Now, one thing that I really don't understand: subjects for which I was well prepared proved to be fiasco; whereas, the subjects for which I really didn't study proved comparatively better.
Example;
First of written and interview: after taking written exam I knew well that I won't be able I score good. Given the tough competition in FATA in previous years it was futile to hope for a seredipity. I prepared really well for written; papers went really bad. I gave a damn about interview, I scored well, I believe.
Then in geography, paper 1 was My strength, and paper 2 was Achilles heel.
Scored 54 in paper 1 and 59 in paper 2.
Worked really hard for Pak affairs( as it was the first subject that I started work on); didn't study a single day for current affairs.
Pak affairs: 40; current affairs : 42
Never went blank for Islamiat , scored 67.
Seniors told me that English was my strength, scored 42 in essay.
I DO NOT take responsibility for bad score in pushtu. Prepared well, attempted well, scored 43. Poor score for a regional language.
US HISTORY, ah, after that paper , I came to know that I'm not going to make it. I was well prepared( keeping papers of last 10 years in mind) and was able to attempt 2 1/2 questions.
Psychology was my last paper. It was really easy, but by that time I had lost all hopes. Geography was my forte, and it had deceived me; opted Us history for its respective and selective study approach ; it ditched me. So what was I to expect from Poor Psycho. Didn't even bother to revise it, and to my surprise it was the easiest paper, brimming with the most expected questions. Had I revised it once, I would have done wonders, still scored 120 ( a poor score given this year scoring Trend). iLife take responsibility for my failure to do well in psychology, after all CSS is a game of nerves , and I lost it by the time I entered the hall for the last time for attempting psychology.mea culpa.
But what about other papers. Was it fated to be like this? I don't understand. Mysterious are the ways of heavens.