Agriculture & Forestry attracted 151 candidates in CSS 2025 and allocated a single one of them. The paper sits a little below the passing line on average, with a mean of 38%, but the defining feature of the subject is the sheer scarcity of successful outcomes from a small field. Only three candidates cleared the written stage and only one reached a seat.
The mean of 38% clears the passing line, and the median, slightly higher at 41%, points to a modest tail of stronger scripts lifting the picture. A standard deviation of 17 points is wide relative to the mean, placing a candidate one deviation below it at 21%, well into failing territory. That marks this as a moderate-risk paper where the average candidate passes but a below-par effort drops clearly short. With a field this small the average rests on few results, so the spread is the more telling figure. That three-point gap between median and mean is a mild left skew: a tail of weak scripts pulls the average below the centre, so the typical candidate is scoring a little above the 38% mean.
The single allocation went to a KPK candidate, with no other province securing a seat. One allocation offers no distribution to interpret beyond the fact that a lone candidate cleared a pipeline that stopped everyone else.
The one allocated candidate was a man, making the female share zero in a sample of a single seat. No conclusion about gendered conversion can be drawn from one outcome.
Agriculture & Forestry's mean of 38% trails the CSS optional-subject average of 43.5% by around 5.5 points, placing it modestly below the field. The gap matters less than the outcome, though, since the subject delivered just one allocation from 151 candidates. For anyone considering it, the slightly below-average mean is best read alongside the central fact that successful outcomes here were almost non-existent in 2025.
Of the 151 who appeared, 3 passed the written stage and 1 was allocated. Because the mean of 38% sits above the 33% threshold, the subject is not, on the numbers, the main bottleneck, yet the tiny written pass count shows how few candidates reached a passing standard in practice. The drop from 3 passers to a single allocation then completed the attrition at the merit stage.
Agriculture & Forestry is a reasonable choice only for candidates with a real technical background in the field who can write to a high standard under exam conditions. With a single allocation from 151 applicants, the 2025 data offers little encouragement. The small candidate pool should be read as a sign of how rarely the subject pays off rather than as an easier route in.