Botany allocated no candidates in CSS 2025, and like the other science specialisms with thin uptake, its pipeline ended before it really began. Of the 90 candidates who appeared, none cleared the written stage, so the question of allocation never arose. The result marks it as one of the highest-risk optional choices in the examination.
The mean of 41% clears the 33% threshold on its face, and with the median sitting at the same value the distribution is symmetric rather than propped up by a few outliers. The puzzle is that despite an average above the passing line, not a single candidate cleared the written stage, which means the per-paper scoring captured here did not translate into success against the full requirements of the exam. A standard deviation of 17 points shows a fairly wide scatter, so while some candidates clearly scored well in isolation, the combination of papers and the merit context defeated all of them. A mean above 33% is no guarantee of a pass when the broader profile falls short.
No provincial allocation data recorded
No province recorded an allocation, because no candidate was allocated anywhere. With every one of the 90 candidates stopped at the written stage, provincial origin had no bearing on a result that was zero across the board.
No gender breakdown available — no candidates were allocated in this subject.
No gender breakdown exists, since not one candidate was allocated. Botany offered no allocation opportunity in CSS 2025 to any candidate, whatever their gender or background.
Botany's mean of 41% trails the CSS optional-subject average of 43.5% only narrowly, which on its own might suggest an unremarkable paper. The comparison is hollow, though, because that average still produced no written passes and no allocations among the 90 who attempted it. For a candidate making a decision, the relevant fact is not the near-average mean but the simple reality that the subject yielded nothing this year, and the score figure should be read in that light rather than as a sign of accessibility.
All 90 candidates who appeared failed to pass the written paper, leaving zero passers and therefore zero allocations. The collapse happened entirely within the paper itself, since no one reached the merit stage where overall scorecards are weighed, which makes Botany a subject that stopped its whole field at the first gate.
Botany suits only candidates with a solid academic grounding in the subject who can perform to a high standard across the full paper, and even they should weigh the 2025 outcome carefully. Ninety candidates sat it, none cleared the written stage, and none were allocated. The modest competition is not the opening it appears to be; it is a signal that this subject rarely rewards those who attempt it.