I talked a bit about what exams actually are like (in terms of like the exam hall etc
here).
I have heard that Rachel Riley got through her degree at Oxford without ever seeing a numerical answer
but no. There is always some theory in a past exam paper, and depending on the module you do have to compute some things (one module I'm doing this year, 75% of the exam is just calculating things (though not as easy as it sounds!)) wheras something like Algebra, say, is more theory based.
In Maths here, for the first year you get a section A and section B. Section A tends to cover a few distinct areas that you've studied and then B goes into much more detail and you get to pick 2 out of 3 questions in section B (you can attempt all 3, but only the best 2 are marked and I'm not sure if you'd have enough time to give full attempts to each question in section B) and section A is compulsory.
The second year they change it, so that you get 4 questions, just one section, and it's best 3 out of 4, and those questions look at a quarter of the module each (naturally).
It is difficult to score highly unless you're really clued up, but not impossible to do well.
Ah, I can't say that bit of FP3 rings a bell (I didn't study it and that area of FP3 hasn't come up so far
)