THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

TILE fourth report of the Civil Service Commissioners just issued affords ample illustration of what we have already called the "lottery of limited competition." The Commissioners supply the following remarkable instance. Two successive competitions re- cently took place for two situations successively vacant in the same office. The following were the results.

First Competition.

Total Marks.

Candidate No. 1 3685 „ No. 2 2530

„ No. 3 1365 Second Competition.

Candidate No. 1 135.5

ir No. 2 1256 „ No. 3 865

It is thus seen that the successful competitor in the second competition is inferior to even the worst man of the three in the first competition—his success and the failure of the two rejected in the _first being simply the result of chance. Had candidate No. 1 of the second competition been opposed by the two rejected men in the first competition he would have to return home disconso- late to his friends ; but Dis aliter visnm—he was fitted against two dull or nervous young men and he returned home a conqueror, while a few weeks before two far superior men were rejected. Who shall say after this that our Government does not encourage lotteries ? We are glad to see that the Commissioners see the absurdity and injustice of this system forced on them by the au- thorities and we agree with them in their preference of open com- petition to the plan of limited competition as at present worked. But we must not forget that all competitions have this element of a lottery about them ; and unless there is some positive good to be derived from open competition we should not introduce it merely because it has the comparative merit of getting rid of some of the more glaring evils of the limited system.

The Commissioners thus refer to the objection that their system of examination leads to cramming— "The practice to which this familiar expression of cramming applies is strictly this, that a candidate instead of acquainting himself with a subject,

speculates on the particular questions which are likely to be put, or ad- dresses himself only to limited portions of the subject and qualifies himself either by rote or otherwise to that limited extent." •

This is not a correct statement of the case against cramming. The present evil is that the candidate who is crammed acquires by rote and in a superficial manner the power of answering ques- tions—the questions being in many cases of a kind that a good general student might not be able to answer, but which a crammed boy, with his head full of facts, can answer, because the questions generally relate to facts alone. The evil, also, is not that the candidates apply themselves to limited portions of the subjects, but that, induced by the terms " history " and " geography," they try (with a great waste of good time) to master the enor- mous mass of facts under those two heads, and succeed or break down according to the failure or success of the cram- ming process. " The questions," add the Commissioners, " niay be infinitely varied, and cannot be prognosticated." This is the very evil to which we have already directed attention. When questions may be infinitely varied and not anticipated in wide subjects, candidates have no resource but cramming if they would hope for success. No man need hope for success by a good general knowledge of the history of England or a good general knowledge of geography ; he must cram, for he can have no idea to what depths or to what extent of minutiw he may be examined. We notice in this and in other parts of the Com.' missioners report a curious tendency to invent untenable objec- tions to their system and then demolish them with ease. We never heard any one object to the examinations because they en- couraged study of " limited portions" of subjects, nor did any one ever put forward the objection that the questions could be prognosticated ; these are giants which the Commissioners have created for the purpose of killing them. We have no objec- tion ; " it amuses them and it does not hurt us,"—for we never made any such objections.

Another device of the Commissioners is to state an objection and then reply to it in part concluding with a flourish as if the refu- tation applied to all the objection. We quote a pretty specimen of this kind of word fencing— "If the expression, cramming,' be understood to mean the acquisition of knowledge of particular subjects in a short time with considerable exertion, we think with regard to all the practical subjects, such as Arithmetic, Handwriting, and other subjects as can be rapidly taught, the knowledge thus acquired and proved by examination, is as likely to be useful as if gained by a slower process ; and although it does not prove a long and con- tinuous course of industry, it sufficiently shows capacity and energy."

" We think that with regard to all the practical subjects," &c., but the sentence ends without the least reference to the subjects not practical—the very subjects to which the whole of the original objection applies. No one in his senses would accuse the Commis- sioners of encouraging cramming in arithmetic or handwriting ; a mastery in arithmetic cannot be crammed into a boy, for his mind must comprehend as well as his memory retain, and no one ever dreamed of making boys write a good hand by a cramming process. The objection applies entirely to the non-practical subjects—his- tory and geography—which the Commissioners conveniently ignore in their reply.

Another objection is thus stated and thus replied to-

" The other alleged defect of the system which we administer, is of a very different character; it is this. That the prescribed subjects in some depart- ments are so high as to have the effect, especially where there are com- petitive examinations, of bringing into the service young persons whose ta- lents and acquirements are so far beyond the work they are expected to per- form, that they become discontented with their position and perform their duties listlessly, and without energy. We readily admit that such instances may have occurred, but we believe them to be very rare."

We must give the Commissioners credit for the fact that we have seen this objection made, but even where urged it has never been urged with great persistence. The correlative objection is not that the men admitted are above their work, but that in the qualifications really wanted in the office they are inferior to the men rejected. Take the case of Mr. W. Scott, rejected in the competition fair writerships in the India Office, because he obtained only thirty-five marks in history. " The writers [we quote the offi- cial document] are for the most part employed in copying, but they are at other times employed in accounts and in assisting in the or- dinary duties of clerks." The subjects of examination were arith- metic, orthography, handwriting, copying MSS., and English composition, all fair practical tests, to which were added history and geography. Taking the practical tests, and comparing Mr. Scott with the successful candidates, wo find that he—rejected for want of ability—was better in the real work required than any one of them, excepting the first, distancing them by many marks. Had the competition been confined to practical tests, Mr. Scott would have won the second place : or had he retained a good cram- mer to heap his memory with historical and geographical facts he would also have won—but because, while acquiring superiority in the real qualifications of clerkship, he had neglected cramming in matters no good clerk need know, he is rejected. History and geography are entirely unrequired in the writer's office of the India House ; the competitors who answered success- fully in them, may have been judiciously crammed to succeed, or

through the aid of mere memory may have retained the facts ; but that Mr. Scott, a far superior clerk, superior to them in arith-

metic, handwriting, orthography, English composition, copying MSS., should be rejected, only proves that by injudicious manage- ment a system devised with the beat intentions may be produc- tive of gross injustice.