Editor,
I wish to draw attention to an important concern regarding the evaluation and comparability of marks awarded in the optional papers of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service (APCS) Examination.
Optional subjects carry significant weight in determining the final merit of candidates. However, substantial variations in marks obtained across different optional subjects may create disparities among candidates, particularly when candidates with comparable performance in the general studies papers receive markedly different scores in their chosen optional subjects.
In the previous examination, marks obtained in the optional papers played a decisive role in determining the final merit. It was observed that some candidates who performed above average in several or all general studies papers and were within or around the top 50 range on the basis of their general studies performance could not ultimately secure a place in the final merit list due to comparatively lower marks in their optional subjects.
A particular concern has been the apparent variation in scoring patterns across different disciplines. Candidates opting for subjects such as sociology, philosophy, PSIR, history and other humanities-oriented subjects have reported considerable difficulty in securing 200 marks across the two optional papers, whereas candidates appearing for certain science-oriented optional subjects have, in some instances, secured more than 200 marks in a single paper.
These observations by themselves do not establish any deliberate bias or unfairness in the evaluation process. Nevertheless, significant variations in the distribution of marks across optional subjects warrant closer examination to determine whether candidates from different disciplines are being evaluated according to reasonably comparable standards of difficulty and performance.
In this regard, it is respectfully requested that the APPSC consider introducing an appropriate normalisation or statistical moderation mechanism for optional papers, particularly where substantial differences in the distribution of marks across subjects are statistically evident. Such a mechanism could help ensure greater comparability of scores while preserving the academic integrity and subject specific nature of the examination.
The purpose of an optional paper should be to assess a candidate's knowledge, understanding, analytical ability and subject proficiency. At the same time, the choice of optional subject should ideally not become a disproportionately decisive factor in determining the final merit when candidates demonstrate comparable performance in the compulsory papers.
A transparent and scientifically designed normalisation mechanism, if found appropriate after statistical analysis, could help address such disparities while strengthening candidates' confidence in the fairness and comparability of the selection process.
I therefore request the authorities concerned to examine the distribution of marks across optional subjects in the APCS Examination and consider suitable measures before the APCS Examination 2026, so that the examination system remains fair, transparent, merit-based and comparable across different optional disciplines.
Concerned aspirant