The Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) exams are among the most sought-after and competitive exams in the country, attracting thousands of candidates each year. These exams, conducted by the Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC), open doors to prestigious government positions and a lifetime of respect, security, and influence. The BCS exam is comprised of three stages: preliminary, written, and viva voce (the oral examination).
While each stage is critical, the viva, with its 200-mark allocation, has been the focus of much debate. Some view this high mark allocation as fair, but for many candidates, it feels like a trap-a final barrier that can undo years of hard work in a matter of minutes. A candidate expends an education time of almost 20 years before being capable of a viva candidate. But that 20 years is evaluated within 10-20 minutes by honorable board. Is this fare?
The viva voce is intended to assess qualities like communication skills, confidence, knowledge, and personality. However, the 200 marks assigned to it disproportionately elevate its weight in the overall evaluation, leading to a range of issues that impact both candidates and the exam's fairness. Let's explore why the BCS viva system, with its significant 200-mark allocation, has increasingly become a potential trap for candidates.
The most significant issue with a 200-mark viva is that it places an immense emphasis on subjective assessment. Unlike the preliminary and written exams, where answers are evaluated based on clear, objective criteria, the viva relies on personal impressions formed by the interview board. Factors like nervousness, personal opinions, or differing perspectives between the candidate and board members can influence scores, often in ways that may not reflect the candidate's actual merit.
While it's true that personality and communication are important for public service roles, such traits are inherently subjective to assess. Relying on 200 marks to evaluate these qualities adds an element of unpredictability. It's common for two candidates with similar written scores to end up with vastly different final results because of the viva, causing frustration and a sense of unfairness.
The weightage of the BCS viva leads to an intense pressure on candidates, knowing that even an excellent written performance might not secure them a position if they falter in the interview. After months or even years of preparation, the stress and anxiety around the viva can be overwhelming. Many candidates who excel academically may lack the same confidence in an oral exam setting, leading to a mismatch between their performance in the viva and their overall potential.
This high-stakes pressure can affect mental well-being, resulting in nervousness, anxiety, and diminished confidence. For candidates who have invested years in their preparation, the idea of success hinging on one 20-minute interaction can feel like a trap, amplifying the mental and emotional toll of the BCS journey.
In a written exam, candidates can see their mistakes and understand how their scores were determined. In a viva, however, the scoring process is entirely opaque, with no written record or feedback provided to the candidate. This lack of transparency raises questions about fairness and potential biases. For example, biases based on personal appearance, regional accents, or socioeconomic background can inadvertently influence a board's evaluation, whether consciously or subconsciously. With 200 marks at stake, this lack of transparency becomes even more problematic.
A single interview board's personal biases or opinions can drastically alter a candidate's score and, by extension, their career path. The possibility of bias, coupled with no clear recourse to appeal, creates an atmosphere of mistrust in the selection process. Instead of creating a level playing field, the viva can disadvantage those who have already overcome numerous hurdles to compete on equal footing. This trend perpetuates inequality and discourages talented candidates from marginalized backgrounds who are left feeling that the odds are stacked against them.
The core purpose of the BCS exam is to recruit the best and most capable individuals for public service roles, creating a system of meritocracy. However, the heavy weighting of the viva detracts from this goal. Candidates who demonstrate a high level of knowledge and aptitude in the written exams might miss out on selection simply because of a lower viva score, which might not accurately reflect their true ability to serve the public. This inconsistency dilutes the concept of meritocracy and limits the selection of candidates based on their substantive knowledge and skills. A balanced approach, with less emphasis on the viva and more weight given to the objectively scored exams, would arguably provide a fairer evaluation of a candidate's overall suitability.
To address these concerns, several reforms could be considered to ensure a more balanced and transparent BCS viva system: Decreasing the 200 marks to 100 or even 50 would help reduce the disproportionate impact of the viva on overall scores. This would allow the written exams to hold more weight, aligning more closely with the knowledge and competency required for public service roles. Implementing clearer, more structured guidelines for interviewers can help reduce subjective bias. Transparent criteria and standardized scoring rubrics could enhance fairness and consistency.
Recording the viva sessions and providing candidates with a score breakdown and feedback could enhance transparency. This change would help candidates understand their performance and also reduce the likelihood of biased or inconsistent scoring. Regular training on reducing bias and assessing candidates' true potential can help interview boards evaluate candidates more fairly. This would also ensure that assessments are aligned with the job's actual requirements.
The 200-mark viva in the BCS exam, though intended as a measure of a candidate's readiness for public service, has come to be viewed by many as a trap. The high weight, combined with the subjective nature of the viva, introduces an element of uncertainty that can undermine the fairness of the BCS selection process.
For the BCS exam to fulfill its goal of promoting merit-based recruitment, it's essential to reassess the viva's role, implementing reforms that better align it with the principles of objectivity, transparency, and inclusivity. By addressing the disproportionate impact of the viva, we can create a fairer, more balanced process that accurately reflects candidates' skills, knowledge, and potential for public service. After all, the future of Bangladesh depends on recruiting the best and brightest minds-and for that, we need a fairer and more inclusive BCS examination system.
The writer is undergraduate student, Department of Political Science, University of Rajshahi
