The exam paper is interesting to look at, but whether it is actually a difficult exam to pass depends far more on the stringency of the marking scheme and how much the average entrant actually knows. If half the people taking the exam don&#x27;t know who Weber was and you can pick up 3-4 marks on the question for making generic comments about the internet and rationality, that question suddenly looks a lot less challenging, especially when it&#x27;s only 2-5% of the paper.<p>I&#x27;m not well qualified to comment on the Indian-themed questions, but most of the world affairs questions don&#x27;t appear especially difficult to write a vague statement that picks up some marks even with general ignorance of the subject matter, and I&#x27;d suspect that most people with a decent interest in world politics and current affairs (and a good education) could get middling scores on those questions.<p>If anything, I&#x27;d be more concerned about losing marks from not sharing the same view as the examiner on <i>&quot;Africa was chopped into States artificially created by European expansion.&quot; Analyse</i> and <i>&quot;Male membership needs to be encouraged in order to make women&#x27;s organization free from gender bias&quot; Comment.</i> (especially if being marked by a bureaucrat rather than an academic) rather than the inherent difficulty of the subject matter.<p>What matters much more for the actual difficulty is whether it&#x27;s intended on selecting the top .5% or just screening out the bottom 50%. And perhaps also whether some of the more controversial political questions are marked based primarily on knowledge, nuance, or adherence to the viewpoint of the examiner.