QuoteOxford's Saïd Business School Becomes First CFA Program PartnerOver the years, we have had more and more educational institutions incorporate specific elements of the CFA Program Candidate Body of Knowledge (CBOK) into their graduate and undergraduate finance programs. We are proud to announce a new CFA Program Partner initiative that establishes a formal relationship between CFA Institute and select colleges and universities around the world that have incorporated a significant percentage (70%) of the CBOK into their degree programs. Last month the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford became the first CFA Program Partner, and we expect the next 10-15 affiliations to be announced in the months ahead. press release

This is good, I suppose, especially for CFAI. I wonder how these university affiliations may influence the evolution of the CFA curriculum and the exams? We'll see.

I know Said Bus School isn't on a par with Harvard's, but I thought Oxford was a proper university. Guess they must really need the cash !

QuoteOriginally posted by: dj99I know Said Bus School isn't on a par with Harvard's, but I thought Oxford was a proper university. Guess they must really need the cash !?CFAI isn't paying them, if anything it's the other way round as royalties have to be paid for using CFAI's learning outcome statements.

I think it's more a recognition of how competitive the job market is.5 years ago, folks were asking "what's better, an MFin/MBA or the CFA program", and these days, folks are increasingly doing both rather than either/or.

For me the interesting thing here though is that it calls into question the whole concept of "elite" education.If Oxford is really teaching the CFA Syllabus why is it a "better" school than anywhere else which does the same? It sort of pops the bubble a little doesn't it?

Could be...My observation of industry standard certifications is that they start off as rigorous and hard to pass, but that people get better at teaching exactly what you need to know to pass.Thus the same question becomes "easier" over time.Also finance is not a static thing, and I'd be interested in how they update it over time. There is an inevitable tension between wanting the "brand" of the qualification to remain "tough", and yet getting as many people through it as possible.One plausible way to retain it's status is to fail the bottom 25% of those who take it, and have the remainder split equally between grades A,B,C. But you can already see the horror in the face of those who want the qualification to remain commercially viable.One good thing, which hasn't happened yet is unbundling.Many people who do finance courses actually know some good % of it, adding to cost and time consumed.Others are already working, and have no interest at all in some subjects.If you have standard tests then people can study for them in a modular fashion.This would mean that providers would compete on quality of teachng a whole lot more.This is of course one reason it may never happen. We hear reports of lecturers at some places who can barely speak English, yet whose work is academically excellent.

QuoteOriginally posted by: linuxuser99For me the interesting thing here though is that it calls into question the whole concept of "elite" education.If Oxford is really teaching the CFA Syllabus why is it a "better" school than anywhere else which does the same? It sort of pops the bubble a little doesn't it?what a strange comment.What makes oxford better is the people teaching it and the way they teach it.You're not going to have some prof standing at the front of the class reading out the schweser notes, rather they've "incorporated elements" of the CFA CBOK into their program.

I'll be very curious whether the students in these CFA affiliated programs are somehow "identified" during the CFA examining process. I don't know about Oxford's current grading standards, but U.S. b-school grades are are largely a joke, whereas the proportion of people actually passing all 3 CFA exams seems to be less than 20%, perhaps considerably less. I would not be happy to pay Oxford tuition to study the CFA curriculum (and many other things) and not then pass these exams. On the other hand, CFAI's credibility will be severely damaged if it ever comes to light that these students are somehow in a specially graded group.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: linuxuser99For me the interesting thing here though is that it calls into question the whole concept of "elite" education.If Oxford is really teaching the CFA Syllabus why is it a "better" school than anywhere else which does the same? It sort of pops the bubble a little doesn't it?what a strange comment.What makes oxford better is the people teaching it and the way they teach it.You're not going to have some prof standing at the front of the class reading out the schweser notes, rather they've "incorporated elements" of the CFA CBOK into their program.What makes oxford better is the people teaching it and the way they teach it. - entirely reasonable. But then why do they pretend that the quality of their graduates is better? I'm lucky enough to have swapped "ordinary" UK university for a Grandes Ecole mid course at one point in my career. The teaching was definitely better at the UK uni - yet the Grandes Ecole claims the prestige.I would argue by analogy that the Oxford CFA link shows that the standard of Oxford Grads is roughly the same as CFA guys who studied from schweser - albeit that the Oxford guys may have had a "better" teacher; the outcomee is the same.

"quality of graduates" is of course partly driven by the quality of input.Thus it may be rational to attend somewhere that has poorer teaching but has a reputation for attracting smarter people.I don't have a strong opinion of the quality of teaching at Oxford, I hear bits but nothing conclusive, and of course "good" teaching does slightly beg the question of how it is optimised. A course for people who have mostly economics backgrounds ought to be different for those with physics.Seems to me the market is not well served for objective information of these expensive and time consuming courses.

QuoteOriginally posted by: linuxuser99I would argue by analogy that the Oxford CFA link shows that the standard of Oxford Grads is roughly the same as CFA guys who studied from schweser - albeit that the Oxford guys may have had a "better" teacher; the outcomee is the same.A well-known textbook on quantitative finance is Hull, which is used by scores of schools.I could make the exact same argument that the grads of every school which used Hull were equivalent.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: linuxuser99I would argue by analogy that the Oxford CFA link shows that the standard of Oxford Grads is roughly the same as CFA guys who studied from schweser - albeit that the Oxford guys may have had a "better" teacher; the outcomee is the same.A well-known textbook on quantitative finance is Hull, which is used by scores of schools.I could make the exact same argument that the grads of every school which used Hull were equivalent.If the schools were "Official Hull Partners" and trumpteting that they used all of his end of chapter exercises and were following his syllabus for 70% of the course you'd be entirely justified in doing so.