Board Member 1: Please introduce yourself

Interviewee: I am ABC. I am resident of Delhi and have done graduation from IIT-D. I have interests in new tech development (developed a voting system for hostel committee members for day-to-day decision making using blockchain technology), swimming (national champion), and primary education (advisor to dozen of  primary schools in Delhi).

Board Member 1: Please tell us something more about the voting app you have developed.

Interviewee: Sir, before I answer your question I need to be satisfied that whether you are acquainted with blockchain technology, else I will be talking to stones. So, can I ask you a few questions to satisfy myself.

Board Member 1: That’s audacious. No, I will not ask you any more question and give you a zero. Madam, you please take over.

Board Member 2: What are your views on gender equality?

Interviewee: I think there can never be gender equality.

Board Member 2: What do you mean?

Interviewee: I mean what I said.

Board Member 2: Elaborate

Interviewee: The fact you, the only female, among all males have been assigned to ask this question even when the earlier male member knew nothing about the technology he wanted elucidation on, speaks for itself. And this bias doesn’t only exist here. In all my mock interviews also, the same trend continued. Female members were assigned to ask soft questions. And I don’t say there is anything right or wrong in it. There is a prejudice that exists and penetrates so well that it seems natural and unnecessary to change. So, nobody will change it, definitely not till the time women continue to consider themselves as “fairer sex”.

Board Member 2: Well…Whatever…

Board Member 3: When you did your graduation in Engineering, why did you chose History as your optional?

Interviewee: Because you allow me to do that.

Board Member 3: What kind of stupid answer is this?

Interviewee: Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. If you will have marking scheme where a person can score high marks by choosing particular optional, it’s problem with your scheme of examination, not me. It’s your examination system which is stupid, not me. You examine people for ethics though a written exam. It’s ridiculous. You have four general studies papers in mains. That’s even more ridiculous. Who are you selecting? Administrators or encyclopedias? And this has been happening for decades now, and what is egregious is that, year-after-year, reputed board members volunteer to become part of this non-sense and never give any feedback to UPSC to change the system.

Board Member 3: Do you know we can stop this interview right now and give you a zero.

Interviewee: I don’t think you all will give me zero, but, in any case, let me tell you even if you give me zero, I have written my mains so well that I will still get selected. I think you need to subdue your patronizing attitude. If you are selecting me, I am also selecting you. I have the option to not join you even after I get selected. Anyways, after interacting with you, I have a serious doubt about joining ICS even after I getting selected. I think I will take your leave now. Thanks.

Note: Take the above seriously only if you are an IIT grad with net worth in millions, if not billions.