It is not difficult to see how the exam keeps away suitable civil servants. The best and the brightest candidates are those working a fulltime job. Sadly, the inherent structure of this exam discourages full time job-holders from taking it. On the contrary, most other comparable competitive exams – GMAT, GRE, CAT etc. – encourage examinees to appear while working a job, which is why the best talent is lost to these exams.

Besides pushing away the best brains, this exam lures too many could-have-been doctors, engineers and countless other professionals into its trap, laying waste to their potential during the many years of preparation, and, in most cases, renders the unsuccessful ones permanent underachievers, usually stuck in low-productivity jobs. Worse, a great many students from the Hindi heartland rely solely on UPSC to make a career, entirely neglecting their education and alternative job prospects, only to find many years later that they’re stranded with neither civil services nor worthy education. In many cases, they blithely bankrupt their families to spend on coaching classes.

The flaw



But, what makes the exam’s structure so bad? The answer lies in the observation by ARC- “the one year long process”. It is this super-intensive, year-long exam cycle that makes it practically impossible for anyone working a full time job to clear the ultra-competitive examination, which admits less than 1 in 500 aspirants. Also, the quick resumption of the next cycle means the aspirants are stuck in a quicksand for years. ARC excoriates this inordinately long duration as a “national loss”. On top of that, the infamous, everything-under-the-sun syllabus repels the best candidates.

Already, several committees have submitted worthy recommendations to reform this exam, both in structure and syllabus, but few have been implemented. There is an urgent need for the PM to use all his political capital to implement the right mix of recommendations to strongly encourage full time job-holders to take the exam. This would serve two purposes: it would ensure better civil servants; it would provide relief to the millions of aspirants who, at the peak of their productive powers, are doing nothing except spending their days and money on coaching classes.

A lowdown on the exam

Before getting into the details of reforms, it is crucial to understand how the different stages – prelims, mains and interview – of this year-long saga make it so biased against job-holders, and turn out to be mentally torturous for even the fully dedicated (read unemployed) aspirants.

2014 onward, the prelim exam – only qualifying in nature – takes place in August, and the result is declared in November. The lucky few (usually around 14000) appear for the main exam in December. The main exam is a week-long process, involving nine heavy-duty papers, two of which are the candidates’ choice. The result of the main exam is declared in March, after which the interview process commences, and ends in April. It takes another month to declare final results. The next cycle resumes in August.

It is not hard to see why full time job-holders are automatically discounted. Even if a job-holder takes a sabbatical for one stage of the exam, he can’t afford to go back to the job, because of the long, uncertain delay over the next stage.

The most critical reform

Clearly, there is an urgent need to shorten the exam cycle by reducing delays between different stages. The most crucial step to enable this was suggested by the second ARC. It sought to club the prelims and main exam. Post both exams, evaluate the prelim papers first. Then, evaluate the main papers of only the successful candidates, the ARC said.

Using decentralized and superior technology, the scrutiny of prelim answer sheets should be concluded within 20 days. After this, since main exam papers are corrected manually, greater resources should be deployed to ensure that they’re evaluated within 20-25 days. This step would mean that the current 6 month gap between conducting prelims and declaring main exam’s result is crunched to 2 months.

The next big reform has been proposed by the Nigvekar Committee, 2014. Terming the candidates who clear prelim once “senior players”, this committee recommends exempting them from taking it again in the next attempt. This would mean that the candidate can focus on the main exam without getting distracted by the prelims. Such exemption would undoubtedly result in stiffer competition during the main exam, but this can be compensated by the government’s stated goal of aggressive expansion of the civil services.

Reform the syllabus

There is also a need to rationalise the syllabus as per what’s required of a civil servant. Firstly, optional papers should be done away with to create a level-playing field. Similar exams in France and UK have no optional subjects. The Alagh Committee, 2001, observed that candidates were opting for optional subjects on the basis of ‘scorability’, and not on the basis of their own specialization or interest. In 2005, 48% of candidates chose both optional subjects different from those they had studied in college. Further, the rapidly falling share of candidates choosing science/medical/engineering as optional subjects, from 31% in 1999 to 16% in 2003, suggests that the optional papers are breeding rote learning and coaching centres. More worryingly, better candidates might be outcompeted because their optional turns out inherently less scoring.

The 9 papers that comprise the main examination should be reduced to 3, shifting greater focus to the interview, as has been suggested by the second ARC. This committee also noted that in France and UK, the civil services examinations focus on human rights, economic and social development, administrative and environmental law, public systems management, science and technology and economics and accountancy. Besides basic knowledge of English, these three papers should test the above skills essential to a civil servant. Reducing the number of papers would also be a logistical boon for UPSC.

New ideas

The above changes would end the whole cycle, including interview, within 4 months. This sets the stage for the next radical reform – conducting the exam twice a year – that has not been suggested by any committee so far.

Giving unsuccessful candidates the choice to take another shot quickly would, in case of repeated failures, help them focus on rebuilding their career. Even if a candidate were to exhaust all six attempts, it would mean he has the option to burn through those in three years, instead of the current six years.

Ideally, the number of years a candidate can spend between the first and the last exam should be capped according to the current number of attempts. A general candidate should be allowed to appear for only three years (six attempts, considering two attempts each year). For example, if such a candidate appeared for his first attempt in 2014, he should not be allowed to take the exam after 2016. Similar adjustments should be made for other categories. Though deeply significant, considerable political will is required to implement this reform.



Other important changes

Beyond reducing the duration, the next great reform must go towards weaning students’ dependence off UPSC. The exam must not negate the importance of college education and alternative employment. For this, two reforms are needed: set a 50% cutoff for marks during undergraduate and/or postgraduate studies- as suggested by the Nigvekar Committee; make work experience count.

If being a civil servant is a great responsibility, how can the government ignore the criticality of prior work experience? In France, a substantial share of seats for civil servants is reserved for those with 4-8 years’ experience. Strong emphasis should be laid on the duration and quality of work experience at the interview. As in France, the maximum age limit to appear for UPSC must be set in accordance with duration of work experience. For those without work experience, the limit should be brought down by 6 years (from the current limit of 32, 35 and 37 years for General, OBC and SC/ST category, respectively). Subsequently, it should be increased depending on the duration of work experience. Bands of duration of work experience, such as between 1-2 years and 2-4 years, could be created. The uppermost age limit should be capped at 30, 32 years and 35 years for General, OBC and SC/ST category, respectively.

Making work experience count would encourage students to seek alternative employment before they embrace UPSC. In the event of failure, this would leave them with a chance to go back to the private sector.



How would lowering age criteria help?

Firstly, it would prevent those without work experience from getting too old to find alternative employment, if they don’t make it as a civil servant. Secondly, data shows that for General, SC and ST IAS officers selected between 1960 and 1972, 87%, 41% and 21%, respectively, were theoretically eligible to be appointed as Secretary to GoI. Between 1994 and 1999, this share had dropped to 46%, 21% and 18%, for the respective categories.



The second ARC makes clear that the secular drop across categories as well as the worrying gulf between General and SC/ST categories is a direct consequence of increasing average age of selection in IAS, and the greater average age at which reserved category students clear the exam. It goes on to say that late entry into civil services has three undesirable outcomes – it works against the interests of the weaker sections, does not enable recruitment of best candidates at a malleable age, and puts a premium on rote learning and coaching institutes. Similar arguments have been raised against allowing too many attempts.