This document last updated: 18 May 2026.
These pages provide comments on past exam papers for the Economics
Tripos Part I Paper 3 (Quantitative Methods in Economics). Where there is
no comment for a question, it probably means I've not yet had a go at
it, or that it doesn't exist. Make sure you check my corrections page too.
Please note: I've not supervised the Statistics part of Paper 3 this year, so I'm not
the best person to advise on which past Statistics questions are on material which has not been covered this year.
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
| A1 | OK | Very pruned! Bit unclear | OK | OK | OK but ignore the "hence" |
| A2 | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK |
| A3 | OK | OK but tedious | Dull | OK | OK |
| A4 | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK (a) not easy |
| A5 | OK | OK | OK | OK (Good) | OK |
| A6 | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK |
| B1 | OK | OK except (a) a bit confusing | OK but long | OK | OK except question should say G = G_bar - tY, not G = G_bar + tY |
| B2 | OK | OK (relatively easy) | Tedious | OK (Bit tedious as usual) | OK except the very last bit, which is beyond Year1 syllabus |
| C1 | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK (c) and (d) not easy |
| C2 | OK | OK (Good) | OK (bit tedious) | OK | OK but time-consuming |
| C3 | | OK (though (c) a bit puzzling) | OK but too long without a spreadsheet | OK (though a bit vague in places) | (a) not easy (b) OK (Good) |
| C4 | OK | Bit odd | OK | OK except (d) is too vague | Slightly strange and subjective |
| C5 | OK | OK | Stupidly long without a spreadsheet | OK | OK |
| C6 | | OK | OK | OK | (a) OK (b) OK (c) Don't see the point |
| C7 | (b)? | OK | | | |
| D1 | OK | Tedious & (a) and (c) not clear | OK | OK except tedious | Dataset rather unrealistic! |
| D2 | OK | Badly designed | OK (though (b) is a bit tedious) | Seems far too time-consuming done by hand | Interesting, though I'm not sure what they wanted for (f) |
| D3 | OK | OK except (f) not clear | | | |
| D4 | (c)? | | | | |
| 2008 | 2009 | | | |
| A1 | Hard for section A | (a) quite hard (b) horrendous | | | |
| A2 | OK | OK | | | |
| A3 | OK (quick) | OK though you don't need to solve the equation! | | | |
| A4 | OK | Weird and confusing | | | |
| A5 | OK | | | | |
| A6 | OK | | | | |
| B1 | Seems to have an error in that the determinant (part (b)) could be positive or negative | OK | | | |
| B2 | Interesting but long, error-prone and (e) unclear | (a)-(c) OK though error-prone; (d) not on syllabus now | | | |
| C1 | OK | OK - slightly unusual | | | |
| C2 | Unclear | OK (Good) | | | |
| C3 | OK except (b) ambiguous | OK though a bit contrived and long | | | |
| C4 | Unclear | OK | | | |
| C5 | OK (quick) | | | | |
| C6 | OK | | | | |
| C7 | | | | | |
| D1 | OK (quick for section D) | OK except too long and not clear if one has to test "assumption" of independence in (c)(i) | | | |
| D2 | Long and (d), (e), (f) unclear | OK | | | |
| D3 | | | | | |
| D4 | | | | | |
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| A1 | (b) is badly-worded | OK (Good) | OK | OK (quick) | OK (useful) |
| A2 | OK (fairly easy) | Useful though (ii) could be long or short | (a) odd and not very fair (b) fine | OK | I found (b) hard, though I'm not an economist |
| A3 | OK (fairly easy) | OK (Good) | (a) is ambigious in that the matrix is not symmetric unless alpha=-2 | OK (quick) | OK |
| A4 | OK (fairly easy) | OK - "proportionate" could be clearer | OK | OK, though tangent plane no longer in syallabus | Irritating |
| B5 | OK (very quick for section B) | OK but very error-prone | OK | Ghastly | Ambiguous in places |
| B6 | OK (very quick for section B) | OK though last bit unclear | Not well-worded, numbers inconvenient but otherwise OK | OKish | OK given micro definitions |
| C7 | OK | OK | OK (fairly easy) | OK (quick) | OK (easy but useful) |
| C8 | OK | OK | OK (easy) | OK (good) | Bayes with a twist: interesting |
| C9 | OK | A bit contrived and confusing | OK (good, though (a) is a bit vague) | OK (very quick) | Sx^2 and Sy^2 via the new Crowley definition from now on |
| C10 | OK | Hum | OK | OK (useful) | Straightforward |
| D11 | Absurdly long in (a); (b)(v) should say Q2 and Q3 | Time consuming and confusing | OK though too short for Section D, and (d) unclear | OK | (b) does not expect a quantitative analysis, one presumes |
| D12 | OK, though much quicker than D11 | OK (Good if quick) - much shorter than D11 | OK though unclear on how much is wanted | OK | OK |
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
| A1 | Unclear how many terms to take in (c) | Unclear how many terms to take in (c) | OK | OK | Somewhat crazy |
| A2 | OK and useful but a bit long for an exam | OK | OK | OK | Fine and quick |
| A3 | OK and useful | OK | OK, though (a) ambiguous and (b) not easy | OK, sort-of | Somewhat unclear and odd |
| A4 | OK but rather long | Rather vague, and some concepts needed are no longer taught | OK | Too long | OK |
| B5 | OK but long | OK | OK (assume price discrimination not present in (e)) | (c) is problematic: the equation is non-linear | Odd, and (d) is wrong, I think: neither good is a Giffen good |
| B6 | OK but (again) long | OK and interesting | OK but long | OK but error-prone | Doable but hard given lecture coverage |
| C7 | (d) is wrong; otherwise OK and interesting though quick | OK | OK but long | OK | OK |
| C8 | OK | Hard unless it's done in lectures | OK (a bit different) | OK | OK |
| C9 | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK (fairly easy) |
| C10 | Very quick? | | OK | OK | Bit long and unclear |
| D11 | Unclear what (a) wants; otherwise OK | OK | OK (good) | Notation in (a) confusing; otherwise challenging but interesting | Second year material set to first years, and key assumptions are listed only at the end of the question |
| D12 | OK | OK | OK | Too long, or rather, unclear what is required for (b), (c), (e), (f) | Rather short |
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| A1 | (a) is vindictive, otherwise OK | OK | OK | Strange | OK |
| A2 | OK though (c) is hard | (b) is not easy to do quickly | Abstract but OK | Strange | OK |
| A3 | Too hard for Section A | Seems very abstract | OK | (a) is interesting but still strange overall | OK |
| A4 | OK | Again, abstract | Hard if you can't see it | OK | OK |
| B5 | Too time-consuming and error-prone | OK but tedious | Initially confusing but OK | OK (not easy) | OK but (d) is confusing |
| B6 | (d) is somewhat tedious and (e) is vague | OK | Tedious and error-prone | Horrendous | OK |
| C7 | OK (good) | OK: interesting but (d) not easy so it's a bit long | OK | Hard, mostly due to (a) | OK |
| C8 | OK (good) | OK; not easy | OK | Very easy | OK |
| C9 | OK (good) | OK, quick | OK | OK | OK |
| C10 | Ambiguous as to what test is needed in (c) | Ambiguous and unclear in places | OK | Not very good | Partly OK but partly unclear |
| D11 | Too long and (c) is ambiguous | OK; (e) not easy | OK | OK | OK |
| D12 | Insufficient substance for Section B | Unclear what one is allowed to assume | Short for section D. Do you have access to t-tables for 48 degrees of freedom in the exam? | Too short for section D | Just bookwork |
