smart people understand that their exam score doesn't put money on the table for their family.   The fact that a score is given doesn't stop it from being anything more than a pass/fail exam.

One of the top producers who I know failed the exam twice.  He's dyslexic and a terrible exam taker, but very bright.

Regardless, smarts is low down on the scale of what makes someone successful in this business. 

[/quote]

A smart person would grasp "No passie no workie."

I'd be interested in hearing how anybody who is going to take a high stakes test can decide that they've studied enough to pass.  I believe it's ridiculous to conclude that somebody who scores a 70 on the Series 7 is actually capable of scoring in the high 90s but they let up becuase they knew they were going to pass.

I believe that everybody who takes the test does the best they can do, and that sadly for our business the best an awful lot of people can do is barely passing.

There is something scary about a man or woman who doesn't know 30% of what is being tested still being allowed to handle folks money.

The passing score should be raised to 85 or 90 and a college degree in something should be required.

[/quote]

In this case Put I agree with many of your assertions.  Go figure!

The reason I acheived such a high score was because I studied quite a bit.  I felt passing the test was very important in my life, and that I simply couldn't be sure I would pass just from getting good scores on the sample test questions.  The only way to assure that I would pass, rather than going through the additional hassle of a re-take, was to continue to grab every extra bit of time I could and review key areas and take additional test questions.  It yielded a score in the 90's for me.

I followed a similar approach for the Series 31(finished in 35 minutes), the 66, the 24, and the Life Insurance exam.  First time pass on each of them, although not all the scores were as spectacular as the 7.  It just seemed to make sense to me to build as big a 'safety margin' in my knowledge of the material rather than having to worry if I was going to pass.

Not right for everybody, perhaps, but it's served me reasonably well.

I see no wisdom in Put's comment.  What is the point of raising the needed passing score if there's not evidence that says that people who scored below 85 can't do the job?  I would venture that there is very little correlation between test score and success in this industry.

Put, I think that you make the wrong assumption that people stop studying because they think that they know enough to score a 70.  People stop studying because their test date arrives.  I went into the exam thinking I had a 50/50 chance of passing.  I did not study as much as I would have liked.  I could have delayed the exam, but what would the point have been?

Heck, if I felt that I had a chance to pass without studying, I would have done so. 

My job is to help my clients achieve their financial goals.  If scoring higher on an entrance exam would have helped me do that, it would have been a priority.  My score, other than "pass" does nothing to help my clients.

In reality during my college years there was a quote, "get a C for a degree." With that being stated I for the most part maintained a 3.33+...

The fact was I was working my butt off! Taking 18 credit semesters, working 40 hours a week, Fire Fighter 1 school and the reserves.. So my focus was time management and getting a 3.8 or comparison 95 on the 7 was not essential. Maybe this path of lack of focus is bad?

It seems if one were to get paid for 3 months and the only thing in their life was to pass the 7. They should get above an 80. Of course if one was not in school or learning environment for 10 years that may be hard. There are so many variables that its extremly hard to say getting a 70 is better then a 90...

There has always been a theory that the B & C students do much better then the A students throughout life. Not sure if this is true, but it could go either way. B & C students may have more things going on which improves social skills, desire to prove them selves, knowledge and diversity. A student may be really smart and strive for 100% or the desire to win and meet/exceed expectations.

All this crap must vary between everyone on this earth. My point is there is no point on scores and performance. Maybe there is a statistical evaluation showing 7 score and AUM? Also I am sure you all have much more experience in this field and see people with 70 on third test make millions and some with 98's leave after 2 months.

How does one "for the most part" maintain a certain GPA?

It seems to me that you either do or do not maintain things like GPAs.

[quote=Big Easy Flood]

How does one “for the most part” maintain a certain GPA?

It seems to me that you either do or do not maintain things like GPAs.

One could drink and maintain a 2.5gpa to stay in school. Or one can focus enough to maintain a 3.0 or one can commit to getting a 4.0.

For sure the more college and test experience one has, the easier testing can be.. This is not across the board, but I have seen thousands test and for the most part people who have the experience are confident... Sometimes tooooooo confident and they fail.         & nbsp;         & nbsp; 

[quote=ShortNakedPuts]To the original poster:

I hope you come across as more intelligent than you actually are, otherwise you're going to have one heck of a time winning clients.  You don't need to be a genious in this business but clients expect a certain level of intelligence from the person managing their future.  From your 56% you don't seem to possess a level of intelligence that will impress prospects.  I'm sorry but its the truth.  The test is not even difficult - I got a 88% without trying.  Would you want a doctor who failed his medical license exam?[/quote]

Hahaha wow. Proof that you aren't a genius if you just so happen to pass a test.

Listen, I want you to go to 3 doctors in the next year and ask them if they've passed all their exams to get to where they are at. I don't care how many times a doctor took his license exam, what I care is that he got it. And yes, if he IS a doctor, than he most likely does have it and ahs earned it.

Now, what's even mroe disturbing is your prejudice statement of calling someone unintelligent because he didn't pass his securities exam. Prey tell me how you came to this "truth" that you so kindly and generously shared with us. Seriously, because I did exceptionally well at university, but that's not to say I didn't have a hard time every semester with a test or two. How did you come to the conclusion that I was not intelligent for not passing a series 7 exam? Would a doctor going in to take a series 7 exam but dumber than **** because he fails it? What basis are you using to come up with your asstacular "truth"?

When you actually have something useful to say, share it. Otherwise, and what I can say IS true, when you go to bed at night, your self esteem won't be any higher just because you tried to put someone down on a message board.

and by the way, at 56%, I won’t have any clients. So you nor they have nothing to worry about until I get licensed do you?

[quote=joedabrkr][quote=anabuhabkuss]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

That shows that ANY moron can pass the 7.

[quote=cpafp][quote=joedabrkr][quote=anabuhabkuss]

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.

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

That shows that ANY moron can pass the 7.

Hello, im currently a trainee with Edward Jones and I am sitting for my exam in a short amount of time, I am using the CCH Wallstreet books and practice tests that were provided me by another form where I didnt get a chance to sit for the exam and still was able to keep my books…What is your suggestion to actually passing this thing, the actual subject matter or is it the ability to answer really tricky questions…thanks, Jordan

[quote=jrvinson]What is your suggestion to actually passing this thing,
the actual subject matter or is it the ability to answer really tricky
questions…thanks, Jordan[/quote]



Both.  There’s no way around it, you have to know the material
cold.  And some of the questions can get pretty tricky so I guess
both abilities you mentioned would be required.   Its easily
passible though.

Why are you using CCH Wallstreet material?  For as many bad things that can be said about EDJ on this forum, series 7 prep is not one.  They have better than a 90% pass rate.

I just wanted to thank everyone on this forum for all your input. I took my Series 7 today and passed. My advice is to read and study more than you think you need to. The practice exams that I took from Dearborn/Kaplan did help alot. But I also looked over some practice tests from STC. Thanks again all.

Congratulations…and welcome to the jungle…

[quote=xbabygirlx]

I just wanted to thank everyone on this forum for all your input. I took my Series 7 today and passed. My advice is to read and study more than you think you need to. The practice exams that I took from Dearborn/Kaplan did help alot. But I also looked over some practice tests from STC. Thanks again all.

[quote=Scorpio][quote=jrvinson]What is your suggestion to actually passing this thing, the actual subject matter or is it the ability to answer really tricky questions…thanks, Jordan[/quote]

Both.  There’s no way around it, you have to know the material cold.  And some of the questions can get pretty tricky so I guess both abilities you mentioned would be required.   Its easily passible though.
Oh ok, well that makes enough sense, its just that I was a finance major and I know a lot of these subjects from my 4 years in business school, and quite honestly a lot of the things on the test are a lot different than what I learned…in question asking capacity…just curious, thanks man

[quote=exEJIR]

Why are you using CCH Wallstreet material?  For as many bad things that can be said about EDJ on this forum, series 7 prep is not one.  They have better than a 90% pass rate.

[quote=ShortNakedPuts]To the original poster:

I hope you come across as more intelligent than you actually are, otherwise you're going to have one heck of a time winning clients.  You don't need to be a genious in this business but clients expect a certain level of intelligence from the person managing their future.  From your 56% you don't seem to possess a level of intelligence that will impress prospects.  I'm sorry but its the truth.  The test is not even difficult - I got a 88% without trying.  Would you want a doctor who failed his medical license exam?


[/quote]

Passed with an 82% and have reserved to take the 66 in three weeks. You can take your crap filled philosophy and stick it you know where. If that's the best advice you can give than I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels sorry for your clients.

Yeah and by the way, it’s spelled “genius”.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]Passed with an 82% and have reserved to take the 66 in three weeks. You can take your crap filled philosophy and stick it you know where. If that's the best advice you can give than I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels sorry for your clients.[/quote]

Congratulations!  So what did you do different this time to make such a marked improvement?

Indy, I took the crash course and just didn't let up.

In the end, I had to trust that I knew the material. I don't think after have worked with the study material for 5 months that the disks and some of the stuff worked. Again, none of the actual questions were even remotely similar to the new kaplan pass track books. So in the end, it was as I said, going old school and studying hard. Knowing the stuff etc. When I hit that EXIT button to get my score, I didn't know what my score was going to look like.

Sorry, my head is still spinning 90MPH. I hope that answered your question.

Grrrrreat. All this conversation is making me nervous about my books arriving next week.   bleahhhhhh.

Devoted SA.

Get the book. Read the book 2-3 times. Do the practice exams, but do not lean on those more than the book. Read a chapter the first time, do a few probs off the disk (not more than 40), move to next chapter. keep the momentum going anf don't stick around if you don't remember everything.

On your second read through, read the chapter, hit the disk this time using more questions. Do this until you get through the book a second time.

Practice exam time. Do them. alot. and then use the parts you mess up with and go back to the book and understand what it is saying that was it sticks in your head permanantly.

However, this is my advice coming from my experience in all of this. The best test is how well you can have a conversation about any topic at hand. In general, know how the security is issued, traded, how it gets paid out to customers, when, how are dividends taxed, when are they taxed. You have to know these things like the back of your hand. If you don't and you go into that exam expecting to see exact replicas of what you were practicing on, you're gonna get murdered.

Know the stuff. Know why people would want to invest in them, how they get paid, taxed, when they get all that stuff done and know the boundaries of certain accounts and you'll be ok. Just learn the stuff, not "read" them.

 Would be lying if I said I was "cool as a cucumber" thinking about it.

I have to ask though, do you or did you have any background in securities? For example...are you like me, having worked as Sales Assistant/BOA for years and THEN take test...or are you new to the industry?

I went with pass perfect. We will see if I "pass perfect"!

none at all. i was a recruiter for a year and a half and did very well. I listened in on a lot of conversations among the brokers here, have a degree in finance, and just decided this is where i wanted to go. but no, i do not have any sales assistant experience whatsoever.

My rep tells me that having worked in the industry for a while (7+ yrs) I’ll do ok…but I still just want to make sure sure. Ya know?

Hi everyone -

I just passed my exam today with a 71. To be honest this was my third attempt, first was 65, second ws 69 and this time got by  getting 179 right (the minimum is 175). I feel extremely fortunate to have passed this time and used pass perfect each time. I took 34 finals this time (on the cd) with varied scoring results. My sponsoring firm gave us all the tools necessary, CD, on line, all the books and even a week long class each time. The whole process was overwhelming to say the least. I used this site many evenings as a resource for tips/advice. For some people this is an easy process, for me it was the hardest test hopefully Ill ever take and pass.

Thanks to everyone for all of their help!

Case insensitive operations are sometimes said to fold case, from the idea of folding the character code table so that upper and lower-case letters coincide.220-701 The alternative smash case is more likely to be used by someone that considers this behavior a misfeature or in cases wherein one case is actually permanently converted to the other.