Why we need subject-based recruitment in Bangladeshi bureaucracy

For the purpose of appointing skilled bureaucrats, there is a constitutional institution in Bangladesh called the Public Service Commission (PSC). Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Bureaucracy forms the backbone of state administration. Since ancient times, individuals have been appointed to implement policies and advise governments. Modern bureaucracy has evolved through reforms, becoming integral to governance worldwide. Without bureaucrats or civil servants, no country can function effectively.

For the purpose of appointing skilled bureaucrats, there is a constitutional institution in Bangladesh called the Public Service Commission (PSC).

Bangladesh's Public Service Commission (PSC) oversees 26 cadre services, but its selection methods often overlook the nuances of professional specialisation. General and professional cadre candidates sit for the same 200-mark preliminary examination, covering subjects like language and literature, Bangladesh and international affairs, science, mathematics, and morality.

While this uniform approach may seem equitable, it poses significant challenges for candidates from specialised fields. 

For instance, a skilled researcher or a medical student excelling in their domain may fail to qualify if they underperform in unrelated subjects. The written examination follows a similar pattern, with general candidates sitting for 200 marks in subjects like Bengali, English, and science. Professional candidates face slightly altered requirements but must still devote substantial effort to non-specialised subjects.

This system discourages depth of expertise, as candidates prioritise general knowledge over their core competencies. 

For Bangladesh to cultivate professionals equipped for specialised roles, the PSC must reform its recruitment process, placing greater emphasis on subject-specific assessments. Without such changes, the country risks limiting the potential of its workforce, stifling innovation and progress in specialised fields.

I have seen medical students; they have to find time to study these subjects even in the midst of their academic studies, practicals, and even internships. The boy or girl who was supposed to concentrate on research or studies in medical science is also forced to sit with books on general knowledge, literature, etc.

What will happen with the knowledge of medical science if he cannot compete in BCS? If he does not survive in BCS, society does not even want to evaluate that doctor. Then it becomes wise for a medical student to focus on subjects other than his own subject!

Let us consider the case of a mathematics teacher. Imagine a student who graduated at the top of their class in mathematics, earned medals in international mathematics Olympiads, published several research articles in international journals, and demonstrated excellence in classroom teaching. 

Despite these credentials, they would not qualify as a mathematics teacher in a government college unless they scored well in unrelated subjects in the BCS examination.

This flaw arises because the same 200-mark primary selection method applies across disciplines, requiring all candidates to perform equally well in subjects like general knowledge, language, and literature. Consequently, a mathematics specialist who prioritises their field over unrelated subjects risks rejection during preliminary selection.

This issue is not limited to mathematics; it extends to all disciplines. How, then, can students be encouraged to master their chosen fields? How can the state ensure it recruits skilled, expert teachers?

Should teachers be required to excel in subjects unrelated to their expertise? Is superficial knowledge of various subjects more valuable in the classroom than deep expertise in one's field? These questions highlight the need for reform. The current system risks perpetuating a 'jack of all trades, master of none' policy, which undermines the recruitment of truly talented educators.

This incident is not only in the case of PSC recruitment. Almost the same method is followed in the case of recruitment in most government and autonomous institutions of Bangladesh. Even when this type of questioning method is followed in the recruitment of researchers in some institutions, the thought arises that are we trying to create any researchers at all?

The recruitment circular for the post of Research Officer in a renowned training and research institution in Bangladesh clearly stated, "The candidate must have proficiency in written and spoken English, digital literacy, research methods, communication skills, etc., and the candidate must participate in written, oral, and practical examinations in all the above-mentioned subjects. Candidates with publications in national and international journals will be given priority."

When I sat for the examination for research officers, I was disheartened to witness a complete disconnect between the recruitment notice and the actual assessment. The institution, considered one of the finest in the country, had promised a test focused on research skills, digital literacy, and communication. 

Instead, the examination comprised questions on Bengali, English, general knowledge, and mathematics—subjects irrelevant to the role. Such inconsistencies raise serious doubts about how research quality can improve in a system so flawed.

Reforms in the recruitment process must align with the needs of the state and society. A subject-based selection system is necessary for professional roles, where candidates are assessed on their expertise rather than general knowledge. The current approach focuses excessively on producing workers and officers, neglecting the development of true experts.

As a result, instead of aspiring to win Nobel Prizes, we remain content memorising the names of Nobel laureates. This lack of ambition is especially detrimental in fields like medicine and education, which are vital for national progress. 

For long-term welfare, it is imperative to reform the recruitment system, prioritising specialisation and excellence over superficial generalisation. Only then can we truly nurture the experts our country desperately needs.

Recruitment systems must adopt a weighted approach that values depth of knowledge in specialised subjects alongside practical experience and achievements. Candidates should be evaluated based on their research work, training, and publications in relevant fields. 

For teaching positions, testing teaching skills is crucial, as strong academic results alone do not guarantee classroom effectiveness. Applying tailored selection methods for specialist roles ensures that candidates are assessed holistically and in line with their expertise. 

My aspiration is for Bangladesh to evolve beyond producing workers and officials, becoming a nation of experts. We need to study how developed countries nurture scientists and researchers, winning Nobel Prizes and advancing global knowledge. By adopting effective measures, we can inspire our youth to aim higher—not merely to memorise the names of Nobel laureates but to aspire to join their ranks.

An abundance of researchers in universities and institutions will signify this transformation, driving Bangladesh to the forefront of education and innovation. By fostering expertise and prioritising specialisation, we can unlock the country's potential, paving the way for prosperity and global recognition in education and knowledge creation.

Sketch: TBS

Md Zahid Hossain is a lecturer at the Department of Political Science at Barishal Cadet College, Bangladesh. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.