Looking at the scores from a statistical perspective, the 2011 VR paper was tough, but 2012 VR paper seems to have been relatively easy.
I would suggest that it may be very difficult to assess the difficulty or otherwise, of the exams that were were taken in 2012, versus the exams taken in 2011, using only the evidence on the boards or perhaps even the opinion of the candidates, post-exam. Would you be so kind as to tell us what your data source was for your suggestion?
You see the thing is, when a declaration/suggestion/theory is postulated, that an exam is easy or easier normal, it can diminish the achievement of those who scored highly and rub salt in the wound of those who didn't do as well as they might have hoped. However, I know there's winners and losers and we all have to learn to cope with either result.
One might cautiously suggest that results/statistics/theories derived from data on here may
be seriously skewed. We don't know if what's posted is true or accurate, or more importantly, genuinely representative of what the actual
results show. Only CSSE holds this information at the moment.
A lot of people lurk and read these boards without ever posting - many of them use this board as an invaluable and for the most part, accurate source of advice and information. I think we all need to be careful when citing statistics without quoting our source or database.
I make a huge apology for banging this "evidence" drum again but my academic training is too deeply ingrained lol!