Well I'm not exactly going to put my head in the oven (yet), but they seem significantly more difficult and abstract than what has been asked more recently. For example September 2005 Q1 seemed to be rather simple but the path to the solution was not at all obvious on first reading. I set the problem up correctly and was here for 20 mins trying to do double integration. I then had a quick look at the solution and when i saw the t<.... line i knew exactly what i needed to do. March 2006 Q10 (iii) seemed to again have an in-obvious route to the solution, and (iv) seemed next to impossible. The only way i was able to find a way through this algebraically was with mathematica 7.0. Also question 8 on bayesian methods from this exam was really difficult to understand. I really find it hard to believe that more than a handful of students got through that with full marks in the actual exam.
My concern is that the subject can potentially be alot harder than the more recent exams suggest..
Last edited by a moderator: Sep 13, 2010