FPSC needs to revamp its examining techniques

[Black Coffee]

Originally Posted by DEADLYDOCTOR

high scoring ---low scoring
css aspirants and beginners think that few subjects are high scoring and few are low scoring.

what is high scoring in css?i believe if you can score above 60% in all subjects in css thats high scoring not in a single subject at cost of other.

i look into this issue and come to this result i am writing here.
first one thing need to be cleared:
....

You can't be too sure Deadly Doc,unless of course you're the examiner.

Back in school,I remember we would avidly read the report handed out by the Cambridge University each year on the quality of O and A level examinations.That report contained remarks of the examiners and went into considerable detail on where the students went wrong.It actually explained how each and every question ought to have been attempted and how instead it was attempted.FPSC should come up with similar reports.

Isn't it all too ambiguous for the examiners to boil everything down to poor reading habits?The aspirants should be handed down a similar report by FPSC that spells out how each question ought to have been answered.

[DEADLYDOCTOR]

@Black Coffee
no one can be sure
even perfectly attempted paper may not score well
point is that no subject is low scoring only aspirants don't put what is required.
examiners are right.
one who has studied well and one who just studied one book,which one is better?
points i have mentioned are simple and common but many aspirants will agree they do same.
every subject has scored above 70%.so low scoring is out of question.
what others have done to get above 70%?
i know what reports o-a-level examiner give,they report about each question with detail analysis.
look at above analysis,anyone can do it. but everyone is not bound to accept it.
it is a common habit that we go to market and buy substandard guides and books,request notes from fellow who join academy. rarely go for recommended books.we just take exams and we prepare according to it not for knowledge basis.thats what examiners point out.

[Black Coffee]

@Deadly Doc
Reading substandard books never gets u anywhere.Thats plain obvious.
But its not too bad an idea for the examiners to reveal what exactly they want out of us.

As an example,lets look at the 2010 Current Affairs paper.There is a question that goes:"President Obama's extended hand of friendship towards China ushers in a new era of realist diplomacy in Washington.Highlight the new dimension of US foreign policy towards China."

Apparently,it seems simple enough.We all know about this new dimension.We know there is the much hyped US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue,there is the idea of G-2 thats gaining prominence,there is an increasingly assertive China thats taking global centre stage and an increasingly accomodative US that understands the gravity of Beijing's efforts to push the yuan as a rival to the dollar and that understands the implications of upsetting China which is by far the largest holder of US Treasury Bills($895billion,to be precise).

So where does all this lead??To the conclusion that the US can no longer "contain" China.Gone are the days of George Kennan's containment policy.China is just not Soviet Union.It is far different from SU in far too many ways.Whereas Moscow sought security through expansion,China takes quite another path.The Chinese seek clout through their largest foreign exchange reserves,massive investment in energy exploration from Africa to East Asia,investment in high-tech and the space race.They are impossible to "contain".....That leaves policy-makers in Washington with one option and that is "engaging" the Chinese.

Anyone familiar with International Relations jargon knows that realist diplomacy(which is predicated on realism) is about capturing power and more power.Its about overriding concern for national interest,much less about practicability.

Clearly,the US foreign policy towards China in the days to come is more a question of PRAGMATISM than REALISM.There is a thin line of difference.Technically speaking,you cannot equate the two.President Obama is widely dubbed a PRAGMATIST because he is concerned more with "what works best" and less with what "serves national interest best".So here comes the policy of CO-EVOLUTION with China,that is cooperating with China in some areas while competing with it in others.It was HEnry Kissinger who was the realist,Obama is certainly the pragmatist.

I am interested in how the examiner perceives realist diplomacy and even more interested in how he aligns the current US policy towards China with realism.

Now do u see the utility of detailed reports?

[DEADLYDOCTOR]

you are talking about open questions where many perspectives can be sort out.
in optionals one rarely gets an open question.it always demand fix points in optional.
examiner can but it will create more confusion.

[Black Coffee]

Even in optionals thats not what it is.
For my part,I know certain questions that were asked in British History and honestly,they weren't as straight as u might think.
Creates confusion? More like it sorts confusion.

[DEADLYDOCTOR]

so why you think that were not straight either you cannot handle it or handle it but not sure or do you believe examiner had made a poor paper?
atypical paper is one of the cause i mentioned.
what you really wanna ask is that why don't examiners elaborate what they want? it is not possible as fpsc has some rules and they are followed from its beginning.
correct me if i am wrong.

[Black Coffee]

Originally Posted by DEADLYDOCTOR

so why you think that were not straight either you cannot handle it or handle it but not sure or do you believe examiner had made a poor paper?
atypical paper is one of the cause i mentioned.
what you really wanna ask is that why don't examiners elaborate what they want? it is not possible as fpsc has some rules and they are followed from its beginning.
correct me if i am wrong.

Look,we were talking about the Cambridge University reports.The good thing about those is that they give us a picture of the marking scheme.As in,we get to know how marks will be awarded for an answer.This helps us choose what to write and what not to write.If the FPSC could likewise make us familiar with the marking scheme,it would not be too bad an idea.Isn't it?

You've rightly pointed out poor reading habits and other stuff as the reason for not scoring well enough.But we already know those bunch of vague reasons.Its high time the FPSC people got more forthcoming about marking schemes.Its time they broke with old traditions and embraced modern day examining techniques.

[SikanderHayat007]

@Black Coffee
sir, you have hit the nail on the head.FPSC needs to reform its marking mechanism vigorously.it should be like GMAT or GRE.The entire syllabus(optional) should be in the form of MCQs which are marked on an OMR-sheet fed to the computer for automatic computing.There is no better way than this to make an accurate and imparial examination system.
Regards,

Sikander

[Black Coffee]

@SikanderHayat07

It should be Ma'am instead of Sir.
Exactly.FPSC really needs to revamp its examining techniques.

[SikanderHayat007]

But its not too bad an idea for the examiners to reveal what exactly they want out of us.

As an example,lets look at the 2010 Current Affairs paper.There is a question that goes:"President Obama's extended hand of friendship towards China ushers in a new era of realist diplomacy in Washington.Highlight the new dimension of US foreign policy towards China."

Apparently,it seems simple enough.We all know about this new dimension.We know there is the much hyped US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue,there is the idea of G-2 thats gaining prominence,there is an increasingly assertive China thats taking global centre stage and an increasingly accomodative US that understands the gravity of Beijing's efforts to push the yuan as a rival to the dollar and that understands the implications of upsetting China which is by far the largest holder of US Treasury Bills($895billion,to be precise).

So where does all this lead??To the conclusion that the US can no longer "contain" China.Gone are the days of George Kennan's containment policy.China is just not Soviet Union.It is far different from SU in far too many ways.Whereas Moscow sought security through expansion,China takes quite another path.The Chinese seek clout through their largest foreign exchange reserves,massive investment in energy exploration from Africa to East Asia,investment in high-tech and the space race.They are impossible to "contain".....That leaves policy-makers in Washington with one option and that is "engaging" the Chinese.

Anyone familiar with International Relations jargon knows that realist diplomacy(which is predicated on realism) is about capturing power and more power.Its about overriding concern for national interest,much less about practicability.

Clearly,the US foreign policy towards China in the days to come is more a question of PRAGMATISM than REALISM.There is a thin line of difference.Technically speaking,you cannot equate the two.President Obama is widely dubbed a PRAGMATIST because he is concerned more with "what works best" and less with what "serves national interest best".So here comes the policy of CO-EVOLUTION with China,that is cooperating with China in some areas while competing with it in others.It was HEnry Kissinger who was the realist,Obama is certainly the pragmatist.

I am interested in how the examiner perceives realist diplomacy and even more interested in how he aligns the current US policy towards China with realism.

Now do u see the utility of detailed reports?

@ Black Coffee

after reading your post i have grasped this idea:you want the examiner to pen down all the questions and their answers as well and provide to the candidates.Just like GMAT in which the examiners provide the answer ke and sample answers every year.

And i have also understood from your detailed post that you want the examiners to give you the criteria which they use to check a paper.this is just like spilling their beans.what then is the necessity to give CSS and ask the examiners to check our papers?why not go to the examination center give the paper and check the papers according to the answer key(checking criteria) and write our score on the paper and deliver it to the invigilator.I bet that almost 99% candidates would get a perfect score because they will assess according to their own calibre not according to the one demanded by the examiner.This i think you meant. i don't mean any offence.please correct me if i didn't infer correctly.

Regards,

Sikander