Hi all,

Only 1 candidate scored 60 and above in 2017 IR. At first, the reason was that students attempt IR much the way they attempt Current Affairs. They don't apply theory, quote IR scholars and don't give facts and figures. But I've seen people with background in IR get a poor score. Why is that? And I've been hearing that now academies are encouraging students to opt Pol. Sci. (before they encouraged opting IR) as even they cannot wrap their heads around the mystery of scoring in IR.

What's going on? Please help me in understanding the situation.

Thank you for reading the post.

I had IR as an optional in my CE-17 attempt. What i think the problem with the scoring trend is lack of preparation in a way the subject deserves. I second your opinion that aspirants attempt it in a way similar to current affairs.
Secondly, What i think about IR graduates' low marks in the said subject is due to the reason that they didnot assign enough time and energy to the subject it required.

Sent from my CPH1723 using Tapatalk

Hi,

Thank you for replying to my post.

I never considered the aspect of preparation, so it seems like a plausible explanation for the poor score trend.

Thank you!

Around 7k people appeared in IR in 2017. Not even one candidate was prepared to cross 125 marks? Not a single one? Not even those who landed in top 20?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

��. That just makes me more nervous.

I've read and heard so many conflicting things about the checking criteria that it seems to me that its basically Inter-system all over again.

You have some solid facts to defend your arguement and i appreciate your thinking. But for me, i think there must be some problem with the aspirants who were fail to answer the questions within the parameters of IR.
There could be many possible reasons like
1- Attempting questions like answering CA paper
2- Failed to support their answers with relevant IR theories.
3- Failed to quote relevant quotes, figures and terminologies used in IR.Do not get nervous, read the syllabus of other subjects and decide with confidence.

Sent from my CPH1723 using Tapatalk

I didn’t make any argument. Just raised some simple questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was actually nervous about two things: the attempt that I have given was with IR, and whether I should continue with it. If the checking is going to be haphazard (and arbitrary) it means that either the examiner has an answer which he has already framed in his mind, and if he doesn't find it, well then..., or the entire fallout lies with the candidates. Though to be sure, I do believe that candidates don't answer what is required. But I also know some people who were very well-versed in IR, but scored poorly in it. And I am familiar with their written expression. So that puts a question mark.

And I prepared through academy. All the academies encouraged to opt the 'trinity': US History, IR & IL. Now they're shifting to Pol. Sci. Your answer does throw a light on a factor which had never crossed my mind. But Monk's point raised some factors which I hadn't considered before.

All in all, there needs to be consistency in the checking by FPSC. That would cut a lot of hearsay and myths such as 'score-trend' etc.

Thank you for reading and replying to my post. It is much appreciated.

Perhaps when an optional starts becoming too popular at the expense of other subjects, FPSC decides to mark that one strictly. In 2016 results of IR were not bad if I'm not wrong. In 2017 it fared poorly. In 2018 I think many would have realized their 2017 mistake and attempted the papers better. It's just speculation but maybe this year I Law, US History or Gender Studies are in danger of being marked strictly rather than IR.

I think IL was already targeted based on the setting of the question paper. 4 out of 7 questions were on UN, and the rest of the questions apart from no.1 were unconventional questions. Rather the entire paper was unconventional. The trend of repeating questions from UNCLOS, Vienna Convention on Treaty, defining IL, asking a case law, etc. was done away in this paper.

W.r.t. to Gender Studies and US History I don't have any idea. But current scenario was mixed in US History paper. And, surprisingly, in IR-I, the examiner finally decided to give a question on IL.

It seems that there is now no longer any need to 'study' the past papers as it was previously advised. One can merely have a look at them for reference and understanding how broadly and diversely the questions are asked.