While studying 303 (general) I kept getting really annoyed by the past papers where inevitably I would assume the question wanted, say, eight points and the answer wanted 16 (or, even worse, 4 -> 16 - diff 1 mark and 1/4 mark!).
So my conclusion was to write as fast as possible with as many ideas as I could think of.
Seemed to work. Passed that one....
Then, 303 was more 'listy' then (especially as the horrid 'risks and uncertainties' chapter was still in it, which I believe has migrated to CA1).
What's my general guide is don't expect 1 mark for anything, assume 1/2 mark, and if it's a 'list' question, assume the worst and go for 1/4 mark!
The 'writing' questions seem to give you better marks for things that are (presumably) things you'd have had to 'think' about; rather than bookwork.
Then again, my exam technique is not the 'recommended' technique - I go through the questions, in order, like a steamtrain; then once I've got to the end I go back to questions I left not-completely-answered. So my technique and my assumption of 'write as much as possible' work together, but 'write as much as possible' doesn't mean I waste time trying really hard to find 16 points for a 4 mark question - however many immediately spring to mind get regurgitated onto the paper, then if I have time later and less than 16 sprung to mind, I can write one or two more down.
