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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.