8 pages

Examiners Report 2016 _Updated 31-01-2017

of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Examiners Report 2016 _Updated 31-01-2017
  Observations of Examiners on Performance of Candidates in CE-2016: The Examiners have made the following observations on the candidates' performance in compulsory and optional papers opted in written part of the CSS Competitive Examination 2016: A.   Compulsory Subjects Essay:  The performance in English Essay was unsatisfactory. Out of the total 9643 candidates that appeared, a significant majority 7841(81%) failed in the subject. Ideas presented were random. The argument was without any logical reasoning or research  based facts. There was neither coherence nor creativity. The candidates were neither able to build an argument from multiple angles nor substantiated it with facts. The outline of Essay was not properly structured. In many answer scripts, aspects mentioned in the outline were not discussed in the Essay. English (Précis & Composition):  The Précis writing ability of the candidates was poor. Some basic mistakes related to not writing in third person or past tense, capitalization, punctuations and spellings. A significant majority did not have the command over syntax, phraseology or etymology of words. There were also issues of first language interference. About 8894 (92%) candidates could not pass the said paper. The Examiner underlined that it was imperative to communicate to the institutions of higher education to take appropriate measures to enhance English language proficiency at the graduate level. Islamic Studies: T he candidates were able to solve the paper in following merit: 2% - extra ordinary, 3% - excellent, 20% - very good, 30% - good, 40% - ordinary and 5% - failed in the paper. Candidates who performed exceptionally well seemed to be well read and had cited references from various  books. Common mistakes noted were that question numbers were not written on the answer scripts and Ahadis/Quranic Ayyahs written in Arabic had errors. The Examiner emphasized the need to improve Arabic writing skills. Comparative Study of Major Religious (Non Muslims):  The overall understanding of the subject and comprehension of the question paper was high average. The responses to the question on interfaith harmony, attempted by 90% of the candidates, were high average. One candidate attempted the paper in Sindhi language and failed. Introduction of this subject was also appreciated. Optional Subjects Accountancy and Auditing-I:  A significant majority of the  candidates who opted for the subject seemed to have no prior knowledge or familiarity and therefore their performance remained below average. The assessment of the answer script conveyed lack of understanding of basic Accounting concepts and  principles. Only a few candidates could perform well. In Q.No.2 (Preparation of Financial Statement), most of the examinees treated payment of dividend as normal business expenses, treated unearned revenue as an asset and instead of preparing statements of retained earnings, prepared the statement of equity. In Q.No.3 (Dissolution Partnership) candidates had no knowledge of opening a “Realization Account” for determination of the loss/gain on disposal of assets to transfer it to partner’s capital account. In Q.No.4, candidates had no understanding of the Double Declining Depreciation Method. However the simpler part of the same question, part b, (Ratios computation) was answered well. Q.No.5 relating to  preparation of cost of goods manufactured and sold statement and income statement was responded well. In Q.No.6 (a) (Labour Incentive Plan) & Q.No.6 (b) cost flow in job order costing system, the  performance remained poor. In part a) candidates multiplied labor hourly rate with number of units for calculating the incentive and in part b of the same question they were not able to determine the cost of opening work in process, finished goods and costs of goods sold. Q.No.7 (a) (Breakeven), it was observed that candidates were unfamiliar with the concepts. Some were able to calculate only the contribution margin and loss but could not calculate the product wise break-even sale. Under Q.No.8  2 (Process costing), instead of applying weighted average cost method, candidates applied first in first out method. Only a few solved it correctly. Accountancy and Auditing-II:  Performance in Part II of the subject was also not satisfactory.  Q.No.2. relating to control objectives for an auditor should consider in the absence of internal control system of an entity, majority could not attempt the question within the specific context and only a minority attempted the correct way. Q.No.3. on materiality & its significance in planning and performance of an audit in relation to ISA-30, the responses were mixed. There was conceptual clearance about materiality and its general significance but not in the context of audit planning & performance. In Q.No.4, relating to auditor’s consideration in audit planning and performance, while preparation of the financial statements of entities, majority of the candidates explained the importance of international standards for preparation of financial statements and only a few responded according to the required context of audit planning &  performance. In Q.No.5, many candidates lacked understanding of income from property and deductions, while Part (b), requiring the calculation, the responses were good. Q. No. 6 related to  business taxation, with particular reference to Sales Tax registration and legal provisions about sales tax registration. Responses were just story type information and in Part (b), a considerable number of students reproduced the question statement. Q. No.7 related to business studies and finance section. Majority of the students provided satisfactory answers to Part (a) on contemporary challenges faced by  businesses. Part (b) was a numeric problem relating to calculation of cost of capital using CAPM. The responses to this question were poor and indicated lack of practice on financial calculations. In response to Q. No.8, Part (a), on business cycle and its implications, about 50% of the candidates explained  business cycle phases, without its proper business implications. Some instead of giving answer related to the business cycle provided the concept of accounting cycle. Part (b) related to time value of money, and required the calculation of effective annual rate (EAR) and future value of bank deposits and finally requiring a suggestion about bank deposit. Majority of the candidates provided satisfactory calculations of future value, but poor calculation of EAR. Only calculations were provided without suggesting anything towards decision making. Applied Mathematics: The performance in the subject was disappointing. Out of 105 candidates that appeared, only 17 got 40% marks, 88 candidates obtained below 40% marks. Out of which 55candidates got zero marks. The maximum marks attained were 73/100. Difficulty level of some part of the paper was high although candidates were given the option to attempt 5 out of 8 questions. Candidates hardly attempted the question on Advance Vector Analysis, Fourier series and Partial Differential Equations. Arabic:  Majority of the candidates lacked the ability to read or write in Arabic language. The responses to Q.No.4 informed that the candidates did not have proper understanding of the literary aspects of the Holy Quran. The Examiner recommended that in public/private Universities, teaching of Arabic language may be introduced at graduate/post graduate level, qualified teachers to be appointed to teach Arabic and 2-3 months compulsory training/refresher courses to be arranged. Agriculture & Forestry:  Most of the candidates attempted the Paper without any preparation and scored zero out of 80 marks. It was expected that a graduate level candidate to score at least passing marks even without preparation. The ideas were repetitive and irrelevant. One candidate filled the answer scripts by re-writing the questions again and again. Many could not write even a few lines on “Grain Management” or “Environmentally controlled poultry houses”. The Examiner strongly recommended a qualifying round of candidates to take the CSS competitive exam. Anthropology:  The understanding of the subject was up to the mark. 90% of the candidate’s performed very well. Writing skills of the candidates were also good, showing clarity and relevancy. However, 10% attempted questions based on their general knowledge and not from the anthropological readings. The Examiner suggested that potential aspirants must consult the library at Quaid-e-Azam University  3 Islamabad, the pioneer forum in the country which provides reading material at the level of M.Phil/Ph.D in the subject. Balochi:   Assessment of 75 answer scripts was a disappointment. Performance of 70% of the candidates was weak and lacked analytical/creative writing skills. The syllabi of regional languages were structured at the very basic level even than a majority of the candidates did not perform well. The Examiner observed that a vast majority was unaware about their own region/customs, language and literature and added that the need at this level was to know beyond this level about other civilizations/culture at national and international level. The declining state of competency level in CSS CE was also pointed out. Botany:   About 105 candidates opted for Botany and with the exception of a few; the performance of the remaining was not satisfactory. In some scripts even the hand writing was not legible. Due to lack of knowledge of the subject, some candidates made basic mistakes to define terms like Polonogy, or species of family plant etc. In short notes, candidates had no idea about taxonomic key or numerical taxonomy. Diagrams were also very poor.   British History:   About 230 candidates opted for the subject scripts. Some of the scripts were up to the mark but overall standard was very low.   Business Administration:   The quality, contents & presentation of the most of the candidates was found to be unsatisfactory when gauged against the standard expected from candidates appearing in the country’s prestigious CSS Competitive Examination. Poor performance of the candidates was due to lack of adequate preparation. To improve proficiency in the exam, guidelines/instructions need to be prepared for better understanding of the candidates on how to prepare for the exam and how to attempt the questions. Eligibility criteria should also be revised to screen out those with poor academic background. Chemistry-I:   The candidate’s performance and level of understanding basic chemistry was extremely  poor despite the fact that paper was within the limits of the prescribed syllabus. It appeared that the candidates had done selective study only. Though the paper contained no “Surprise” items for the candidates who had prepared well for the paper yet there were weak responses to questions related to  physical chemistry and inorganic chemistry (Q.No.6 &7). Most candidates attempted and answered Q.No.5. & Q.No.8 and the responses were satisfactory. For any future exam, the Examiner advised to attempt papers in clear and logical manner. In explanatory questions, it was required to answer within the defined context. The candidates were advised to consult previous papers to understand the layout of the  paper. Practice for better time management was also emphasized. Chemistry-II:   It is a technical paper/subject while the approach to attempt the paper was very generic. Many of the responses were non-serious and contained irrelevant contents like an essay or a story. While attempting technical subject/papers, the candidates must be precise and articulate. Responses to Question  No. 3, 4, and 8 conveyed that candidates had no knowledge of the concepts and had only done selective study. One of the main drawbacks was that candidates had not prepared from the recommended reading material. Criminology:   “Criminology” was introduced for the first time as an optional subject in CSS Competitive Examination-2016. About 795 candidates opted for this new subject and the result was quite encouraging as 80% of the candidates performed very well. The concepts were clear and responses encouraging. About 20% also cited references. The Examiner suggested that those opting for Criminology must also study Law, Sociology, Social work and Psychology. European History:  Examination of the scripts pointed to many deficiencies and inadequacies in understanding of the subject. Generally, the students lacked critical thinking, had poor understanding of the subject, used inappropriate expressions and demonstrated poor English writing skills. Some of the specific deficiencies were that the candidates either did not know how to attempt the question paper or lacked in-depth knowledge/understanding of the subject. Focus was missing in many answer scripts. The  4 candidates were asked about “the connection between the ideas of French Philosophers and the French Revolution” but in response, a significant number discussed causes of the revolution rarely touching the real point. Similarly in response to the question related to unification of Germany and Italy, irrelevant details were provided. The Examiner observed that the standard of education in the county was deteriorating and recommended that HEC/ provincial educational departments to take concrete steps for improving the education system. Environmental Sciences:  I ntroduction of the new optional subject in CSS syllabus and the appearance of a large number of candidates (1075) were appreciated. Performance of a few candidates was exceptional and in fact very impressive. However, candidates with low scores had no knowledge of the subject and the issues related to it. Economics-I:  Performance of 80% of the candidates was rated as poor, non-serious and without any serious preparation. It appeared that candidates mostly relied on their general knowledge instead of understanding the nature of questions that was it theoretical, empirical or required a policy perspective. The Examiner also advised the aspiring candidates to supplement empirical questions with required derivation, graphs and tables. Unnecessary details must be avoided rather the answers should be worth for consideration of the total marks allocated to the questions. The candidates should understand that the subject relates to theory and policy, therefore the responses should be on some sound knowledge. QNo.4 was a poor attempt and candidates were not able to correctly respond to theories of inflation and unemployment, particularly on Pakistan’s experience of inflation pre and post-70’s. Economics-II:   The answer scripts that were assessed reflected that some applicants renumber the questions, make grammatical mistakes, and leave blank lines within the answers to waste the paper or  provide un-necessary details. Rather than analysing the economic problems faced by Pakistan, candidates gave theoretical explanations. The Examiner did not recommend use of additional sheets. English Literature:   Based on the performance of the candidates in English Literature, the Examiner observed that there was a   tendency in majority of the candidates to read summaries of the specified text. As a result, they ignored two very important aspects while answering the question i.e. they did not focus on what was asked; rather they reproduced the summary that they had already prepared. The answers were therefore superficial and lacked depth. The second weakness was that the candidates were unable to  back up their arguments by any supporting evidence from the text. Moreover, in some cases the written expression was a matter of grave concern as candidates despite having understanding of the subject were not able to express themselves properly. Some candidates had very good written expression and sound knowledge of the subject but attempted less than the required number of questions. These candidates could have easily scored higher, had they attempted the required number of questions. Many candidates wrote in detail without any relevance or requirement. This category scored the lowest marks. The Examiner underscored that long answers was not a guarantee for good marks. Geography:   The Examiner observed poor understanding of concepts in physical as well as in human geography. (Question No. 02, 03, 04, and 06) were attempted providing irrelevant details. The written expression was poor. The Examiner suggested enhancing the eligibility for CSS CE to MS/M.Phil level. Governance & Public Policy:   A new subject but   overall performance of the candidates was not up to the mark. Most of the candidates had neither any concept nor any understanding of the discipline. Responses were not relevant to the questions. Q No.4, in particular, was poorly attempted as most of the candidates failed to distinguish between the different concepts. The Examiner recommended that the candidates should consult proper text/recommended books instead of relying on their own observations or analyses or just the newspapers information.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!