Be assured, UPSC does scaling in the Civil services examination.
There is this extract from a discussion; you can follow the link at bottom for more.
NO SCALING IS DONE BY UPSC IN MAINS
Refer to this case in Delhi High Court. Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs Union Public Service Commission & … on 5 October, 2010.
26. From a cumulative reading of the aforesaid decisions, the factual/legal position which emerges can be summarized as under:-
I Moderation and scaling of marks are two different techniques used by examining authorities for achieving common standard of assessment of marks.
II UPSC does not apply the method of scaling of marks in evaluating the answer-sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination and confines the application of the said method in evaluation of answer-sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination.
III The method of moderation of marks propounded by Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh‟s case (supra) is similar to the W.P.(C) No.6586/2010 & Conn. Matters Page 38 of 43 one applied by UPSC in evaluating the answer-sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination.
IV The method of moderation of marks applied by UPSC in evaluating the answer-sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination has been approved by a learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of this Court.
Moderation technique by UPSC 1
16. Moderation is applied by UPSC to achieve uniformity in standards of evaluation of descriptive answer books where a number of examiners are involved. The problem of uniformity of standards becomes more complex when viewed against the background that candidates in Civil Services (Main) Examination have the option of answering the papers, besides English, in any one of the eighteen languages specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
17. As far as conventional/descriptive type of examinations are concerned, the question papers are set up by experts duly approved by the Commission for each subject. The paper setter acts as the Head Examiner.
18. When conventional papers are set, the answers have to be of descriptive type by the very nature of questions, and such answers are evaluated by a
W.P.(C) No.6586/2010 & Conn. Matters Page 12 of 43 number of examiners, depending upon the number of candidates. These examiners are called Additional Examiners and work under the Head Examiner for each subject.
19. The Commission have devised a procedure of moderation to ensure equitable treatment to all candidates and to judge them on merit by reducing the "Examination variability" to the extent possible.
Moderation Technique- 2
20. The experts who set the question papers for each subject, act as Head-Examiner for the evaluation of the answer-books of that subject/paper. Whenever the number of candidates is very large in a particular subject, the Commission appoints Additional Examiners from amongst subject experts. Each Additional Examiner evaluates approximately 250 to 300 answer books. To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner are involved, the UPSC arrange for a meeting of the Head Examiner with his additional examiners for each subject soon after the examination is over. At this stage, they thoroughly discuss the question paper and the appropriate answers. They also carry out a sample valuation of answer books and this is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in marking, if any, are further discussed. After the discussion is over and the standard of evaluation of Answer Scripts has been decided upon, the examiners disperse and complete the valuation of answer books according to a given time schedule.
21. This exercise alone is not enough to bring about uniformity of assessment since, in the process of valuation, the examiners tend to deviate from the standards laid down by Head Examiner and expected to be followed. The UPSC therefore, apply further checks to ensure uniformity in evaluation of answer scripts.
Moderation Technique- 3
22. After all the answer scripts duly evaluated are received back in the office of the UPSC from each Additional Examiner, they are kept separately each Additional Examiner-wise. To ensure that Additional Examiners have not deviated from the uniform standards of evaluation and followed the agreed norms the Head Examiner conducts sample survey W.P.(C) No.6586/2010 & Conn. Matters Page 13 of 43 of the 20 answer books (ten highest scoring answer books and ten selected random in respect of each of the additional examiners). Depending on the standards adopted by the additional examiner, the Head Examiner confirms the awards without any change or carries out upward or downward moderation according to the degree of leniency or strictness in marking. The awards given by the Head Examiner of these revalued 20 answer books are accepted as final.
23. As regards the other answer scripts, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the award of marks by the additional Examiners are moderated as considered appropriate by the Head Examiner. To achieve the uniformity in the standards of evaluation, this exercise is done in regard to each subject in the Main Written Examination. If in the opinion of the Head Examiner, there has been totally erratic marking by an additional examiner, for which the Head Examiner considers that it is not feasible to have statistical moderation, the scripts already evaluated by the additional examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner or by any other additional examiner whose norms of marking are similar to that of the Head Examiner and other additional examiners.
24. It may be relevant to mention here that the answer scripts are given dummy roll numbers to ensure anonymity.
Link to complete Judgement is here
Check the complete Judgement. http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1889873/
There is lot of diffrence between scaling and moderation. Scaling is done to bring all subjects at par with help of a statistical formula. Moderation is done only in those subjects which are handpicked by the commission as and where it deems fit. Thus all subjects are not brought at par; only the subjects where the commision feel that variations in marking are done are brought to par.
I am quite sure that thecommision follows the topper’s marks formuls instead of average/mean formula. The topper’s marks formula is the reason of diasester in Psychology Paper-2. Similarly last year Electrical and Mathematics went down due to toppers marks formula only. Thus moderation depends on the will and desire of the commission and there is large scope for arbitrariness.
Further the inter paper moderation is also not done which is quite visible. This year the topper in GS Paper-2 got aroud 140/300 while that in few optional papers people got around 240/300. This should form an additional ground of challange before the court.
Well in maths its practically possible to score 600/600
And if no scaling is there, all the IITians with Maths/Physics/Chemistry will score so high that top 100 ranks will be secured for them only.
Got my point ?
And simple common sense is enough to understand that Psychology Paper-2 marks this year were obviously scaled, how can you explain so many double digit marks in paper-2 this year ? specially those who scored 160-180 makrs previous year in same paper and this year r getting marks in double digit, even below 50 ??
And how many people/organisations really speak truth in this country ?
A few days ago every news paper had a story about total expenses of election campaign in Tamil Nadu and W. Bengal, Everyone reported less than 10 lacs as total expenditure in election campaign !!!!!!! Do you also believe in that kinda lie without giving a thought to it ??
Being a good student of mathematics and physics, I should contradict your statement. In my opinion – It is practically impossible to score more than 450-500 in mathematics, even if the student is the topper of IIT JEE. Attempting question does not necessarily mean to get full marks. I have seen the complete PHYSICS ans script uploaded by 2nd rank holder of CSE 2007, and I found the marks he achieved was quite justified. Kunal, who scored more than 400 in Physics in CSE 2010, will support me. Moderation may depend on highest or average marks obtained by the students as said by brotherhood, but too much scaling according to your "simple mathematics" not sounds to be simple and even "justified" to me.
last yr my frnd got 330 and 310 in his optionals and in gs he was expecting around 280 min but he got 180.people who attempted 50 marks less than him got 260 ,270.i cnt understand this.people r gettin 17 52 in their papers inspite of doin well.tht fellow applied for reval of marks but no improvement.do u kno anycase where upsc increased someone’s marks after raval or court battles and gave him services like ias,ips ifs,irs ,irts etc.
Firstly I request you to please provide me the contact info of that peron who got 233 & 33.
Secondly as mentioned above; in 1985 UPSC was complled to take re-exam at Bhopal center and 22 candidates were declared successful; including IAS, IPS & IFS.
Thirdly you can refer to KAPIL MALIK v. UPSC (2007) where UPSC had to submit Answer Sheets to the Delhi High Court because the candidate got 41 marks in GS Paper-2 while he got 150 range in all other papers. In this case the High Court directed the UPSC to setup a inhouse mechanism and to control examiners not doing work properly which the UPSC is defending till date. refer to the judgement here. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66738/
Finally I still insist that the amount of irregularity in Psycho can surely lead to a recheck or remoderation in entire Psycho exam. But sitting idle will not give anything.
based on the summary u have mentioned, it seems as though the methods of UPSC are not entirely devoid of rationale and logic although they may not be uniform or objective. I do believe that going by toppers’ marks criteria to selectively moderate the scores of a few subjects is a more rational method compared to uniform across-the-board scaling of all subjects. many people who take specialized subjects such as science, engineering, law, etc. are post-grads or grads in that field and possess expert technical knowledge while social subjects like pub ad or socio are opted by many engineers, etc.
These 2 classes of subjects ideally should not have the same success rates because of the difference in candidate profiles. uniform scaling will violate this condition and ensure equal success rates in all subjects. selective moderation will iron out issues such as inherent advantage offered by some subjects or the lenience of the paper-setter while maintaining the difference between different classes of subjects as illustrated above. this does not seem too arbitrary although it leaves some scope for discretion. but uniformity or homogeneity is not an appropriate approach on such complex matters.
1-Intent of scaling/moderation
2-scale n scope of scaling/moderation
3-methodology of scaling/moderation
4-impact/result of scaling/moderation
all these issues are linked with UPSC,for both moderation/scaling within a particular optional subject and/or among different optional subjects are quite complex,shady,illogical,inefficient and unsound.It results in equity(some sort of,which people overlook) but resultant equity still falls short of requisite one,in selection of officers at this level.
As there is a need to bring in much desired equity,there must be moderation/scaling….but all that starts from common standards of paper setting and ends with common(equalized) standards of paper-evaluation.
Inter and Intra-subject parity must be achieved via proper,efficient and transparent mechanism;which can remove ambiguity and prevent the merit to be sacrificed at the altar of randomness and subjectivity.
See this link for full discussion.