Just passed the 7
23 RepliesJump to last post
For all of those who are in the process or who are thinking about taking the series 7. I just passed the exam on Friday. I studied for approx. 7 weeks using the pass perferct material supplied by my firm. The exam took me about 4 hours to complete ( 2 hours per part) and I got an 80%. I can't believe that I will say this, but I do agree with Put Trader that the people who come on this forum and say they completed the entire exam in 2 hours are just liars, or they were never taught how to tell time. To complete the exam that quickly and to pass I think is impossible. According to the statement at the bottom of my test completion certificate, the national average is 73% and the percentage of people that pass the exam is 66%. The only advice that I can give on passing the exam would be to allow yourself at least a month of study time, and to concentrate on the practice exams. Study the material and take the practice test and you should not have a problem passing the exam. good luck to all of those who are in the process of studying.
[quote=tmorris93]
For all of those who are in the process or who
are thinking about taking the series 7. I just passed the exam on
Friday. I studied for approx.
Congratulations. 80 is a good score.
[quote=tmorris93]The exam took me about 4 hours to complete ( 2 hours per part) and I got an 80%. I can't believe that I will say this, but I do agree with Put Trader that the people who come on this forum and say they completed the entire exam in 2 hours are just liars, or they were never taught how to tell time. To complete the exam that quickly and to pass I think is impossible. [/quote]
You can't comprehend how some of us can take the test so quickly. I can't comprehend how it took you two hours to complete each half.
We all read and think at different speeds.
[quote=es four]
You can't comprehend how some of us can take the test so quickly. I can't comprehend how it took you two hours to complete each half.
We all read and think at different speeds.
[/quote]He's got it right--liars or people who cannot keep time are the only folks who claim to take less than an hour and a half. Most actuallly take more like 2 hours and twenty minutes
Candidates are in the middle of the hardest test they've ever taken, with a job hanging in the balance.
When so much is at stake, it defies credulity to believe that a mature person would do anything other than approach it slowly and very deliberately.
It's an abilty to tell time deal--guys like you swear that they can do the old in and out for an hour, while their partner knows it's ten for fifteen seconds.
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=es four]
You can't comprehend how some of us can take the test so quickly. I can't comprehend how it took you two hours to complete each half.
We all read and think at different speeds.
[/quote]
He's got it right--liars or people who cannot keep time are the only folks who claim to take less than an hour and a half. Most actuallly take more like 2 hours and twenty minutes
Candidates are in the middle of the hardest test they've ever taken, with a job hanging in the balance.
When so much is at stake, it defies credulity to believe that a mature person would do anything other than approach it slowly and very deliberately.
It's an abilty to tell time deal--guys like you swear that they can do the old in and out for an hour, while their partner knows it's ten for fifteen seconds.
[/quote]
This was the hardest test given by a local, state, or federal "agency" that I have ever taken. It was hardly the hardest test that I have ever taken.
I took a little less than 1 hour and 15 minutes on each half, add a half hour break and I was done before noon.
[quote=Dewey Cheatham]
This was the hardest test given by a local,
state, or federal “agency” that I have ever taken. It was hardly
the hardest test that I have ever taken.
I took a little less than 1 hour and 15 minutes on each half, add a half hour break and I was done before noon.
[/quote]You have no credibility having routinely and repeatedly painted yourself as a buffoon.
One wonders what possesses people like Dewey Cheatem to so willingly, almost eagerly, jump in here telling lies.
One also wonders why he would be so proud of his penny stock career
that he actually mocks his dishonesty by using that “Securities offered
by Dewey Cheatem and Howe” signature line.
As my wife keeps asking, "What in the world makes sleazy people not know they’re sleazy?"
I keep telling her that they do–but they don’t care. Some wear
their status as a loser as if it were an award or something.
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Dewey Cheatham]
This was the hardest test given by a local, state, or federal "agency" that I have ever taken. It was hardly the hardest test that I have ever taken.
I took a little less than 1 hour and 15 minutes on each half, add a half hour break and I was done before noon.
[/quote]
You have no credibility having routinely and repeatedly painted yourself as a buffoon.
[/quote]
*snickers*
You're talking about yourself...right?
Just wondering why several others have noted similar times and just because "Put" can't do it, nobody can...right?
Following that same logic all of the world records in track & field are bogus because "Put" can't do it. Get real.
[quote=Put Trader]One wonders what possesses people like Dewey Cheatem to so willingly, almost eagerly, jump in here telling lies.
One also wonders why he would be so proud of his penny stock career that he actually mocks his dishonesty by using that "Securities offered by Dewey Cheatem and Howe" signature line.
As my wife keeps asking, "What in the world makes sleazy people not know they're sleazy?"
I keep telling her that they do--but they don't care. Some wear their status as a loser as if it were an award or something.
[/quote]
*snickers*
This from a man who ADMITTEDLY made all of his wealth off of insider trading.
Go figure...
[quote=Dewey Cheatham]
Just wondering why several others have noted similar times and just because “Put” can’t do it, nobody can…right?
Following that same logic all of the world records in track & field are bogus because "Put" can't do it. Get real.
[/quote]Nope, it's because I have spent the last sixteen years involved with a variety of issues including testing--and until I stumbled onto this forum I had never encountered somebody who said they took less than 90 minutes to do each half.
Then I found you and the other liars who prowl this forum--pretending to be grownups. That you and a couple of others claim that you did something I have never seen done does not have credibilty.
You see, the difference is what I know to be possible is in conflict with what you say you did.
Since you drew a world record analogy--let's run with it, so to speak.
You're saying you can run a 100 yard dash in 8.0 seconds, and I am saying that I have never heard of that being done and very much doubt it.
It has nothing to do with my ability to do it--what I'm saying is you're the liar.
[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Dewey Cheatham]
Just wondering why several others have noted similar times and just because "Put" can't do it, nobody can...right?
Following that same logic all of the world records in track & field are bogus because "Put" can't do it. Get real.
[/quote]
Nope, it's because I have spent the last sixteen years involved with a variety of issues including testing--and until I stumbled onto this forum I had never encountered somebody who said they took less than 90 minutes to do each half.
Then I found you and the other liars who prowl this forum--pretending to be grownups. That you and a couple of others claim that you did something I have never seen done does not have credibilty.
You see, the difference is what I know to be possible is in conflict with what you say you did.
Since you drew a world record analogy--let's run with it, so to speak.
You're saying you can run a 100 yard dash in 8.0 seconds, and I am saying that I have never heard of that being done and very much doubt it.
It has nothing to do with my ability to do it--what I'm saying is you're the liar.
[/quote]
Put,
Did you simply ignore the insider trading question?
P.S. - Answering 125 questions in 75 minutes is possible. Just ask me...I did it twice...consecutively...it is called the series 7 exam.
It can be done and it can be done successfully.
While cleaning and rearranging my files I found my series 7 exam results. The good part of being a packrat and never throwing things away. I was wrong before, I only scored a 91% and yes, I only took about an hour and 15 minutes on each section. Of 250 questions I answered 229 correct.The section analysis breaks down for me thusly:
RR and the customer ---above 90%
Brokerage Products ----above 90%
Derivative Products ----76-85%
Opening & Handling Customer accounts ---above 90%
Securites Market and Regulation 76-85%
Order Entry ----66-70%
Factors Affecting Security Value ---above 90%
If I hadn't biffed it on order entry and Derivatives I would have done better. I must stress that it really doesn't matter what the score is if you can't produce and do the job. But this post is to try to get you off your high hobby horse and realize that scoring well and in a shorter period on the series 7 is possible. Your claim that you haven't seen it done is not relevant. I haven't seen the backside of the moon, but I'm pretty sure that it is there and not a cardboard cut out with two by fours holding it up.
[quote=Put Trader]
[quote=Dewey Cheatham]
Just wondering why several others have noted similar times and just because “Put” can’t do it, nobody can…right?
Following that same logic all of the world records in track & field are bogus because "Put" can't do it. Get real.
[/quote]Nope, it's because I have spent the last sixteen years involved with a variety of issues including testing--and until I stumbled onto this forum I had never encountered somebody who said they took less than 90 minutes to do each half.
Then I found you and the other liars who prowl this forum--pretending to be grownups. That you and a couple of others claim that you did something I have never seen done does not have credibilty.
You see, the difference is what I know to be possible is in conflict with what you say you did.
Since you drew a world record analogy--let's run with it, so to speak.
You're saying you can run a 100 yard dash in 8.0 seconds, and I am saying that I have never heard of that being done and very much doubt it.
It has nothing to do with my ability to do it--what I'm saying is you're the liar.
[/quote]
Put-
I passed the Series 66 today in 1 hour 5 minutes, with a score of 90. Are you going to pooh-pooh that also? Would you like me to send you a copy of my score sheet?
Joe how was that 66? I just received some PassPerfect books. Who did you use? Any insight would be great. Thx.
[quote=joedabrkr]
Put-
I passed the Series 66 today in 1 hour 5 minutes, with a score of
90. Are you going to pooh-pooh that also? Would you like me
to send you a copy of my score sheet?
[/quote]
65 minutes to work 100 questions–let’s see that would work out to 81 minutes for 125 questions.
There is no way you could have done 125 Series 7 questions as quickly
for any number of reasons–they’re more complex, designed to be more
inclusive of a great many topics in each question, and as you state
somewhere you have been around for a few years and (hopefully) you
could identify why what you were being tested on was the way it is.
Series 7 is a different animal.
First, the candidates are rookies–as you know it doesn’t cover what is
taught in school. Not to mention that those who are bragging
about doing two or three questions a minute are the same souls who brag
about landing a job in the securities industry in spite of the fact
that they have little or no formal education.
Second–if they fail it they have to wait at least a month to take it again. That alone dictates that there is no rush.
Third–the subject matter is hugely more complex. Series 66 is a
walk in the park compared to Series 7 on subject matter alone.
Anyway–to answer your question or statement. I imagine that a
veteran producer could answer Series 66 questions at the clip of more
than one per minute.
I would also be disappointed in you if you had not scored at least 90%–why did you not do better?
[quote=babbling looney]
It can be done and it can be done successfully.
While cleaning and rearranging my files I found my series 7 exam results. The good part of being a packrat and never throwing things away. I was wrong before, I only scored a 91% and yes, I only took about an hour and 15 minutes on each section. Of 250 questions I answered 229 correct.The section analysis breaks down for me thusly:
RR and the customer ---above 90%
Brokerage Products ----above 90%
Derivative Products ----76-85%
Opening & Handling Customer accounts ---above 90%
Securites Market and Regulation 76-85%
Order Entry ----66-70%
Factors Affecting Security Value ---above 90%
If I hadn't biffed it on order entry and Derivatives I would have done better. I must stress that it really doesn't matter what the score is if you can't produce and do the job. But this post is to try to get you off your high hobby horse and realize that scoring well and in a shorter period on the series 7 is possible. Your claim that you haven't seen it done is not relevant. I haven't seen the backside of the moon, but I'm pretty sure that it is there and not a cardboard cut out with two by fours holding it up.
[/quote]You know what is amazing Looney? Due to the mix of the questions, you would have gotten only 232 right--only three more than you claim you did get right--if you had scored the highest possible within the ranges you listed.
What that means that you probably got 100% on most of those categories where you claim to have gotten "above 90" and certainly hit the highest score possible, say 85 when your range was 76 to 85.
What is also unheard of is a near perfect score in the "Brokerage Products" section. It is a huge section--33% of the test--and it is so all encompassing that high scores are almost unheard of.
I am not saying that 229 correct is not possible, it certainly is. What is offensive to me is your playing me as a fool by claiming you did it at a clip that doesn't provide for taking enough time to actually read the questions, consider the possible answers, choose an answer, and click the record or review choice, wait for the next question to pop up, reach for the exhibit book, look up an exhibit, study the exhibit, look back at the question, look at the exhibit book again, rub your eyes, take a deep breath, wish the person next to you was not making so much noise, and so forth.
In order to answer 250 questions in 150 minutes you have to be reading at a rate that is faster than you read when you read for pleasure--you were not reading for pleasure.
You have to be able to instantly recognize the correct answer, again and again and again. There are no more than 150 questions that have an instantly recognizable answer, and those answers would only be instantly recognizable to somebody who wrote sample questions and/or taught training courses.
You would have to be able to solve some--not many, but some--relatively complex options questions with the speed of a professional trader.
You would have to be able to grasp a change in the Euro versus the dollar with the speed and grace of a professional currency trader.
You would need to understand the procedures used in municipal syndicates at the level of a public finance banker in order to handle the subtle nuances in the fifty questions submitted by the MSRB.
You would need to be able to explain margin as if you were a thirty year veteran of a margin department--while also being careful regarding are they asking for the margin required or the margin deposit.
Alan Greenspan would take longer to answer a question about the Federal Reserve Board than you did.
The list goes on and on.
Is it possible that you got the highest possible score in each of the categories you listed? Sure.
Is it possible thta you got the highest possible score in each of the categories you listed by racing through the exam--taking barely more time than is required to simply mark an answer and move on? Nope.
Do I think you're lying? If you were Dewey Cheatam the answer would be "Of course you're lying, your entire existence is a lie." But in your case I'm simply saying that you're mistaken regarding the time it took you.
You recalled earlier than you had to wait for your husband to come get you because you finished quicker than you thought you would.
I'm sixty years old. I know that when one is waiting for somebody to come get them it "seems like forever." I'm simply saying that all you really recall is that you waited a long time--and you're working backwards from there.
This entire thread is also based on mere minutes.
I am saying that a Series 7 course writer would require an average of more than one minute per question--an average, not a per question minimum.
I am speaking from more than twenty years of experience asking people, "So what did you see? How long did it take you?" and so forth--and more than ten years of actually doing some serious debriefing, as well as having been a member of the committee that writes the options portion.
There are lots of people who finish quickly--and there are a few people who score in excess of 90%. But in order to score in excess of 90% quickly one has to have EXTENSIVE knowledge of the material, be working in an environment with no distractions, and most importantly they have to not have the pressure of any negative result should they fail.
That, the negative of having to wait thirty days to take it again, is what causes people to take longer than 1 minute per question.
I too have never seen the dark side of the moon. I too know it's there, but I know that only a handful of people have seen it and I know that they didn't do it with the casualness that the rest of us run down the street to pick up a loaf of bread.
Yo Morris, forget all the arguing about time
Congrats on passing your exam!
Now the real tests begin!
Good Luck with the Career!!
I can’t believe I even give a damn, but when I got to the office I
called our registration manager and asked her if she though it was
possible to score above 90% without taking time to review any questions.
She said, “Sure, but when it happens they nail the options portion.”
I asked it it was possible to have options be the lowest segment, yet still score 90 or more.
She said that she could not imagine how that could happen–citing again
that people fixate on options and that that fixation leads to weakness
in other areas. The classic failure to see the forest because of
lookiing at the tree.
I know I know, what could she know after only thirty five years of keeping track of thousands of test scores!
I can't believe that you or I give a damn either, but I can't stand someone questioning my veracity. I fire clients who won't listen to me or second guess my advice.
First of all, I had been a financial advisor (Series 6, 63 and variable life) for over 10 years prior to taking the 7. In addition I had just completed the CFP studies. So most of the material was old news for me. The only "new" material was the option segement and the municipal securities rules and were the portions of the test I was stressed about. Naturally I scored lowest on those. I don't know what the big mystery is about being able to read quickly (I speed read) and being able to quickly discern the correct answer. Usually it is a matter of discerning the most incorrect answers. There is no need to review the questions that you know are correct, only those few that you are unsure of. If you know the material and have taken an adequate prepratory, course it is not too difficult.
If your registration manager lacks the imagination, I would be happy to fax a copy of my offical scores to her. Broaden her imagination as it were.
As to the time spent waiting..I wear a watch and know how to use it.
[quote=babbling looney]
If your registration manager lacks the
imagination, I would be happy to fax a copy of my offical scores to
her. Broaden her imagination as it were.
As to the time spent waiting..I wear a watch and know how to use it.
[/quote]Let's examine the latter a bit. You are off to take a test that you believe may take 7 hours--six hours of testing and one hour of introductions and the mandatory lunch.
So, if you were my wife you'd probably get out of the car at (say) 8 AM saying, "I have to be finished by 3:30, why don't you come pick me up at 3--you may have to wait a few minutes."
According to your scenario you would be finished an Noon, give or take. That would mean that you had to wait for three hours or more. I'm saying that somebody sitting waiting that long is going to allow that wait to turn into, "And it was this big....I kid you not" type of tale told by a fisherman, or by the women who have enjoyed encountering me in the dark .
I have not suggested that you did not score 229 correct answers--I am simply saying it did not happen when you didn't even take enough time to read the questions.
Nor am I saying that you're lying--instead what I'm saying is that in the warm glow of history your forty five minutes of waiting has morphed into hours of waiting.
Do you suggest that newcomers should be worried about failing the test if they cannot answer two questions a minute--or if they feel like they should review--or if they should just grab the exhibit book and work a problem even though they might be using the wrong information--or that they won't get breakeven questions--or that they won't find themselves having to slow down on a question that reads:
All of the following will cause a strong dollar, except those which do not:
Regardless of what the answers are I suggest that one cannot simply look for a correct answer because there can be any number of correct answers. I aslso suggest that one cannot look for an incorrect answer because there can be any number of incorrect answers.
That means the candiate must SLOW down and think about it.
It is not happenstance that everybody who is boasting that they were able to pass the exam without reading the questions made that ridiculous boast before the forum participants who took the test more recently began saying things like was said the other day--that those of you who claim to be able to solve a question every twenty seconds are either liars or cannot tell time.
I doubt you're lying--and I have no dobut that you can tell time. But it was several years ago and you're old--consequently your 128 minutes per half are being remembered as "I did it really fast" and that for some unknown reason you are unwilling to accept that doing it with almost an hour to spare on each half is fast enough.
You seem to be involved in a, "Oh yeah, well I only took 87 minutes!" competition with guys who couldn't tell the truth if it came up and bit them on the nose.