Cost of Competitive Exams: Chasing Government Jobs Leaves Many Scarred
NIOS Invites Applications For Examination Centres For March-April 2025 Public Exams
Preparation for the UPSC Civil Services entrance exam now rivals admission tests for medical and engineering colleges. The recent deaths of three students at Rau’s IAS Study Circle in Delhi spotlight how coaching for Civil Services has become a massive, unregulated industry.
Over 13.4 lakh candidates appeared for the UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) Examinations in June 2024, competing for just around 1,000 positions. The allure of prestigious government jobs, particularly as an IAS officer, drives this intense competition. However, the real question is whether the grueling preparation is worth the cost.
A study on competitive recruitment exams published two years ago revealed the social and economic scars left on Indian youths who aren’t selected, a fate that befalls more than 90% of candidates. The prolonged preparation for elusive government jobs can have significant repercussions on both individuals and the broader economy.
Historically, between 2001 and 2006, the Tamil Nadu government implemented a partial hiring freeze, reducing vacancies in certain sectors by 86%. Despite this, the number of applicants per vacancy surged by 390%, indicating that the freeze did not deter candidates from aspiring for government jobs. Instead, many delayed entering the workforce, opting for further studies or remaining unemployed while waiting for future opportunities.
The hiring freeze led to increased competition and a notable shift in the labor market. Employment rates among young, male college graduates fell by 17% during this period. The reduced supply of college-educated labor resulted in higher wages for those who remained employed. However, a decade later, the affected cohorts showed long-term social and economic scars, including delayed household formation, reduced household consumption and higher unemployment rates. Elder family members also delayed retirement to compensate for the financial shock.
The study provided some of the first causal evidence that competition for government jobs can negatively impact both the labor market and candidates who are not selected. The lure of lucrative government positions diverts many towards unproductive exam preparation.
Candidates often overestimate their chances of selection, a structural problem exacerbated by the opaque nature of exam results and selection statistics. Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted approach:
1. Transparency in Selection: Introducing more transparency in selection processes can help candidates make informed decisions. Research shows that initial percentile ranks are good predictors of ultimate success but candidates often lack this information.
2. Empanelment System: Economist Karthik Muralidharan proposes an empanelment system where candidates need a minimum score to qualify, after which departments can choose among qualified candidates. This would reduce the incentive to continuously study, as candidates would have clearer targets and no need to exceed minimum cut-offs.
3. Private Sector Job Scams: Rising private sector job scams might also keep young people hesitant about entering the labor market, highlighting the need for trustworthy job opportunities outside the public sector.
Ultimately, balancing candidate expectations and providing clear, transparent paths to employment can help mitigate the negative impacts of competitive exam preparation.
