UPSC has just declared the marks of the recommended candidates. It comes as a disappointment that there has been very stringent marking in the written exam.
The total marks for written are 2000 + 300 for interview. An analysis of the total final marks is given below. [All these candidates are General Category]:
There are two important results we can draw from the above.
Firstly that even Rank 1 has not even got 1200 marks. In the 2009 and 2010 CSE the toppers marks would go beyond 1300. Such strict marking does not give due recognition to the difference in quality of writing or analysis as reflected in the answer scripts. I refuse to believe that out of 12000+ candidates writing the mains, not 50 were such that they deserved atleast 55% of marks in written?
Secondly, the difference between Rank 5 and Rank 645 is barely 5%. In an exam worth 2300 marks how can the difference between making the list and getting top rank be just 5%. There should be some qualitative difference between the candidates that is reflected in the quanity of marks as well. And if these marks are true, then how can 5% make all the difference. This is grossly unfair to everyone.
In this situation two things have occurred:
- The interview has become the deciding factor. This itself is not rational as written is for 2000 marks and interview for 300.
- Secondly, luck starts playing a much bigger factor. Some papers are marked leniently; or your interview board is generous; or its just your day. When marking is moderate people who have shown consistency in all attributes benefit, instead of random luck.
I just hope UPSC too does some analysis of this and draws some lessons. Baaki, do write in with your views on the matter.
Spurthi
The total marks for written are 2000 + 300 for interview. An analysis of the total final marks is given below. [All these candidates are General Category]:
|
Rank
|
Total Marks
|
Percentage
|
|
1
|
1193
|
51.86
|
|
10
|
1094
|
47.56
|
|
50
|
1045
|
45.43
|
|
100
|
1017
|
44.21
|
|
150
|
1002
|
43.56
|
|
200
|
988
|
42.95
|
|
300
|
970
|
42.17
|
|
400
|
958
|
41.65
|
|
600
|
941
|
40.91
|
|
645
|
938
|
40.78
|
There are two important results we can draw from the above.
Firstly that even Rank 1 has not even got 1200 marks. In the 2009 and 2010 CSE the toppers marks would go beyond 1300. Such strict marking does not give due recognition to the difference in quality of writing or analysis as reflected in the answer scripts. I refuse to believe that out of 12000+ candidates writing the mains, not 50 were such that they deserved atleast 55% of marks in written?
In this situation two things have occurred:
- The interview has become the deciding factor. This itself is not rational as written is for 2000 marks and interview for 300.
- Secondly, luck starts playing a much bigger factor. Some papers are marked leniently; or your interview board is generous; or its just your day. When marking is moderate people who have shown consistency in all attributes benefit, instead of random luck.
I just hope UPSC too does some analysis of this and draws some lessons. Baaki, do write in with your views on the matter.
Spurthi