Friday, January 20, 2017
06:35 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 Thursday, August 07, 2008
Aarwaa's Avatar
Senior Member
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Thanks: 141
Thanked 288 Times in 150 Posts
Aarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura about
Default Observations on Performance of Candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2006

Observations of Examiners on Performance of Candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2006

Performance in Compulsory Subjects
7.26. Study of CSS written examination showed that in Every-Day Science 10% candidates got 60% and above marks. In Pakistan Affairs, English(Precis & Composition), Islamiat and Current Affairs 5% , 3%, 5% and 2% candidates secured 60% and above marks respectively. Analysis showed that on average 5.5% candidates got above 60% marks in all compulsory subjects.

7.27. Following are observations of the examiners on performance of candidates in compulsory as well as optional subjects offered in written part of the Competitive Examination, 2006.

Compulsory Subjects

7.28. Essay: Majority of candidates suffered due to poor expression in English. They produced sub-standard stuff, irrelevant material and obscurantist approach in the Essay. Religiosity, bigotry and anti-American outbursts appeared as identical synonymous spread over page after page with impunity. More and more answer books were found radiating with opinions rather than mentioning facts, figures or relevant data.

7.29. English Precis and Composition: General quality of papers was poor. Majority of candidates did not make any concrete effort whereas some even lacked basic proficiency and skill. Standard of English is deteriorating with the passage of time. The new craze for functional English which rejects all recourse to literature has further intensified the tragedy.

7.30. G.K-I (Every Day Science): Overall performance of candidates was poor. Only 10 percent secured above 50% marks, 29 percent were in the range of 40-49% marks, while 61 percent got below 39% marks.

7.31. GK-II (Current Affairs): A reasonable number of candidates appeared to have a grasp of the subject as well as originality of thoughts and ideas but they suffered due to poor expression in English. Many candidates had very poor knowledge regarding geography of Pakistan. Nevertheless, many candidates have expressed their views quite orderly, effectively and to the point.

7.32. GK-III- (Pakistan Affairs): Performance of candidates was satisfactory.Their answers showed single book study and lacked in-depth ideas.Knowledge of Pakistan’s geographic locations, its importance and current global scenario presenting through simple castro-graphic techniques was also limited. However, expertise of candidates regarding culture & heritage of country was sound.

7.33. Islamiat: General performance of candidates was not satisfactory. Some candidates were good in English, but were not able to write correct Quranic verses and other Arabic quotations. While some candidates were efficient in Arabic writing but were weak in English/Urdu expression. Most candidates were able to perceive the idea of the question but very few were successful in presenting required material relating to the question.

Optional Subjects

7.34. Accountancy and Auditing: On the whole, performance of candidates was average. There is a need to comprehend concepts of subject and to understand application through quantitative approach. Comprehension relating to accounting principles and its practical aspects was also weak.

7.35. Agriculture: Performance of candidates was good. Out of 197 candidates who appeared in this paper, 37 percent got marks in the range of 44-59, 41 percent candidates showed excellent performance in the range of 60-84 marks. 22 percent failed in the subject.

7.36. Applied Mathematics: Performance of candidates was poor.Candidates used formulas and made calculations, without logic and reasons which were required in the paper. System of examination at college level needs to be designed in such a way which should compel students for comprehensive study of the syllabus instead of selective study.

7.37. Balochi: Performance of candidates was satisfactory.

7.38. Botany I & II: Performance of candidates was below satisfactory level and needs serious attention. Most deficient areas were plant physiology,biochemistry and genetics. Performance was better in paper-II as compared to paper-I.

7.39. British History: Overall pass percentage was just satisfactory. Out of 279 candidates, only 91 passed. Majority of candidates had poor expression in English. They could not elaborate their view points critically and logically.

7.40. Business Administration: Theoretical part of the question paper was attempted by almost all candidates in generalities and un-professionally. Most did well in the applied part of the subject.

7.41. Chemistry-I: 70 percent candidates passed, but only 5 percent got 60 or above marks. It was observed that majority of candidates preferred to attempt subjective questions on Industrial and Environmental Chemistry, while a few attempted questions based on Physical Chemistry which involve some Mathematics.

7.42. Chemistry-II: Pass percentage in the paper was nearly 75%.Generally, candidates relied on rote learning which lacks reasoning and critical analysis. Questions should have logical and critical analysis rather than descriptive at this level.

7.43. Computer Science: Performance of majority of candidates was very poor.

7.44. Constitutional Law: A large number of candidates were unable to understand the requirement of questions. They merely reproduced unwanted information. A substantial number of candidates lacked comprehensive knowledge of the Constitution of Pakistan.

7.45. Economics-I: Performance in the theory part was better. Candidates who consulted quality references have performed far better than those who prepared from sub- standard notes/guide books available in the market.

7.46. Economics-II: Performance of candidates was satisfactory. Evaluation follows standard normal distribution curve i.e. some good scripts co-exist with a larger number of medium and poor attempts. It was also observed that candidates normally put less effort in this paper.

7.47. English Literature-I: Majority of candidates secured in the range of 44-50% marks in the subject It appeared that they had taken help from locally prepared notes/guide books and lacked exposure to original text of the syllabus. A few top scorers showed their keen interest in study of English Literature as their analysis were well organized and had mature expression.

7.48. English Literature-II: Standard of answers did not reveal in-depth study in English Literature. Structure, syntax and vocabulary, in most cases, were above average as they have better proficiency in English Language due to study of English Literature in their graduation/post graduation studies.Teachers should motivate students to read original criticism and to discourage them to depend solely on guides and helping material.

7.49. Forestry: Candidates generally produced answers without focus on points asked in various questions. They tend to write a lot of irrelevant material. They were careless and indulged in numerous errors which could be very easily avoided otherwise. Their answers should properly be sequenced/organized.

7.50. Geography-I: Performance of candidates showed that in-depth study of various hypotheses regarding cyle of erosions in different climates in many instances was avoided. Maps and diagrams though produced selectively, created viability of the discipline. Keeping the background of limited reading list/material, performance of candidates showed truly achieving goals of an active learning package offered by the FPSC.

7.51. Geography-II: Candidates displayed manipulated and interpreted geographic information satisfactorily. Their answers indicated understanding with basic concepts in Human Geography. However, some difficulties were observed in diffusion, spatial interaction, local and environmental change scenarios.

7.52. Geology-I: Candidates lacked in the basic concept of geology. Their response to questions based on applied nature and basic concept of Geology was a matter of disappointment.

7.53. Geology-II: Performance of candidates was not satisfactory as two out of six candidates failed, 3 candidates secured between 33-59% marks and one
candidate got above 80% marks.

7.54. .History of Pak & India-I: Performance of majority of candidates was not good. Their concepts regarding questions and subjects were not clear.Only 11 percent candidates got above 60% marks in the paper, while 23 percent candidates obtained below 33% marks and 66 percent candidates secured marks in the range of 33-69%.

7.55. History of Pak & India-II: Candidates were not well versed with factual knowledge of the subject. However, their performance was largely vulnerable
due to poor expression in English. Overall performance of candidates was poor as compared to paper-I.

7.56. International Law: Performance of candidates was comparatively good as 85 percent of them had passed and majority of them got above 60% marks. Few candidates had written long irrelevant answers by using 20-25 pages for one question but got only 3 or 4 marks. Candidates should thoroughly understand the concepts asked in the questions and provide answers accordingly.

7.57. International Relation: Performance of candidates was good.

7.58. Islamic History & Culture-I: Performance of candidates showed that their quality of communication ability is declining. Their answers were stereotyped and objectivity was lacking. They generally lacked aptitude for Islamic History. General awareness regarding importance of the subject is needed.

7.59. Islamic History and Culture-II: Standard of candidate’s performance was not satisfactory. 33 percent got marks in the range of 44-59, 30 percent secured in the range of 33-43 marks. 22 percent candidates obtained below 33 marks and only 15 percent got above 60 marks.

7.60. Journalism: Candidates are not getting proper guidance or counselling for preparation of this subject. Seminars/Workshops should be arranged in which Media Experts may deliver useful talks to provide better understanding of the subject. Majority candidates had no proper knowledge/information of the subject.

7.61. Law: Performance was fairly average. Out of 133, 80 secured below 50% marks, while 42 got in the range of 50-70% marks. Only one candidate obtained above 70% marks in the subject. 80 percent candidates had superficial knowledge of the subject.

7.62. Mercantile law: Overall performance was poor as only 45 percent candidates could pass in this paper out of which a huge majority secured below 50 marks. Only a few candidates got in the range of 60-79 marks.About 70 percent candidates apparently had no legal educational background.Since the exam was problem based than essay type, therefore, only those candidates could pass who had studied Law as a core subject during their graduate studies. Majority of the candidates relied on unnecessary/irrelevant details.

7.63. Muslim Law and Jurisprudence: Candidates were not well prepared for the examination. They selected the subject with the hope to get good marks, without much study/hard work. They simply filled the answer book by repeating the same sentences again and again or writing illegible words.

7.64. Persian-I: Performance was not so good as in paper-II. 56 percent obtained marks in the range of 60-84. While 26 percent candidates go in the range of 44-59 marks. 11 percent secured in the range of 33-43 marks and 7 percent candidates failed in the subject. They should give proper attention, particularly to Persian grammar.

7.65. Persian-II: Performance was better than paper-I as 78 percent candidates got marks in the range of 65-79. Question paper was prepared from the prescribed text which is the same since last many years.

7.66. Philosophy: General performance has been deteriorating year by year. They showed poor knowledge, expression and mostly depended on low standard short books/crammed and superficial material.

7.67. Physics: Performance was poor as 35 percent candidates failed in the paper. While 45 percent candidates failed in paper-II. Only 7-9 percent candidates got marks in the range of 60-79%. Majority of the candidates have following weak areas in the subject:i) Application of concepts. ii) Problem solving

7.68. Political Science-I: Overall performance was satisfactory. 49 percent got marks in the range of 44-59, 24 percent secured above 60 marks, 14 percent between 33-43 marks and 12 percent got below 33 marks. It was observed, that the majority had no understanding of the subject. However, some candidates who had a good grasp of the subject secured good marks.

7.69. Political Science-II: Performance was good. However, it was observed that candidates having very good marks in the objective questions generally could not perform very well in the subjective/explanatory part of the paper. It indicated that they mainly depend on rote learning and had poor analytical capability.

7.70. Psychology I & II: Performance in general had been quite disappointing, both in terms of acceptable degree of knowledge and expression. About 25 percent candidates did not demonstrate the knowledge of the level of F.A.

7.71. Public Administration: Ability level of some promising candidates was good. However, majority lacked either in substantive content or the ability to express their views. They prepared for this exam, not from original sources but from guides/notes freely available in the market.

7.72. Punjabi: Standard of the subject is deteriorating gradually. Answers scripts were unsatisfactory and below standard. Candidates give references of guide books, rather than the prescribed books. In optional part of paper, a few students could get 70-79.

7.73. Pure Mathematics: Performance was not satisfactory. Candidates had no clarity in their concepts/ideas. The situation is alarming and demands serious considerations/review of curriculum and teaching methods.

7.74. Pushto: General standard was satisfactory. However, majority had not read the whole suggested course and only depended upon selective study. More interest and thorough study of the subject will enable them to have good result in the competitive examination.

7.75. Sindhi: General standard was not satisfactory. Majority know very little about the classical form of Sindhi poetry. Only four candidates had written the alphabet of Sindhi language, even they were unable to write the history of development of Sindhi writing system. They only depended on notes/guide books as they did not refer to books published recently.

7.76. Sociology: Overall performance was good. 64 percent candidates got marks in the range of 44-59, 10 percent secured above 60 marks, while 21 percent obtained in the range of 33-43 marks. Only 4 percent got below 33 marks.

7.77. Statistics: Overall performance was poor. Candidates had not properly prepared themselves for the subject. A lot of irrelevant material was written in poor English. Candidates should read standard books on Statistical Method,Probability Theory, Inference and Sampling to prepare for this paper.

7.78. Urdu-I: Performance was good as out of 800, just 14 candidates failed. 53 percent got marks in the range of 44-59, while 36 percent obtained above 60 marks. Their interest in Urdu language/literature was appreciated. Majority of candidates showed power of descriptive expression and comprehension.

7.79. Urdu-II: Performance showed that 70 percent candidates had studied the suggested syllabus well and got good marks. 20 percent candidates who relied on bazari notes, obtained less marks or failed as their answer were not according to requirements of questions. 10 percent candidates failed badly as their answers were full of error of syntax, wrong spellings and incorrect statement.

7.80. USA History: On the whole, 89 percent candidates passed in USA History which clearly showed their interest in the subject. 36 percent got above 60 marks, while 34 percent secured 44-53 marks and 19 percent obtained 33-43 marks. Candidates got average marks due to their shallow knowledge.

7.81. Zoology-I Performance was just satisfactory as 67 percent candidates got in the range of 33-59 marks, 32 percent failed in the subject while only 1 percent got above 60 marks. Performance of candidates was not satisfactory on questions where candidate’s talent and synthetic abilities were required. Many candidates lacked basic concepts of the subject which can be partly attributed to declining educational standards under general socio- political environment.

7.82. Zoology-II: Performance was better as compared to paper-I. Overall 70 percent candidates got marks in the range of 33-59, 7 percent secured above 60, while 23 percent failed in the subject. However, some candidates showed a trend of unnecessary long and irrelevant introduction. Their answer scripts largely lacked comprehension and understanding of the question.

FPSC Annual Report, 2007


Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.

Last edited by Aarwaa; Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 07:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to Aarwaa For This Useful Post:
7asif (3 Weeks Ago), Ahmed Faisal (Saturday, March 10, 2012), Ayesha Mahmood (Saturday, January 09, 2010), dr.janxeb (Wednesday, January 07, 2009), dr.taqi abass (Thursday, January 22, 2009), Eager (Saturday, September 04, 2010), Frankenstein of css (Thursday, September 04, 2008), ineXorable (Thursday, September 04, 2008), iqtidar.ulhasan (Monday, September 15, 2008), Ishrat Ali Bhatti (Wednesday, August 26, 2009), Artemis (Monday, September 08, 2008), Mumtaz Hayat Maneka (Thursday, August 07, 2008), nadiamughal (Monday, June 18, 2012), Naveed_Bhuutto (Monday, February 15, 2010), obaid_gondal (Monday, January 19, 2009), orakzay (Thursday, August 07, 2008), PHARM (Thursday, August 07, 2008), Princess Royal (Thursday, August 07, 2008), QURATULAIN KHALIL (Wednesday, December 29, 2010), Raz (Friday, February 13, 2009), S.H.Virk (Thursday, August 14, 2008), Saima 898 (Friday, June 13, 2014), Sureshlasi (Friday, August 08, 2008), Tauqir Mehmood Wattoo (Saturday, August 16, 2008), (Friday, May 15, 2009)

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
Dr. Zakir Naik Predator Islam 56 Sunday, August 28, 2011 06:35 AM
Solved Everyday Science Papers Dilrauf General Science & Ability 4 Friday, April 08, 2011 07:10 PM
Observations on performance of candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2005 Aarwaa Subject Analysis 4 Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:21 PM
Lexico-thematic coherence in the wasteland last_resort English Literature 0 Tuesday, November 07, 2006 06:46 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 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.