1149
0India’s and China’s civil-service exams are notoriously difficult
They impose big costs on both societies
June 19, 2025, The Economist
🌟完整外刊原文，请加V: HLSHW666 进学习群免费获取
Cigarette butts, spectacle lenses and car tyres. Which of those items contain plastic? Papaya, pineapple, guava. How many of those fruits were brought to India by the Portuguese? Last month around half a million Indians sat down to answer such questions, which were eclectic, but high-stakes. They were part of the exam to join India’s civil service.
For those who passed by correctly answering questions like those above (all three items contain plastic, and all three fruits were brought over by the Portuguese), it is merely the first and easiest step in a long and arduous process. Up next are nine more papers to be taken over 27 hours from August onwards, covering a range of subjects and even more obscure questions. Last year candidates were asked to write 1,000 words on statements such as: “The empires of the future will be the empires of the mind.” Those who do that successfully are then invited to a final interview.
India’s selection process is so gruelling because a role in the civil service is highly coveted. Even as India’s private sector has grown, government jobs remain a ticket to prosperity, prestige and better marriage prospects. Last year 1.1m people applied to join the top tier of the civil service, but around 1,000 (0.2% of those who actually sat the first exam) were offered a spot.
That makes India’s exams even more competitive than those in China, where, amid a slowing economy, a growing number of people are turning to the public sector. Last year a record 3.4m Chinese registered and passed the initial screening for the national civil-service exam—well over twice the number who did so in 2014. Just over 39,700 (1.5% of those who sat the exam) secured a job.
In both countries the exams are considered the fairest way to filter candidates. But despite the exams’ meritocratic intentions, critics in both countries believe they filter candidates according to the wrong criteria. By screening for rote learning and test-taking, they neglect to assess actual public-policy skills such as management, teamwork and communication.
