Sunday, October 17, 2021
12:03 AM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > Beginner's Guide > Subject Analysis

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Saturday, April 09, 2016
Amna's Avatar
Super Moderator
Moderator: Ribbon awarded to moderators of the forum - Issue reason: Best Moderator Award: Awarded for censoring all swearing and keeping posts in order. - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Desert of Dream
Posts: 2,926
Thanks: 446
Thanked 1,985 Times in 1,041 Posts
Amna has much to be proud ofAmna has much to be proud ofAmna has much to be proud ofAmna has much to be proud ofAmna has much to be proud ofAmna has much to be proud ofAmna has much to be proud ofAmna has much to be proud of
Default Observations on Performance of Candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2013

Observations of Examiners on Performance of Candidates in CE - 2013

The Examiners have made the following observations on the candidates' performance in compulsory and optional papers opted in written part of the Competitive Examination 2013.

I. Compulsory Subjects

A. Essay: Despite discouraging result, some candidates were found sincere and determined in their performance, but for some candidates it appeared to be gigantic job. Questions generally were having two dimensions i.e. intellectual and practical and mostly candidates provided unproductive work instead of balance between intellectual and practical part of the questions perhaps due to their limited knowledge. Their skills required graduated approach and error free piece of writing. Confusion in cognitive abilities to handle a subject matter skillfully remained dominant in majority of the scripts.

B. English (Precise & Composition): The standard of performance of the examinees reflected that majority did not know the strategies of making precise and reproduced the original language of the passage while answering the questions. Most of the Candidates lacked the practice and knowledge of how a comprehensive note is written and showed lack of cohesion, coherence and organizational skills. Functional and communicative aspect of the majority of the candidates was badly neglected and dealt as subject rather than language. To improve the situation English language teaching in Pakistan may be made language oriented, syllabus at all levels be re-designed to cater the needs of learners, training courses/workshops be organized for English language teachers on regular basis. A screening test should be given to candidates to test their proficiency in English language for short listing and to reduce the number of failures.

C. General Knowledge - I (Everyday Science): Overall performance of the candidates was of a Low Standard. About 10% of the candidates did not have even a faint idea about everyday science. Also approximately half of the candidates did not secure even 30% marks.

D. General Knowledge - II (Current Affairs): Majority of the candidates lacked basic writing skills and their scripts showed crammed knowledge. They also showed lack of analytical and reasoning skills. Almost all the candidates’ showed lack of cosmopolitan and international outlook and they demonstrated tunnel-vision approach to contemporary issues. A pre-test advanced English language writing skills examination is proposed to shortlist the serious and capable candidates.

E. General Knowledge - III (Pakistan Affairs): Majority have attempted the paper without spirit of the questionnaires as “History is a continuous process of past, present and future”. Students were unable to analyze the impact of historical process on modern sub-continent with special reference to Pakistan. Very few candidates performed conceptual approach about any issue while understanding of history, critical analysis, communication in English and repetition of ideas were the problems of majority. Reading habit, writing practice, aptitude and hardworking were widely locked. Most of the candidates consulted the sub- standard books guides for preparation and credible academic writings were ignored. Only 5% candidates attempted seriously, 30% attempted vague and 65% were nonserious.

F. Islamist: Overall performance of the candidates was un-satisfactory and does not meet scholar’s level at CSS stage. Majority attempted the questions in muddled way i.e. without paragraphing or headings, without giving question numbers properly and even without any demarcation between answers of two questions. Quranic versus and Ahadith quoted were mostly incorrect. However, some candidates have performed very good fulfilling the technical standard of CSS examination.

II . Optional Subjects

(i). Accountancy and Auditing - I: Majority of the candidates seemed to have attempted questions in a casual way. They ought to work hard to get good grades.

(ii). Accountancy and Auditing - II: Majority of candidates have lacked knowledge of the subject. Also it is observed that majority attempted the theoretical portion and not the practical.

(iii). Agriculture : The overall performance of the candidates fell in different categories i.e. Excellent 4%, Very Good 23%, Good 9%, Satisfactory 24% and remaining 50% unsatisfactory and bad answers. Lack of common sense is generally observed in the scripts. Most of the candidates wrote many pages with unwanted explanations. Minimum qualification for CSS examination may be enhanced from 14 years education to 16 years education so that the candidates are mentally mature to answer the question in sensible manner.

(iv) Applied Mathematics:
Majority of the candidates have showen no understanding due to stress on memorization rather than understanding the basis of the subject.

(v). Arabic I : Most of the candidates displayed good performance and showed keen interest in Arabic Literature. Major defect found from the scripts is inappropriate writing in Arabic language.

(vi). Arabic II : General Standard of performance of candidates is very good with excellent knowledge of the subject. However, they should improve writing skills in Arabic language.

(vii). Botany I: Overall performance of the candidates was unsatisfactory. Only few candidates have power of utilizing their knowledge, having full grasp of the subject and originality of thoughts. Majority of the scripts contained spelling mistakes of technical terms. Most of the candidates did not even know whether Fungi and Algae are singular or plural. Only 7 to 8 scripts out of 117, are found good attempted.

(vii). Botany II: With few exceptions, overall knowledge of the candidates was superficial. For thought provoking question, generally they were unable to answer. General standard in writing English comprehension was below average. Both grammatical and spelling errors were common.

(viii). British History I : A sizeable majority of the candidates could not express ideas lucidly because of their weakness in English Language. Such candidates appear in the Competitive Examination just to try their luck. Out of total 381 candidates, only 07 got more than 75% marks while 67 failed to get even more than 40%.

(ix). British History II: Overall performance of the candidates was not very encouraging. Out of 381 candidates only 66 got more than 60%, whereas 60 candidates got less than 33%. Major weakness observed was poor expression in English. Candidates have the knowledge but could not accurately express themselves while answering the questions.

(x). Business Administration: TIt transpired after going through the scripts that there was marked similarity in the answers of the candidates. It indicates that candidates have generally used sources of guide books or some notes for preparation of the subject. Understanding of the concepts were shallow, therefore there was little discussion in the answers. Overall performance of candidates showed low caliber and lack of seriousness.

(xi). Chemistry I: Most of the candidates obtained less than 50% marks so overall performance cannot be categorized as Satisfactory. Lack of comprehensive grip on the subject was mainly observed.

(xii). Chemistry II: General performance of the candidates was average. Most of the candidates refrained to solve simple chemical kinetics question involving mathematics of 9th class level. A large number of candidates had no concept of the subject. No extra ordinary candidate was found because maximum marks obtained by the candidate was 68 only.

(xiii). Computer Science : Overall performance of the candidates was unsatisfactory. Most of the candidates were not clear or aware of the basic concepts. Bluff writing was common among incompetent candidates, which were strongly regretted while marking.

(xiv). Constitutional Law:
Ninety percent (90%) of the candidates miserably failed to understand the nature of questions. Majority seemed deliberately prepared for fabricated answers whether they have the required knowledge or not.

(xv). Economics I : Generally performance of majority of the candidates was not satisfactory because they did not prepare themselves for this examination. Most of them have weak concepts about various economic terms and provided un-necessary and irrelevant explanations. A large number of candidates were unable to express themselves due to having weak knowledge about economic theories.

(xvi). Economics II :Overall performance of the candidates was quite satisfactory. However, there seemed to be a general problem across the board in terms of things like analytical abilities, critical approach towards answering their questions.

(xvii). English Literature I : TGenerally an answer of the candidates reflected that they did not have command over English language. Frequently repeated errors of tenses, misuse of continuous speech, use of definite article before proper nouns etc. were common. They failed to prove their arguments by referring to the literary works. Inabilities to comprehend the questions also lead the candidates to produce irrelevant answers.

(xviii). English Literature II: Candidates mainly showed their lack of understanding of the questions. They often presented a number of arguments which were not supported by relevant and concrete evidence.

(xix). Forestry: Deficiency on indepth knowledge in most candidates was observed. However, overall performance was Satisfactory.

(xx). Geography-I: Performance of the candidates who have studied geology at graduation program was satisfactory and received good marks. On the other hand, candidates who were not pre-familiar with the subject had poor knowledge and got less mark.

(xxi). History of Pakistan & India : The knowledge, expression and performance of 70% candidates were very poor and disappointing. They failed to understand the questions. Concepts of the candidates about the subject were not clear and hence their answers did not meet the demands of the questions.

(xxii). History of USA: Overall candidates attempted the paper well. It appeared that majority of the candidates have taken classes at an Academy.

(xxiii). International Law: Some of the answers were of a very good standard having a clear approach, both critical and analytical. Overall performance was not so good.

(xxiv). International Relations: Except a few candidates, the result has not been very good. Common mistakes noted in the answer sheets relating to conceptual problems, grammatical mistakes, syntax and sentence errors. Besides the candidates generally answered the questions without going into specific details. In 80% cases, the candidates were not analytical.

(xxv). Islamic History & Culture - I: Candidates generally lacked in conceptual and objective approach. Most of the candidates lacked seriousness towards the study which was evident from their answers. Candidates had relied upon the pre-written notes and helping guides who provide cramming approach rather than building the concepts and analytical skills.

(xxvi). Islamic History & Culture-II: Most of the candidates did not know how to write good and correct English. Most of them depended upon cheap guides and notes which were not sufficient to get good marks. Moreover, there was no creativity to produce a good answer.

(xxvii). Journalism: Performance of majority of the candidates was poor. Without understanding questions, they jolted down whatever they knew about the topic, even not caring about the relevancy to the question. Majority of the candidates only focused on writing maximum number of pages/sheets, not on the relevancy, concepts and standard of the answers.

(xxviii). Law I: Performance of majority of the candidates was satisfactory. Specifically due to their weak and poor knowledge they were unable to clarify the concepts. There was dire need to make proper arrangements to improve their language before entering into Competitive Examination.

(xxix). Law II: Most of the candidates failed to give satisfactory answers having some plausibility not to speak of good or very good answers. None of the candidates was having a feather in his cap.

(xxx). Mercantile Law: Overall performance of the candidates was not found satisfactory. Besides other reasons, one was mixture of Corporate Law and Mercantile Law. In practice, Corporate Law is entirely different from Mercantile Law.

(xxxi). Persian: For most of the candidates translation of English or Urdu paragraph in Persian seemed to be weakest front. About 50% candidates having low level comprehension skill had written bad or unsatisfactory answers. Overall 97% of the candidates had attempted required answers in Urdu/Persian and remaining in English/Persian. English medium candidates were mostly weak in Persian writing.

(xxxii). Philosophy I: Quality of answers was generally of average level. Main weakness identified has been the general inability to apply knowledge in answering questions. Most of the candidates showed lack of reading authentic books.

(xxxiii). Philosophy II: Out of 72 candidates only 24 got 40% or more marks which reflect poor performance of the candidates. Some candidates attempted in very bad handwriting which was not legible.

(xxxiv). Political Science - I: Standard of answers was low rather equal to Matric standard. Writing was pathetic and concept of question was not clear. Grammar of sentences was poor and some candidates attempted only one or two questions only.

(xxxv). Political Science - II: The candidates lacked knowledge and they appeared without any preparation of the subject. Candidates did not answer the question but tried to reproduce whatever they know.

(xxxvi). Public Administration: Uncooked presentation with superficial knowledge and poor presentation based on illogical arguments with wrong or irrelevant data were the major deficiencies of the candidates. Majority of the candidates failed to attempt general questions properly. They either could not understand or had limited knowledge of the topic.

(xxxvii). Pujabi: Overall ignorance of literary technicalities, fondness for preaching and sheer nonsense were major faults found in the scripts of Punjabi language.

(xxxviii). Pure Mathematics : Majority of the candidates were not prepared well for CSS examination.

(xxxix). Pushto : A fair number of candidates were found excellent. Majority of the candidates had deficiency in translation from English into Pushto. Overall intellectual level of the candidates was good and satisfactory.

(xL). Sociology: Over all performance of the candidates was not satisfactory although preparation of few candidates was commendable. It seemed that candidates run after guides etc or to shortcuts available in the markets/Academies.

(xLi). Statistics: Candidates in the subject were better. Expressions for the theoretical answers were just satisfactory but mathematically good. Overall 77 candidates got more than 60% marks out of 221.

(xLii). Urdu : Out of 462 candidates, 346 (75%) qualified in the paper and 16 (25%) were failed. Majority of the candidates only secured upto 50% marks that reflect ignorance towards our National Language. Even majority did not know about the books of our National poet. Crammed knowledge, substandard material, non relevant books and grammatical errors were common deficiencies reflected

(xLiii). Zoology : General standard of answers was not good, demonstrating the low quality of answers. Out of 312 candidates, only two candidates got more than 65% marks.
To succeed,look at things not as they are,but as they can be.:)
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Amna For This Useful Post:
hadia hassan (Wednesday, October 12, 2016), waqarhassan (Saturday, April 09, 2016), Waseim (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
G.K objectives for all terminator Topics and Notes 17 Friday, July 15, 2016 10:07 PM
Observations on Performance of Candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2012 Last Island Subject Analysis 0 Friday, September 26, 2014 02:48 AM
Anatomy of systems SADIA SHAFIQ General Science & Ability 9 Saturday, October 15, 2011 12:35 PM
IMPORTANT BOOKS & THEIR AUTHORS touqeer2010 General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests 1 Friday, February 18, 2011 10:21 PM
Lexico-thematic coherence in the wasteland last_resort English Literature 0 Tuesday, November 07, 2006 05:46 PM

CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of (unless is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.