Performance in Compulsory Subjects
7.29. Study of candidates who qualified in CSS written examination showed that in Every-Day Science and Islamiat 87.6% & 74.7% candidates got 60 and above marks. In Current Affairs and Essay 6.1% and 5.1%, candidates secured 60% and above marks respectively. Analysis showed that performance of qualified candidates in written examination in subject of Current Affairs and Essay was much better than other compulsory Subjects.
Observations of Examiners on Performance of Candidates in Written Part of CSS Examination 2007
7.30. 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 2007.
écis & Composition): Standard and performance level of candidates was extremely weak. Out of 3482, 92 percent candidate failed. 7 percent secured 40-49 marks, while 1 percent obtained 50-59 marks and one candidate got 60-69 marks. Candidates did no know how to write pr
écis and also lacked comprehension of subject.
Out of 3505 appeared candidates, only 1 percent got above 60 marks, 9 percent candidates obtained 50-59 marks while 46 percent secured 40-49 marks. 44 percent failed in the paper. Overall result was indicative of a widespread lack of objective judgment. Instructions categorically required building this aspect through given forms of discourse. Around 80% candidates either ignored it or misunderstood the guideline due to lack of organizational attributes. Another factor contributing negatively was a grossly misplaced reliance on preparatory help books with meaningless stocks phrases and irrelevant references, taking away originality from candidates. Two distinct categories of candidates, one with good expression but muddled thought process and the other with clear thought lines but defective language ability, clearly indicated diametrically opposed education system in our country.
7.33. General Knowledge-I:
Basic ideas and concept of majority candidates were not clear. Language of 40 percent candidates was very poor with a standard below intermediate level.
7.34. General Knowledge-II:
There was a steady decline in standards and quality of response in subject. Despite information explosion which has provided greater access of knowledge to candidates, they were unable to utilize these ideas/knowledge in their answers due to poor expression and writing skill in English language.
7.35. General Knowledge-III:
Performance of candidates was very poor. Most of them were unable to understand sense of questions. About two or three candidates secured 60 or above marks. Majority of candidates got 40-45 marks.
Candidates lacked thorough knowledge of subject as they depended on memorization of guide books/helping notes and had not consulted recommended books. Majority of candidates did not give any quotation or references. Even their answers were not supported with verses of the Holy Quran, Hadiths, and saying of jurists and scholars. However, some candidates had good knowledge, appreciable expression and justified their answers with a lot of verses of the Holy Quran, Hadiths, quotations, TV programmes, Internet/other latest material and stable bibliography.
7.37. Accountancy & Auditing-I:
Preparation of candidates in general was restricted to selected topics rather than whole course of subject. Candidates lacked sound knowledge of accounting concepts and principles governing preparation of accounting record /financial reports. Sufficient practice in topics involving practical work was also missing.
7.38. Accountancy & Auditing-II:
Performance was largely satisfactory. Some candidates presented well structured answers on topics of importance of finance. However, deep knowledge on this critical area of business was missing. Most candidates who attempted question on cost sheet and tax calculation got excellent marks but their attempt on Income tax section was poor. Generally, quality of answers was not upto mark. Candidates must produce quality in their answers.
In general, candidates showed poor knowledge of topics with little in-depth /awareness of subject. They apparently lacked ability to develop a logical approach and particularly inability to present/interpret the reference material. Their analytical skills were handicapped by their weak understanding and poor expression. 27 percent candidate got 60 and above marks. 24 percent secured 44-59 marks, while 49 percent candidates obtained less than 43 marks.
7.40. Arabic-I & II:
Generally, candidates have information about Arabic not of Arabic language. Therefore, they could not attempt compulsory questions in Arabic Language. Candidates should be well versed in Arabic as well as in English for better performance.
Majority of candidates did not know about basic principles of Balochi language with exception of few candidates. Language was of poor quality. No candidate got above 80 marks. While majority of candidates secured about 50 marks.
7.42. Botany-I & II:
In general, knowledge of candidates regarding basics of subject was found weak. Majority of candidates write unnecessary details which were either not required or not appropriate with reference to question. Majority of candidates lacked knowledge of classical fragments and theories of subject e.g. evolution and genetics. They should have knowledge of subject right from evolution to latest DNA techniques.
7.43. British History-I:
Overall performance of candidates was good. 9 percent candidates got 65-79 marks. 20 percent secured 60-64 marks. 43 percent obtained 44-59 marks and 19 percent attained 33-43 marks whereas 9 percent candidates failed in subject. However, way of presentation/answer to questions was not much satisfactory in relation to some candidates.
7.44. British History-II:
Performance of candidates was good as compared to paper-I. 7 percent candidates got 65-79 marks. 24 percent secured 60-64 marks. 54 percent obtained 44-59 marks. 7 percent attained 33-43 marks, while 7 percent candidates failed in paper. Perhaps, performance of candidates belonging to backward area was not satisfactory due to non -availability of standard books and proper guidance.
7.45. Business Administration:
Overall performance of candidates was good while some candidates remained outstanding. 38 percent candidates got 65 and above marks. 27 percent obtained 60-64 marks. 38 percent secured 44-59 marks. While 2 percent got 33-43 marks and only 2 percent failed in the subject. Majority of candidates was better in Management and Marketing Section while less number of candidates seemed to be strong in Financial Management Section.
Performance of candidates was good. 25 percent candidates got above 65 marks including one exceptional case. 10 percent candidates secured 60-64 marks. 31 percent obtained 44-59 marks, 18 percent got 33-43 marks and 16 percent candidates failed in subject.
Performance of candidates was just satisfactory. Paper comprised some topics of Physical Chemistry and Organic Chemistry. 10 percent candidates were good both in subject as well as in presentation of answers. While 33 percent performed satisfactorily. Performance of remaining candidates was not satisfactory. By and large their power of expression was not good. Candidates (with some exception) find difficulty if question is twisted.
7.48. Constitutional Law:
Candidates failed to produce pertinent answers due to lack of theoretical and practical foundation of subject. Majority of candidates could not comprehend questions owing to poor understanding of basic knowledge of Constitutional Law. They even failed to distinguish between Constitution and Constitutional Law. They were unable to attempt their answers with cases references as well as judicial decision. Due to meager knowledge, majority of candidates got below 50 marks. Only 10-15 percent candidates attained more than 50 marks.
7.49. Computer Science:
Performance of candidates was satisfactory. 16 percent candidates got 65 and above marks. 12 percent secured 60-64 marks. 28 percent obtained 44-59 marks. 20 percent attained 33-43 marks. While 25 percent candidates failed in the subject.
7.50. Economics I & II:
Overall performance of candidates was satisfactory. 60 percent candidates, who presented economic facts and figure in concise, pertinent and organized form, got 44-79% marks. 26 percent secured 33-43% marks and 14 percent failed. Improvement in prevalent educational system was essential to discourage verbose and time/space wasting lengthy answer by assigning more weight to introduce objective questions in exam. Case study method must be introduced in Colleges/Universities to develop skill of analysis and problem solving.
7.51. English Literature-I:
Candidates did not demonstrate desired level of competency at this level. Most candidates seemed to have taken this examination for granted.
7.52. English Literature-II:
Majority of candidates seem to pick up answers in a hurried manner from sub-standard “notes” prepared by unknown authors/publishers which were full of incorrect analysis and having many mistakes of syntax etc. They were required to accomplish intense/focused and vast reading of subject. However, some candidates did very well, their use of literary and critical remarks reveals a good/sound background.
7.53. European History-I:
Performance of candidates was satisfactory and better than paper-II. Candidates were required to give clear concept of subject/build their arguments to support it. This would have led to an analytical conclusion. 10 percent candidates got 60 and above marks. 41 percent secured 44-59 marks and 36 percent obtained 33-43 while 13 percent candidates failed in subject.
7.54. European History-II:
Performance of candidates was not satisfactory. Candidates should be able to visualize, express, analyse and connect the known facts of history in a logical and rational way with a critical view on topics of subject. 13 percent candidates secured 60 and above marks. 25 percent got 44-59 marks. 24 percent obtained 33-43 marks. While 38 percent failed in subject.
85 percent candidates did not have grasp over subject and avoided attempting technical forestry question. 99 percent of candidates attempted question on Range Development in Cholistan but none of them mentioned Technical or English name of any major grass species growing in deserts. Almost all candidates attempting similar question had presented same type of answers clearly indicated material taken from guide books instead of recommended forestry books.
Overall performance was good. Candidates who studied subject thoroughly have performed very well and got good marks in objective question. However, candidates who had not studied subject waste their time in writing irrelevant material. They should give answers to the point with well illustrated diagrams for better performance. 26 percent candidates got 65 and above marks. 16 percent obtained 60-64 marks while 38 percent secured 44-59 marks. 12 percent attained just 33-43 marks. While 9 percent candidates failed in paper.
Overall performance of candidates was very low. Barring a few candidates, almost all candidates failed to understand demand of questions, particularly Q.No.1, 2, 6 and 7(b). As a result, their answers were way-ward and mostly gibberish. Some of them seemed to possess a fair amount of information but their knowledge appeared to be sketchy and answers fragmentary. Candidates showed poor expression and inarticulate language in their answers. 6 percent got 60-79 marks. 37 percent obtained 44-59 marks and 25 percent secured 33-43 marks. While 32 percent failed in subject.
7.58. Geology-I & II:
Out of five, three candidates passed in paper-I and two in paper-II. While only one candidate got 60-64% marks in both papers. On the whole, performance of candidates was not satisfactory.
7.59. History of Pakistan & India-I:
Out of 1586 candidates 1423 (90%) candidates passed. 25 percent each obtained 60 and above and 44-59 marks respectively while 39 percent secured 33-43 marks. 10 percent candidates failed. However, answers were sub-standard with full of irrelevant material. Candidates were poor in punctuation, spelling/tenses with illegible writing.
7.60. History of Pakistan & India-II:
Performance of candidate was generally not upto the expectation. 31 percent candidates got 60-79 marks. 56 percent obtained 44-59 marks and 9 percent secured 33-43 marks while 4 percent candidates failed. Candidates generally lacked in style and expression. Some candidates took it very easy/lightly. They did not study adequately and thus subjectively not clear.
7.61. History of USA:
Performance of candidates was good as 91 percent were passed in subject. 30 percent candidates got 60 and above marks. 41 percent candidates obtained 44-59 marks. 20 percent attained 33-43 marks. While 9 percent failed in subject. Candidates should avoid using sub-standard guide books/notes/text as they were expected to show their achievement and knowledge of higher standard to the Commission. Standard of English (syntax) structure and grammar even in papers where candidates secured high marks left much to be desired.
7.62. International Law:
Performance of candidates was not so good. Majority of candidates took exam lightly. Handwriting of many candidates was poor and illegible. Their performance seems to be hampered further due to non-availability of suitable books in market.
7.63. International Relations:
Majority of candidates have attempted papers without proper and in-depth study of prescribed syllabus, as they could not score better in question 8. Several candidates could not present their view points accurately with reference to dynamics of International Relations, Balance of Power, Diplomatic Mechanism, Human Rights, Democracy and Terrorism. Majority of candidates lacked techniques of expression and argumentation in English. Even their vocabulary was too limited and lacked accuracy in grammatical expression with worst hand writing. In objective question, several candidates marked options without having confidence and accuracy.
7.64. Islamic History and Culture-I:
Performance of candidates was highly un-satisfactory. More than 90 percent candidates could not utilize their knowledge accordingly. Many of them even could not understand true concept of questions. Candidates must improve their knowledge and writing power by reading standard books on Islamic history and culture.
7.65. Islamic History and Culture-II:
Majority of candidates answered below required standard. Candidates have some valid ideas but due to poor expression they could not produce it in a suitable manner. 90 percent candidates had not basic knowledge and information about Islamic History and Culture. Most of candidates were unable to clearly define culture and civilization. However, some candidates were of outstanding standard. They may be compared with any international standard and can compete with any one.
On the whole candidates have done well. A vast majority of them displayed knowledge of subject and have passed. However, most candidates give lengthy answers by including irrelevant material and answers without paragraph sub -headings and proper order. Expression in English of almost 25 percent candidates was poor with various grammatical errors/spelling mistakes.
Majority of candidates lacked in-depth knowledge of subject and sufficient command over the language. Keeping in view level of knowledge and its expression, performance of candidates in general was not satisfactory.
Majority of candidates have done well in compulsory question. 50 percent had attempted traditionally. Overall, 10 percent candidates showed good performance.
7.69. Mercantile Law:
Largely performance of candidates was hopeless which showed that candidates did not realize importance and worth of exam as none of candidates could get above 80 marks. Only 11 percent candidates got between 60-79 marks, 54 percent secured 33-59 marks and 35 percent candidates failed.
7.70. Muslim Law & Jurisprudence:
Very few candidates have quoted case law or reference to original text. They were lacking in analytical approach to subject. Some candidates had not understood even the call of question. 30 percent candidates got 60 & above marks. 54 percent obtained 44-59 marks and 8 percent attained 33-43 marks, while 8 percent candidates failed.
Performance of candidates was satisfactory as 38 percent candidates got 60 to 79 marks. 23 percent secured 44-59 marks and 27 percent obtained 33-43 marks. While 12 percent candidates failed in subject. Candidates must understand nature of question. Some candidates had poor knowledge and awareness of subject.
Performance of candidates was good as 69 percent candidates got 60 and above marks. 12 percent obtained 44-59 marks and 19 percent secured 33-43 marks. While no candidate failed. However, they need to understand the nature of question and improvement in Persian writing, translation and grammar.
7.73. Philosophy-I & II:
Performance of candidates was above average as 50 to 60 percent candidates secured 60 and above marks. However, candidates having poor expression in English suffered badly.
7.74. Physics-I & II:
Among total of 207, only 8 percent candidates showed good responses whereas 22 percent were just satisfactory and rest 70 percent remained below average. Majority of candidates have subject understanding of below level of Matric. Such candidates did not prepare examination seriously.
7.75. Political Science-I:
Overall performance of candidates was average. Expression in English was main reason for getting average and below average marks. Answers were relevant but originality of expression and analysis was seen only in a limited number of answer scripts. Candidates seemed familiar with concept and topics of paper generally.
7.76. Political Science-II:
Performance of candidates was fairly good, yet majority falls in second class category. In objective question candidates averagely got 10 marks out of 20 which bring the average score of candidates more downward. They mostly suffered due to intellectual poverty/general intelligence.
7.77. Psychology-I & II:
Performance of candidates was good. Majority of candidates seemed had studied subject at Graduation or Masters Level.
7.78. Public Administration:
Majority of candidates who had only general knowledge of subject could not secure good marks. However, performance of some candidates was no doubt exemplary. Non availability of proper books, material and ample guidance of the teacher hampers their performance. Candidates must have proficiency in oral and written English to express their ideas properly. Quality of education must be improved in educational institutions.
Spellings of candidates in Punjabi were very poor. Some candidates indulge in gossips and produce irrelevant material. They were expected to give exact and to the point answers.
7.80. Pure Mathematics-I:
Majority of candidates showed some dexterity and answering questions which require routine or formula answers. They were wholly or partially failed when a problem needs a good understanding of ideas & concepts.
Almost all candidates attempted objective question well. In theory part, it was observed that candidates study subject thoroughly but they failed to write pushto language and made various spelling mistakes. Majority candidates did not write correct poetry which blocks their performance. Candidates could get maximum marks if they were able to write pushto correctly.
Performance of majority of candidates was good. 27 percent candidates got 60 and above marks, while 37 percent secured 44-59 marks. 22 percent obtained 33-43 marks whereas 14 percent candidates failed in subject. However, most of candidates having low academic standard. Particularly who opt for subject as their mother tongue was not sufficiently familiar with importance of course. They relied on short guide books/five years solved papers, which hampers their performance.
Generally performance of candidates was satisfactory. However, a few took exam as a joke and failed miserably. Perhaps due to subjective type of questions (more prevalent) at College level, candidates getting lesser marks in objective portion generally performed well in subjective part. Most candidates had hardly any idea about theoretical framework assumed behind question asked.
Result was quite encouraging as 80 percent candidates passed in subject. 10 percent obtained more than 80% marks, while 14 percent got 70-80 marks. This performance showed dedication of candidates and their right choice of subject.
Standard of answers simply deplorable. Majority of candidates have dependent upon ready made notes/guides and tried to memorize available material for qualifying examination. Candidates could not produce answers as per requirement of questions. They filled pages with unwanted information and irrelevant material which had no link with questions. For discouraging the bulk use of guides/ready made notes, new questions should be formulated instead of repeating old wording/voice of question year by year.
Despite better performance of candidates, it was generally observed that stock answers were available in market in form of guide books or short notes. Taste of appreciating poetry was on the decay.
7.87. Zoology-I & II:
Overall performance of candidates was just above average. Knowledge of majority candidates was superficial and of Intermediate level. Very few papers reflected knowledge at degree level. There was not a single paper which could be considered extra ordinary. It appears that there was something wrong for Zoology. Teaching of subject at graduate level must be improved for better result.