Sunday, October 24, 2021
03:02 AM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > Punjab Public Service Commission > PCS / PMS

PCS / PMS Information about PCS / PMS

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Saturday, March 26, 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 PMS Competitive Examination 2014

Total applicants = -----------------------------------18,895
Appeared in the Exam=---------------------------- 4785
Qualified the Written Exam =---------------------- 508
Pass Percentage=------------------------------------ 10.61%
Rejected/Absent =------------------------------------08
Appeared in Psychological Assessment=-------------500

Finally Selected =------------------------------------29
Male =------------------------------------------------ 24
Female =--------------------------------------------- 05

Observations and Suggestions of Examiners on Performance of Candidates in PMS-2014

a. English. Majority of the candidates displayed shallow and superficial standard of knowledge.Ingenuity of thought and ideas were lacking. Poor sentence structure, poor spellings besides wrong syntax and above all incorrect use of verbs were the common weaknesses. Moreover, improper use of mark of punctuation is worth-mentioning. The candidates struggled with the tenses and repeated thoughts. Many candidates did not know the difference between a paragraph and essay writing.

b. Urdu: Most of the candidates’ answers were irrelevant and their knowledge about idioms was very poor. All the candidates were graduates but they made common spellings mistakes. Most of candidates were very weak in Urdu poetry.

c. Pakistan Studies. Standers of knowledge was unsatisfactory as the most of the candidates lacked depth of knowledge. Most of the candidates secured less than 30% marks in the objective type questions which reflected poor general knowledge.

d. Agriculture. Knowledge was generally poor and superficial. Most candidates gave their own view to questions where critical views were required. Language and expression was generally poor. In about 22% cases it was extremely poor; only a few cases were worth-reading. This factor highlights the standard/plight of the candidates and general education standard. Overall the standard was not significantly different from the previous years.
Suggestions. The discipline of agriculture is very vast and paper-I includes a large number of subjects like, Agronomy, Argi.Economics, Agri.Ext. From Forestry, Wild Life and range-management, Social Sciences , Ecology and Physiology etc. As such it is difficult for a graduate to perform well in these subjects. Syllabus of Agriculture must be revised and some subjects may be deleted.

e. Arabic: Standard of knowledge was poor. Most of the students failed to solve the standard paper. They relied upon sub-standard books/commercially written notes and hand books instead of studying standard books.
Suggestion: Candidates should be well aware of initial grammar of Arabic and should solve the paper in fixed sequence. Curriculum of the subject set by the Commission should be changed. There is need to change the distribution of marks of question paper as well.

f. Botany. Standard of knowledge and grammar of most of the candidates was very poor. Handwriting was poor with lot of grammatical mistakes. Candidates lacked subject knowledge.
Suggestion.Candidates need to work harder in order to have a good grasp of the subject.

g. Business Administration: Standard of knowledge was slightly above average but with weak expression.
Suggestion. The candidates should be relevant, to the point and more focused while attempting the paper. They should also improve their expression.

h. Chemistry. Standard of knowledge of the candidates was superficial and average. Depth of subject and clarity of concepts were lacking. Standard/quality of subject at colleges/Universities need to be improved.

i. Commerce. Standard of majority of the candidates was excellent except a few candidates. Those who worked hard did the paper very well.
Suggestion. Candidates should work harder and try to cover the course adequately. Guess work and shortcuts to pass the examination should be discouraged.

j. Computer Science. Standard of knowledge was good with systematic method. Overall performance was good.

k. Economics. Poor Subject matter, weak English language and lack of preparation of the subject were the common weaknesses. There was a lack of understanding and in-depth study, however, written expression was fair. Candidates faced difficulty in attempting questions related to Mathematics & Economics which showed lack of interest. Prescribed textbooks were not consulted with more reliance on guess papers.
Suggestion. Writing skills and English language should be improved. Word limit may be given for the answers. The paper format may be amended to include objective part as well.

l. English Literature:
Overall standard of knowledge was poor. Candidates had poor command on the language and little awareness of the subject matter which resulted in irrelevant answers. Knowledge of the text was very limited and poor. The candidates’ performance was so poor that every question was handled in almost similar manner.
Suggestion. Candidates need to improve their vocabulary, written expression and grammar. They need to prepare for the examination by consulting their textbooks and not depend on get through guides.

m. Education. Standard of knowledge was average. Majority of the candidates were not upto the mark. Most of the candidates lacked logical thinking and their poor handwriting was a major problem. Quality answers were found in very few papers.
Suggestions. Syllabus for this subject needs revision. Papers be set keeping in view the standard of education.

n. Ethics (For Non-Muslims). Standard of knowledge was good, whereas, objective portion was very poor. Candidates need to improve their general knowledge.

o. Geology. The candidates had a good knowledge of the subject but very poor in expressing their knowledge and were not focused. There was a tendency to write a lot without being relevant. Candidates should improve their written expression, be relevant and focused.

p. Geography. Standard of knowledge was mostly upto mark. Most of the answers were relevant to the questions. Some candidates displayed inadequate knowledge regarding the core concepts of commercial geography. A few candidates could not follow the questions to give correct answers.
Suggestions. Syllabus needs to be revised according to the needs and demands of present situation. Availability of standardize books needs to be ensured.

q. History. Overall standard of knowledge was not satisfactory in most of the cases, whereas a few candidates displayed excellent knowledge. Some candidates were unprepared for the Competitive Examination.
Suggestion. The system of education needs radical changes for its improvement.

r. Law. Standard of knowledge was poor with lack of preparation for examinations. Majority of the candidates did not know even the definition of legal work. Candidates need to be prepared well for the examination and devote more time and energy in grasping the legal issues.

s. Mathematics. Candidates had very poor understanding about elementary concepts of mathematics and showed non-seriousness in their preparation.
Suggestion. Students should be given proper guidelines and proper format about examination.

t. Philosophy. Only a few candidates had proper knowledge of subject. Irrelevant material and very poor handwriting were the common weaknesses. Many candidates appeared non-serious.

u. Physics. Standard of knowledge was poor. Lack of understanding of the subject were common weakness. Candidates appeared in the examination without preparation. Most of the candidates had no concept about basic physics.
Suggestions. Paper should be in terms of short questions. Candidates should be provided specimen layout of the paper.

v. Political Science. Some answers were good while a few were not upto the mark. Lack of Knowledge was a common weakness.
Suggestion. The candidates need to have deeper knowledge. They should consult text books instead of guide books and commercially written notes.

w. Principals of Engineering (i) Examiner-I. Standard of knowledge was hardly satisfactory. Poor English expression and limited understanding of engineering issue were common weaknesses. Basic concepts were not grasped by some candidates.
(ii) Examiner-II. Standard of knowledge of most of the candidates was very poor. Candidates did not have understanding of basic concepts of Engineering. Most of the candidates did not perform well and did not appear to have the requisite aptitude.

x. Public Administration. Standard of knowledge was generally good. Grammatical mistakes and poor handwriting were common weakness. Candidates lacked precision and brevity and unnecessarily padded the answers by including the irrelevant arguments.
Suggestions. In essay type questions, the examiner may be requested to prescribe the number of words in which the answers should be given.

y. Punjabi Majority of the candidates displayed shallow and superficial standard of the knowledge due to study of sub-standard guides and notes. There were only a few candidates who were capable of attempting the paper properly.
Suggestions. There must be 5 questions to be attempted and the question of translation into Punjabi should be of at least 10- 15 marks.

z. Psychology. Standard of knowledge was very poor and shallow. Candidates attempted questions without proper comprehension of question being asked.
Suggestion. There is a need to change the format of question paper to short answers without giving any choice.

aa. Social Work. Standard of knowledge was high average but conceptual understanding was weak. Most of the candidates appeared without preparation.
Suggestions. The candidates must read and understand the questions well before attempting. The candidates must enhance their level of commitment toward examination.

bb. Sociology. Majority of the candidates lacked the ability to understand the concept with proper definitions and background. For example, many candidates considered demographic transition as migration. The key term of the question was commented on without linking it with real dimension required to be exposed or analyzed.
Suggestion. The course content may be updated and should be based on the latest books.

cc. Statistics. Standard of knowledge was poor. Candidates were unaware of the statistical services in Pakistan. Lack of interest was common weakness. Performance of the candidates was not appreciable.
Suggestions. Candidates should be careful in choosing the subjects because this paper is offered to those candidates who already have studied statistics at least at inter level. Candidates need to develop writing skills. Methods of pedagogy needs over hauling at grass root level.

dd. Urdu (Optional). Candidates had poor hand writing and lacked knowledge of basic subject. Candidates solved the paper without preparation. Question paper was absolutely in line with the requirement to gauge the candidates’ knowledge about the subject, but most of the candidates solved the paper without due understanding.

ee. Veterinary Science. Standard of knowledge was average. The candidates were not aware about the recent initiatives of the Government for the development in this field.

ff. Zoology. Standard of knowledge of most of the candidates was average, but some of the candidates were below average. Background knowledge was not sufficient which resulted problems of expression.
__________________
To succeed,look at things not as they are,but as they can be.:)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Amna For This Useful Post:
ultimatestruggler (Friday, May 13, 2016)
  #2  
Old Friday, May 13, 2016
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lahore
Posts: 194
Thanks: 108
Thanked 44 Times in 39 Posts
ultimatestruggler is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Please Guide

What about Mass Com?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ultimatestruggler For This Useful Post:
Zeeeee (Friday, May 13, 2016)
  #3  
Old Friday, May 13, 2016
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 63
Thanks: 4
Thanked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Comely is on a distinguished road
Default

Also enlighten us with gk
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Comely For This Useful Post:
ultimatestruggler (Saturday, May 14, 2016)
  #4  
Old Wednesday, April 15, 2020
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rizwan Sikandar is on a distinguished road
Default PMS Maths Students

If any one here, who has selected maths as an optional subject in pms exams contact me for exchange of notes and information.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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
Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS) 2015 Amna CSS 2015 Exam 9 Friday, January 09, 2015 08:13 PM
Annual Report 2013 Amna CSS 2013 Exam 1 Friday, September 26, 2014 02:06 AM
PCS lectureship exams 2011 result date is announced famfai PPSC Lecturer Jobs 60 Thursday, December 08, 2011 06:18 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 CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk 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.