The questions available via this page are all essay-based and typically are open-ended. I have never set multiple choice or deterministic ‘short answer’ questions and ‘problem sets’ of the kind that are usually used to examine courses built on deterministic orthodox economics.
Click here for a menu of seventy-five essay-style exam questions, grouped roughly in sequence to align with the contents of Principles of Behavioral Economics
Five more questions with notes about answering them are available here
These questions were designed for 2-hour final examinations that were weighted 55–60% towards the final grade. For institutions that use 3-hour final examinations, the same kinds of questions could be used, but with students being required to attempt four rather than three. I typically set either nine questions (divided into three sections, each of three questions, with one question having to be attempted from each section) or six questions (divided into two sections, each of three questions, with at least one question having to be attempted from each section).
A couple of weeks before lectures ended, immediately after students had submitted their final pieces of in-term written work, I usually provided the students with an ‘indicative menu’ of about 18 possible examination questions from which their actual examination questions. I had promised this to them at the start of the course. I also explained that, prior to the exam, neither I nor any of the course tutors would be prepared to answer any queries from them specifically about the questions on the menu that I had supplied.
This arrangement generally worked well, with students tending to as specific revision questions to clarify material from lectures, tutorials or their reading that they may have been considering applying if particular questions came up in the exam but they were not able to extract information about how to assemble particular answers.
I strongly encouraged my students to form study groups with a few of their classmates. However, I found it necessary to try to deter them from dividing up questions from the menu among their group and assigning members the task of writing model answers to the questions that they had been assigned. It was sometimes clear that this advice had been ignored, for I would come across answers that contained identical sets of shortcomings as a result not, I suspect, of cheating in the exam but of members of particular groups parrot-learning answers that their fellow group members had written. What the groups should have been doing was discussing which questions on the menu required knowledge of much the same material, critically sharing their thoughts on what the ingredients for doing good answers to particular questions might be, and checking how their peers made sense of concepts that they personally found puzzling.
Peter E. Earl -- Eclectic Real-World Economics 