Ankush Sharma and Shruti Gupta
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducts one of the most challenging competitive examinations to recruit civil servants who play a crucial role in administering the country. The examination format includes a Preliminary objective-based exam, a Mains subjective exam, and an Interview. This pattern is also followed by most state services examinations. However, there have been concerns regarding the scheme and pattern of the civil services examination. In response, the UPSC formed a committee in 2015 under the chairmanship of Shri B.S. Baswanto review the eligibility, syllabus, scheme, and pattern of the examination, though no concrete changes have been implemented yet. This article focuses on the subjective format of the Mains examination and the role of the coaching industry in preparing candidates.
In the written Mains papers, the process of answer checking carries significant weight. It is not merely about assessing the knowledge of a candidate but involves various nuances that collectively influence the final outcome. One must consider the variability in marking due to different evaluators, the role of handwriting, the impact of time constraints, and the pervasive influence of the coaching industry. These factors combined raise critical questions about the true efficacy of the current examination and selection processes.
Every teacher or evaluator brings a unique perspective to the marking process. This inherent subjectivity can lead to significant discrepancies in scores, even when evaluating the same answer script. While standardized marking schemes are in place to mitigate these differences, the personal biases and interpretations of individual examiners cannot be entirely eliminated. Consequently, two candidates with similar levels of knowledge and understanding might receive markedly different scores based on who evaluates their papers. Handwriting also plays a crucial role in this context. Legible and neat handwriting can make a positive impression on the examiner and facilitate easier comprehension of the content. On the contrary, poor handwriting might obscure the quality of the answer, leading to lower marks irrespective of the content’s merit.This raises an important question: does good handwriting have any correlation with a candidate’s performance as an administrator? If not, should it be allowed to influence the examination outcome?
Time constraint in the examination is another issue that warrants consideration. Candidates get approximately nine minutes to write each answer and three hours to compose two long essays. This undoubtedly tests their ability to make quick decisions and articulate thoughts under pressure. However, it is debatable whether quick decision-making is a better indicator of a good civil servant than well-considered, strategic decision-making. In practice, better decision-making often comes with time, allowing for deeper and more multidimensional thinking. Therefore, candidates should be given more time to demonstrate the depth of their thinking on a topic. Another problem with restricted timing is that it increases reliance on coaching, as candidates are provided with ready-made answers, they can write down quickly without much prior thinking. This undermines the examination’s goal of assessing a candidate’s true analytical and critical thinking abilities.
The choice of optional subjects in the examination is another widely discussed issue. Each subject has a distinct question paper, assessing candidates’ knowledge and understanding in specific areas. While this differentiation caters to diverse academic backgrounds, it poses challenges in ensuring fairness and consistency. The structure and difficulty of question papers vary, with some subjects perceived as more scoring or straightforward while others are more challenging. This variability can advantage or disadvantage candidates based on their subject choice.
Additionally, different subjects are evaluated by different specialists, which introduces potential inconsistencies. Evaluators have varying standards and expectations, leading to discrepancies in marking. Furthermore, it remains unclear how much the knowledge of these varying subjects contributes to one’s ability to become a better civil servant. This raises questions about the relevance and fairness of the current system of optional subjects in the examination process.
The influence of the coaching industry on competitive examinations is profound and multifaceted. Coaching centres have become almost indispensable for many candidates. These institutions provide structured study material and strategies designed to help candidates clear the exams efficiently. While this approach maximizes candidates’ chances of success in the exams, it raises questions about the originality and depth of their knowledge. Candidates often rely heavily on pre-prepared material, regurgitating information rather than demonstrating genuine understanding or critical thinking.
The role of the coaching industry in the long run is a topic worth pondering. While these centres are adapted at training candidates to clear exams, they do not necessarily prepare them to become effective administrators. The emphasis on rote learning and memorization of facts for passing exams may not translate into the moral values, skills, and insights needed for effective public service. Candidates who clear the Ethics paper are sometimes later found involved in unethical practices. A recent example is the cancellation of Puja Khedkar’s candidature by the UPSC. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental flaw in the current system, where success in examinations does not necessarily equate to competence and integrity in real-world administrative roles.
The interview process, intended to gauge the true personality and suitability of a candidate for a particular role, is also influenced by the coaching industry. Coaching classes often train candidates on how to present themselves and respond to questions in a manner that appeals to interviewers. This preparation can mask the candidate’s authentic personality, making it challenging to discern their genuine traits and capabilities. Candidates are coached to answer in ways that align with what interviewers want to hear, which can undermine the integrity of the selection process.
In conclusion, the process of Mains answer checking in competitive examinations is fraught with complexities and challenges. The subjectivity in marking, the role of handwriting, and the pressure of time constraints underscore the need for greater transparency and standardization in evaluation. Implementing consistent marking schemes, regular evaluator training, robust moderation, and leveraging technology like AI can enhance fairness. It is also worth considering that each answer sheet should be checked by at least three evaluators, with the average of their scores being considered.
Further, the Mains paper should provide enough time to assess a student’s ability to think critically and frame comprehensive answers, rather than merely their writing speed. This approach ensures a more accurate evaluation of their cognitive skills and understanding. Additionally, the syllabus should be oriented towards practical knowledge and the skills required for the job they are being recruited for. This shift would enable the coaching industry to focus on developing candidates’ capabilities for effective public service rather than merely helping them succeed in the UPSC exam.
In this regard, the coaching industry should recognize its responsibility to ensure that it prepares truly capable and competent individuals for administration, rather than focusing on anyone who can afford their services. Their role should be to develop candidates who are genuinely suited for public service, aligning their training with the skills and knowledge needed for effective governance. So, there is a pressing need to re-evaluate and refine these processes to ensure that the selection of candidates for public service roles is based on a holistic assessment of their abilities, rather than their proficiency in navigating a flawed examination system.
