BackCSS 2025 Results

Anthropology

0.79%Written pass rate
883Candidates appeared
71%Written → allocated

Anthropology proved to be one of the hardest optional subjects to clear in CSS 2025. Of the 883 candidates who sat it, only 7 made it through the written stage and just 5 were eventually allocated, an overall conversion of barely half a percent. What sets this subject apart is where the failure happens: the bottleneck is not the final merit cut but the paper itself, which the average candidate simply does not pass.

Moderate
60% female allocated in this subject51% CSS average↑ Over-represented

Provincial Breakdown

The five allocations were split between just two provinces, with Sindh Rural taking three seats and Punjab the other two, while KPK, Balochistan, Sindh Urban and the rest drew a blank. That near-total absence of geographic spread is less a story about provincial strengths than a simple consequence of how few candidates clear this paper anywhere in the country.

Gender Distribution

Of allocated candidates
60%
Female
40%
Male
5 total allocated

Women accounted for three of the five allocated seats, a 60% share that runs ahead of the CSS-wide figure of 50.7%, though with a sample this small the percentage is too fragile to lean on. The more meaningful point is simply that three women cleared a paper that almost no one else managed to pass.

Subject vs CSS Average

At 21%, Anthropology's mean trails the CSS optional-subject average of 43.5% by more than 22 points, one of the widest shortfalls anywhere in the examination. This is not a subject where candidates score near the average and then lose out on merit; it is one where merely clearing the paper at all places you in the top sliver of the field. The five who were allocated did not just edge past the average, they reached a scoring band that was effectively out of reach for everyone else. For practical purposes the 43.5% benchmark is irrelevant here, because the real challenge is crossing 33% at all, something more than 99% of candidates failed to do.

Candidate Pipeline

99% failed written29% not allocated
Overall conversion: 0.6% of appeared candidates allocated

Out of 883 candidates only 7 cleared the written paper, a pass rate of 0.79%, and 5 of those 7 went on to be allocated. Since the mean score of 21% falls so far below the 33% threshold, the collapse is plainly a matter of subject difficulty rather than overall merit, because the vast majority are failing Anthropology's own paper long before the merit stage ever becomes relevant.

Score Distribution

21.0%Mean score21 / 100 marks
21.0%Median score21 / 100 marks
±8.0%Std deviation±8 marks
MeanMedian±1 std dev33% pass threshold
High scoring risk — mean below 33%; most candidates fail this paper outright

The mean of 21% sits a full 12 points beneath the passing threshold, and with the median resting at exactly the same value the distribution is essentially symmetric, so there is no cluster of high scorers quietly lifting the average. Because the standard deviation is only 8 points, a candidate one standard deviation above the mean still reaches just 29%, and one below sinks to 13%, which means the entire band of typical performance falls below the line. This is about as severe a scoring profile as the examination produces, since even a clearly above-average effort leaves a candidate short of passing. To clear Anthropology you do not need to be slightly better than the field; you need to be exceptional by the standards of everyone sitting it.

Anthropology is worth attempting only for candidates with real expertise in the discipline and a proven ability to write to a high standard under exam pressure, rather than as a quiet bet on thin competition. The modest number of applicants does nothing to make it easier, and the figures show it to be among the most punishing papers in the lineup to clear. For anyone underprepared, committing an optional slot to this subject comes close to wasting it outright.

Share this analysis:

Ready to Make Your CSS Choice?

Get your personalised subject selection recommendation backed by the data above.