Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatic bird
Dear i think there was not much difference in interview method.
Most of the candidates were asked both analytical and token questions.It was upto panel's mood wether they like your arguments or one-liner.
My interview was a mixture of analytical and token questions.It started with some discussion then token questions were bombarded and ended up with discussing Syrian crisis.
After a dedicated interview preparation of more than 4 months i was able to answer them above 70 percent. I left interview room with a complacent feeling.
Moreover,written score has played a vital role in allocations.Most of the candidates with low scoring subjects have remained unallocated.
Luckily, this lunatic bird has found its nest in excise and taxation dpt.
Allocated as excise and taxation officer.
Planning to appear in css 17 also as its my last attempt.Birds rarely find a permanent residence, so preparing for a new flight.
|
Heartiest congratulations for the bird who got nest, and best of luck for CSS17. I remember efforts you put in to get idea about interviews and shared it on this forum with a big heart. I also understand that interviews hadnot bought significant change in written merit list and SPSC performed better than expectations of many. But if I see shortcomings, then I should point them out as well.
In my case, interview was 100% token questions. Introduction interrupted twice and then stopped. 90% questions were about dates and names. Near about 40+ Qs, only two related to previous job and one each related to my qualification and CA. They were looking in hurry. 60-65% correct answers i think. But I accept my subject selection was weird and I was heavily relying on my professional profile to impress panel. I understand my strategy didnot work as planed. But its all right. I moved on.
Again many many congratulations.
Regards