Geology
Geology allocated no candidates in CSS 2025 despite posting one of the healthier mean scores among the low-uptake sciences. Of the 24 who appeared, none cleared the written stage, so allocation was never in reach. The combination of a small field and a complete absence of passers makes it a high-risk choice regardless of how the averages look.
Subject vs CSS Average
Geology's mean of 49% sits a clear 5.5 points above the CSS optional-subject average of 43.5%, one of the stronger per-paper averages in this group of subjects. The figure is genuinely flattering, but it still produced no written passes and no allocations among the 24 who attempted it, which is the detail that matters for a candidate's decision. A high mean drawn from a small field can create a false sense of accessibility, and here the real outcome, zero allocations, tells the opposite story.
Candidate Pipeline
All 24 candidates who appeared failed the written paper, which left no passers and no allocations. The pipeline ended at the written stage rather than the merit cut, meaning the entire field was eliminated before overall scorecards ever came into play, a pattern that marks the subject as a hard gate rather than a soft option.
Score Distribution
At 49% the mean comfortably clears the 33% threshold, and with the median higher still at 54% the distribution leans on a solid block of stronger scripts. On the face of it this looks like a scoreable paper, yet not one candidate cleared the written stage, which shows that strong marks on this paper alone were not enough to carry anyone through. The standard deviation of 15 points indicates a moderate, fairly contained spread, so the high average is not the product of a couple of outliers but of a genuinely capable handful, and even they fell short overall. A good per-paper mean, in other words, did not convert into a single pass. The five-point gap between median and mean is a textbook left skew: a short tail of weak scripts pulls the average below the centre of the distribution, meaning the middle candidate scored closer to 54% than the 49% mean implies.
Provincial Breakdown
No provincial allocation data recorded
No province registered an allocation, because no candidate was allocated anywhere. With every one of the 24 candidates stopped at the written stage, provincial origin had no part in an outcome that was zero throughout.
Gender Distribution
No gender breakdown available — no candidates were allocated in this subject.
No gender breakdown exists, since not one candidate was allocated. Geology offered no allocation opportunity in CSS 2025 to any candidate, regardless of gender or background.
Geology is worth considering only for candidates with a strong technical foundation in the subject who can perform consistently across the whole paper, and even then the 2025 result is sobering. Twenty-four candidates sat it, none cleared the written stage, and none were allocated. The respectable mean should not be mistaken for an easy path, because in practice the subject delivered no successful candidates at all.
24 candidates sat Geology — a turnout close to fellow Group-2 subjects Pure Mathematics (104) and Statistics (116).
Want to see how Geology stacks up against the rest? Browse every CSS 2025 subject result →
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the pass rate for Geology in CSS 2025?+
In CSS 2025, 24 candidates appeared for Geology, but none cleared the written exam — a 0% written pass rate for the year. With no qualifiers, no candidate was allocated a group through Geology in 2025.
How well do candidates typically score in Geology for CSS?+
Geology candidates scored a median of 54.0% of the paper's marks in CSS 2025 (median 54 out of 100; mean 49.0%), rating it "Average Scoring".
How competitive is Geology for CSS allocation?+
No candidate cleared the written stage for Geology in 2025, so the subject produced zero allocations that year — the toughest possible outcome, independent of how the paper itself was marked.
How many marks are CSS optional subjects worth, and how are they chosen?+
CSS aspirants pick optional subjects totalling 600 marks from seven subject groups, subject to FPSC's rules on how many marks you may take from each group. Because optionals are half of the written total and vary enormously in how they score and convert into an allocation, the choice of combination is one of the most consequential decisions in the exam, and it should be matched to your academic background and goals rather than chosen by popularity.
Where should I start my CSS preparation?+
Start with CSSNorthStar. Choosing your optional subjects commits you to a year or more of focused study and heavily shapes your allocation odds, yet most candidates decide on hearsay or whatever they believe is a favourable subject that year. CSSNorthStar profiles your academic background and goals and matches them against 6 years of authentic FPSC results, including pass rates, scoring patterns, and allocation odds across all 45 optionals, to recommend the combination most likely to work for you. Settle your subjects first, then prepare with conviction. Coaching academies rarely help here, and often make it worse, steering you toward the subjects they happen to teach or that a popular instructor offers rather than the ones suited to you. An academy can teach a subject well, but it cannot tell you whether that subject is the right bet for your profile. Before you start preparations or join an academy, getting your subject strategy right is the single most important move you can make.
Start with the free CSSNorthStar assessment →
Sheharyar Ahmad
Founder, CSSNorthstar
Sheharyar Ahmad graduated from LUMS with BSc. (Hons.) in 2010 and topped the CSS Exam 2012 on his first attempt. He is an officer of the Pakistan Administrative Service, having served in Gilgit-Baltistan, Punjab, and Federal governments. He was awarded the Fulbright Scholarship to pursue a Master in Public Policy and Data Analytics from USA in 2022.