The pattern of the Civil
Services examination makes a mockery of the UPSC’s demand for ‘depth of
understanding’ from candidates
The Union Public Service Commission’s Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2012, just got over. The results for this phase of the
multi-tiered examination will be declared around March/April, 2013. Based on
the marks scored in this examination, candidates will be shortlisted for the
Personality Test, also known as interview, to be conducted around April/May,
2013. Based on their performance in the main examination and the interview,
candidates will be recommended for All-India and Central government services.
The Constitution has tasked the UPSC with preserving the merit
system in the country. The merit system, as opposed to the spoils system, may
be defined as one in which recruitments are made on the basis of objective
evaluation of skills and knowledge through open examinations. No one doubts the
objectiveness of the Civil Services examination in which candidates go through
a three-level test. Those who make it to the final list are annually feted as
the best and brightest minds on whose hands will rest, for all practical
purposes, the governance of India.
Required ‘merits’
The ‘merits’ that UPSC looks for in the candidates are mentioned
in its Notification for the examination, where it is emphasised that no marks
will be allotted for superficial knowledge, and that credit will be given for
orderly, effective and exact expressions. The main examination intends to
assess, according to the UPSC, “the overall intellectual traits and depth of
understanding of the candidates rather than merely the range of their information
and memory.”
Even a brief analysis of the huge number of questions asked,
length of answers stipulated and the three-hour time limit raises doubts about
whether it is possible to find a candidate’s “overall intellectual traits and
depth of understanding” through this type of examination. In fact, it seems the
examination system and the stated desired outcome are quite incompatible.
For instance, the General Studies papers are common for all
candidates. This year’s GS Paper I contained 33 questions requiring answers
ranging from 250 to 10 words. In other words, candidates are expected to write
a total of around 3,000 words within three hours to answer 33 questions.
For popular optional subjects like Political Science or
Sociology, there are around 20 questions (depending on the questions chosen) to
be answered in three hours with a total word count of around 3,750.
How realistic is that? A normal student may struggle to put
together 3,750 words, legibly written, on a pre-selected subject within three
hours. It should be noted here that these 3,750 words are to be expended not on
one question, but on 20 very different questions with no time given to think
through them. It is unrealistic to expect candidates to show their true
intellectual traits and depth of understanding in the answers they write in the
short time given, on so many tricky questions. Not surprisingly, even those who
got as low as 800 marks out of a total of 2000 at the Mains were called for
interview in 2011.
Some samples
Let us sample some questions asked. In GS I, a 250-word question
asks for a “critical examination of the issues involved in the context of the
growing demands for the ban of Endosulfan in the country. What, in your view,
should be done in the matter?” Another question asking for a 150-word answer
is: “There is an urgent need for the Planning Commission to revise the chapter
on health in the 12th Plan document. Comment.”
In Political Science II, here goes a question requiring a
150-word answer: “Do you agree that liberal international theories are
essentially ‘Eurocentric’ and not necessarily imperialist?” Another question,
for a 250-word answer, asks: “Is power a zero-sum or variable game in
international relations? Can zero-sum game explain the mixture of conflict and cooperation
of the present dynamics of international relations?”
As should be evident, these are not very easy questions. Good
answers to these questions require nuance and complex arguments, which in turn
require thinking and time, even for someone well-versed with the subject.
Framed with more time at hand, the answers to these questions may indeed help
analyse a candidate’s intellectual traits and depth of understanding. But the
problem is that the three-hour time limit does not allow for thinking, or even
for basic organisation of thought. In the Civil Services (Main) examination,
time is such that if you start thinking, you are in trouble.
How do candidates cope? Given the severely limited time given,
one often has no choice but to cram and mug up so that you have as much
information as you can on your fingertips. You practise writing continuously
for speed and flow. You make notes and diagrams, or buy material from coaching
centres. As someone said, what matters here is not how much you know, but how
much you can put in within those three hours. In the process, candidates go for
the most commonplace arguments that they get ready-made from guidebooks or
Wikipedia, with hardly any chance to exercise their analytical skills or
critical thinking capacity. Weighted down by the clock, candidates usually
write whatever comes to their mind. Some say that they gave opinions in their
answers that on second thought, they would have reversed. That means the
candidate’s answers often do not reflect his or her considered opinion.
Severely limited time
Hence, while the questions may be good, the circumstances,
especially the severely limited time relative to the number of words required,
do not allow for proper answers to be given. The answers, written in a hurry,
often give a misleading and deceptive account of the candidate’s ‘intellectual
traits’. Add to this the requirement of mastering not one but two subjects, as
part of two optional papers. All this load of work makes a mockery of the
Commission’s pious demands for ‘depth of understanding’ from candidates. It all
boils down to hard work, perseverance, tenacity, consistency, good memory, and
good coaching notes.
As in previous years, around 1,000 candidates will eventually
make the cut in this year’s examination cycle, counted from the highest mark
until the vacancies are filled. They will be put through a gruelling training
regimen and inducted into service. Some will shine. Others will be just
mediocre, jack of all trade-types, good for gruelling routine, file-shuffling
work. As for the deep-going, analysing, intellectual types that the UPSC
professes to want, they would be lost in the rush.
(T.K.
Ngaihte completed his M.Phil in Political Science from Jawaharlal Nehru
University in 2010. He wrote the Civil Services Examination (Main) thrice.
ngaihte11@yahoo.co.in)
