Just wondering If the exams are meant to test our understanding of the course, then is there an argument against the latest exam being too difficult to do in exam conditions? I mean, if they are testing our understanding, then surely there should have been more questions on other aspects of the course and also less emphasis on our "creativity" in solving the ridiculous question that they asked us at the end of the exam. I think that you could argue that if somebody was required to do that question in NON-exam conditions, they would have found it difficult, nevermind the fact that there was a time constraint etc etc. I wonder if there's a system for complaining about the actual level of difficulty of the exam and whether it's ever been successful in demonstrating that the exam itself was pointless cos it was so hard that noone could have done it in whatever time was set.
Snake, the problem is that about 50% of entrants pass. So the exam cannot be "impossible". However, there may be impossible quesions on it. If the pass mark is 50%, then the last question be "prove the riemann hypothesis" etc, and people would still be able to pass.
I passed this, third time, last April. Having had a quick glance of this September's exam it looks of a fairly similar standard. The way I look at it is that a candidate who is likely to pass, especially when there's too much to do in the time available, will be the ones who recognise the difficult questions and quickly move on to the ones that can be done more easily. As Rosencruz says, you know a certain amount will pass, at least 30%, come what may. I used to hate the thought of having to repeat an exam. Now, as long as I get one each sitting, I'm happy, because I'm making progress. If I'm repeating an exam, I know I'm ahead of those starting from scratch and far less work is required than when starting a new subject.
