Editor,
Even after months of RTI appeals, the APPSC has failed to release the answer sheet (QCAB) for the APPSCE mains exam.
Meanwhile, it has been observed that there has been a huge disparity in the scoring trend across the optional subjects, in which allegedly geography and PSIR have performed the poorest, failing to cross 300 marks, whereas there are papers like veterinary, agriculture, and chemistry, in which the score is well above 350, some even in the 400s.
Some might say “Well, what difference does it make?” Actually, it does, as even one mark decides if your name will be there in ‘the holy PDF’, let alone the difference of 100 marks. Candidates who gave their best in their respective papers have very limited scope to improve in the next exam, which signifies that no matter what you do in the next exam, your score in the optional will barely improve, which makes their attempt futile, given that the score in GS paper is almost the same for most of the candidates who have been selected for the interview.
Add to this the irresponsiveness of the commission to provide the answer sheet, which is the only way to correct one’s mistake. Now the only option left on our part is to migrate to other high-yielding optional, but will that optional paper perform better next time? Can we call it a factor of luck? After giving your life to this exam, is it fair to rely on luck instead of hard work? Isn’t it the role of the commission to make sure it’s not based on luck?
The competitive exam should be based on merit and merit alone. But we can safely assume that the score you obtain in a paper depends on the evaluator of the day, and the mood of evaluators. But the fault does not lie on them; it’s the commission that needs to lay down the ground for fair play and stop creating a sense of step-motherly treatment towards certain sections.
The optional subject in its present form in the UPSC Civil Services Examination was introduced in 1979, following the recommendations of the Kothari Committee (1974-76). It was introduced to accommodate India’s vast academic diversity and ensure fairness among candidates coming from different educational backgrounds. Since no single compulsory syllabus could do justice to all disciplines, the optional allowed candidates to choose a subject they had studied in depth, thereby testing analytical ability, conceptual clarity, and writing skills, rather than rote general knowledge alone. It also aimed to level the playing field between candidates from humanities, sciences, engineering, and medical streams, and to give the UPSC a way to assess the depth of understanding in at least one specialised area, which was considered useful for higher civil services.
But, with the outcome of the 2024-25 APPSCE, its better for the APPSC to come out with a notification which mentions that it seeks candidates from certain backgrounds with certain optional papers and don’t waste your time as the marking scheme favours certain optional subjects.
Additionally, as the name says, personality test is to test a candidate’s personality, decision-making, and interpersonal skills. With the experiences of many (including myself) and the final result, one can only note that the board has been biased against the candidates who have no prior experience in services, and who gave their whole time in preparation of this very exam. This makes a huge difference in the selection process as this test consist of 275 marks, which is unreasonably high and can easily create a difference of 30 to 40 marks. The person who is already experienced in services has better mindset than their fresh counterpart; they cannot be on an equal footing. This is where the duty of the commission lies.
If the commission is adapting to UPSC SOPs, it should follow it with the lens of objectivity. The commission can make long-term reforms along in the line of some of the suggestions from various committees, such as:
- The Baswan Committee (set up around 2015-2016) explicitly proposed removing the optional subject in its recommendations, arguing that a common set of papers could ensure a more level playing field and reduce subjectivity and scoring disparities.
- The Nigvekar/UPSC reform talks also referenced the idea of following exam models without optionals (eg, UK/France) and questioned the continued role of optionals in merit ranking, though these were not formal committee mandates.
- The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) and related academic suggestions have at times recommended replacing or restructuring optionals with common interdisciplinary papers.
Therefore, I urge the commission with gold medal felicitation to release the QCAB at the earliest and to come up with an SOP that includes rationalisation or moderation in optional paper marking scheme that includes at least two or three iterations before awarding the marks for uniformity in score along the line of the UPSC. I urge the commission to show compassion towards the aspirants by releasing the scoring trend in each paper of the mains, including optional paper, to ensure better decision-making by the candidates.
Disillusioned aspirant