After going through few markskeets of css 2009,i have come up with some food for thought for everyone here.

last year Indo Pak history was a low scoring subject, even guys like Maneka who I think is the topper in history from GCU (COrrect me if I am wrong) got 114 marks and generally nobody got too high a score and the topper of 37th common scored 140 in history i guess. well justfast fwd a year and you get really high scores in indo Pak history,now my point is that isnt it injustice with the guys/gals who did not opt history this year for the fear of "whimsical" marking.

Similarly journalism has seen a similar trend but in opposite direction.2oo8 was high scoring ,this year its low scoring.

English Liteature is another example simialr to journalism.


MY point is that "with fluctuating markign trends in css exams,the criterion for success starts dependign alot on luck than hardwork and knowledge becasue now if a candidate by chance has opted "favourable" subjects then he/she has bright chances of getting through and if unfortuantely the candidate has chosen the "unfavourable" subjects.he/she is doomed.

This inconsistancy in marking trends makes the exam by luck and by chance instead of being a measure of ability.

i am not at all saying that candidate who passed this year did not deserve their success ,I am just trying to point out that alot might have missed out only because of shear bad luck.


The marking system needs to be consistent and the trick or treat factor should be eliminated.


All kinds of criticism and thoughts are welcome

Go ahead say anything and I wont mind at all