Originally Posted by SA Haider
This may be true in some cases but if we see the this things as a whole then majority of the candidates will fail to gain the lost confidence due to shortage of marks. Because unlike very few elite schools have the psychologists from the class 1 and they train the students and improve their personality and in CSS majority of the candidates come from the background in which they have minimum financial resources and complexed family structure. All these things contribute to their mental aptitude.
But your other point of playing unfair game is valid. The rejection letter must be issued stating the reason for not falling into the selection criteria so that in the next attempt the candidate can improve that side.
I admit all.
But, I do not know why we think, the panel is really interested in letting us know where we are "deficient" and falling back. They are well known for their uninterested(wish it were disinterestedness). They would raze a ready made foundation to ground if they think it is undesirable. I do not see what is ex-judiciary to do with selection and here 10,000 stories amused by few and offended and uninterested by many. All panel going through mid life crises.
and for educated elite, I have a kind of short maxim,"rich never faces shyness that poor does". he is unaffected by the grandeur of interviewers or psychologists (People somehow leaping in dark drawing conclusion in five to twenty minutes) Its us, who face all. but have you ever thought what fears we have successfully encumbered when we know we are failed or performed disappointingly. In reality, we already fight with so many isms so many dreads to which I say that we always try to save what we can. We men women of middle class.
in nutshell, we are highly stretchable when talked in terms of pressure. So no harm in telling marks.
Yet, they do not tell.. its does not mean they do not tell for some reason. Actually they do not care!
. Its funny but to me I think they do not feel equal to even think about it.