Editor,
I had been debating whether to write this letter for some time. After all, I do not wish to appear as someone who questions the established processes of our respected Meghalaya Public Service Commission. However, the imbalance taking place in the name of competition compels me to express my views here.
I am referring to certain posts in which the examination pattern requires candidates to choose one optional subject (Mathematics, Statistics, Economics, or Computer Science) to attempt the major portion of the paper (which is worth 200 marks and each question carrying 2 marks), alongside a general paper (which is worth 100 marks). On the surface, this appears fair and flexible. However, through no fault of the candidates, the system has created an imbalance. While these disciplines are all academically rigorous, they differ significantly in their nature, assessment methods, and scoring patterns.
One can easily understand the time difference between solving numerical questions and answering straightforward concept-based questions. Yet both carry the same marks and are judged together for the same post.
To be precise, for subjects like Mathematics, speed and accuracy are critical, as they rely heavily on time-consuming numerical problems. In contrast, based on my analysis of 11 MPSC previous-year question papers (available to me) spanning multiple posts and years (2019–2025), the maximum number of numerical problems found in any single Economics paper was less than 8 out of 100 questions, and the overall average was approximately 2–3 numerical questions per paper, most of which only asked for formulas. On the other hand, Mathematics papers consistently contain 50–90 numerical problems. For Statistics, the pattern is inconsistent; sometimes the paper can be heavily numerical, while at other times it contains a mix of numerical and theoretical questions. Yet candidates from all three subjects are evaluated on the same raw-score scale.
The fault lies neither with candidates who choose a more theoretical paper nor with the question of whether one subject is easier than the other. The real concern is whether direct comparison of marks across fundamentally different disciplines accurately reflects merit. A score of 160 in Mathematics may not represent the same level of difficulty or effort as a score of 160 in Economics. Without careful consideration, candidates may be advantaged or disadvantaged simply because of the subject they selected.
What is to be done? One possible remedy is separate cut-offs for each subject, so that candidates compete only with those who have chosen the same optional subject. However, I acknowledge a limitation: Perhaps the number of aspirants opting for the Statistics paper at present is comparatively lower than the number of aspirants opting for other optional papers; the cut-off mark may become disproportionately low, thus creating a situation where an unsuitable candidate could also be selected.
Therefore, a better approach is the normalisation of raw scores, a practice already followed in many national-level examinations. Alternatively, for posts requiring specific skills, the examination could perhaps give appropriate weightage to those subjects. Ultimately, fairness in competitive examinations is not only about conducting the test properly; it is also about ensuring that candidates from different academic backgrounds are assessed in a genuinely comparable manner.
The objective is not to question the integrity of any examination, but to encourage a constructive conversation on how merit can be assessed as fairly as possible across different disciplines. I raised my concerns, or perhaps the concerns shared by other aspirants as well, with the hope that it reaches the table of the policymakers, educators, and examination authorities for necessary review and discussion of the current system.
To conclude let’s accept that the need for individuals capable of carefully assessing, analyzing, and interpreting data in this data-driven world is a topic for another day. However, for today, allow me to take a first step towards that through this message that I’m trying to convey.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
Via email
Need of the Hour: Proper Bus and Taxi Stands in Shillong City
Editor,
Shillong, the capital city of Meghalaya, is rapidly facing an alarming traffic crisis. Shillong, once known for its peaceful environment and smooth roads has now become a city struggling with heavy traffic congestion every single day. The growing problem has badly affected students, office-goers, shopkeepers, tourists, and ordinary citizens. One of the main reasons behind this worsening condition is the absence of proper bus and taxi embarkation and disembarkation stands across the city for picking up and dropping passengers. Every day, buses, local taxis, shared sumos, and private vehicles stop randomly along roadsides in busy areas such as Police Bazar, Bara Bazar, Laitumkhrah, Dhankheti, and Mawlai. Due to the lack of designated transport stands, vehicles occupy large portions of the roads while waiting for passengers. This results in traffic jams, road blockages, delays, and inconvenience for commuters and pedestrians alike, though the government has tried various means like appointing traffic police in busy areas, but traffic jams still occur.
Shillong’s roads were originally built for a much smaller population and fewer vehicles. However, with rapid urban growth, increasing tourism, and rising numbers of private vehicles, the city’s infrastructure is no longer able to cope with the growing traffic pressure. During peak hours, like when dropping kids off at school, people often spend long periods stuck in traffic, wasting valuable time and fuel. The situation clearly shows that establishing proper bus stands and taxi stands inside Shillong city is the need of the hour. Organized transport hubs would help regulate traffic movement and prevent vehicles from stopping randomly on roadsides. Separate spaces for buses, local taxis, and shared taxis would ensure smoother transportation and reduce congestion in crowded areas.
Traffic congestion is also affecting the environment. Vehicles trapped in long queues release harmful smoke and increase air pollution, which threatens Shillong’s natural beauty and clean atmosphere. Better transport management through proper stands can help reduce pollution and make the city cleaner and more organized.
The people of Shillong have repeatedly expressed their frustration over the worsening traffic problem. Citizens strongly feel that the government must now take the matter seriously and act without delay. The construction of proper bus and taxi stands should not remain only a proposal on paper but must become an urgent developmental mission. The government, urban authorities, and transport departments must work together to identify suitable locations within the city. Timely planning and implementation can greatly improve traffic management and restore convenience for the public.
To conclude, proper bus and taxi stands are an urgent necessity. If immediate action is not taken, traffic congestion will continue to worsen in the coming years. The citizens of Shillong sincerely request the government to look into the matter seriously and take concrete steps towards building an organized, efficient, and commuter-friendly transport system for the future of the city.
Yours etc.,
Dr Rilang Iki Bamon,
Via email
