Dear Aspirants,
First of all, we would like to thank you for your support through out.
Last year we had launched PRELIMS 2016 program ,albeit little late , yet the enrollment was beyond our expectation.We have got many positive results in PRELIMS this year and at the same time many good candidates could not get through.Since the past few days, we have been enduring mixed emotions – some sweet , some sore from our students.
Every time we read a thank you mail from you , it keeps us motivated to outdo ourselves and provide all the help we can.
Recently , many of you have asked the timeline for the PRELIMS 2017 launch.
In this regard we have thoroughly analyzed this years paper and here is our findings :-
- Current affairs were dominant.However , few current affairs were without logic or so to say -straight forward (The banana or butterfly or remnibi or inland port questions)
- However many questions can be solved by sheer application of logic.In PRELIMS 2017 program , we are planning to give the logic behind the answers/explanations , so that it may help you to eliminate the options.The logic for many questions for this PRELIMS 2016 can be found here- Click here
- It seems the cut-off has gone higher than predicted.If that is the case then PRELIMS became a 6 months preparation affair rather than the old 3 months preparation affair.Competition is getting tough and we have to put in extra efforts this time for sure, there is no other go.
- Many questions were asked from a certain time period when students usually do not read the daily current affairs (Months like -September, October etc- usually busy with MAINS preparation). This did cost dearly for some.
- Although current affairs probably going to dominate next year , yet one can not go to PRELIMS with out reading the static portion of the test.
- Many have committed “silly mistake” to the tune of 6-9 questions which did cost dearly.
- There is a parallel discussion going on in different forums with regards to the standards of questions asked.But that is a matter of another debate altogether.The motive for us should be on how to clear this qualifying exam and write mains.
After thoroughly analyzing the question paper and trend , and after getting few inputs from our old students, we are planning to do something better and more comprehensive this year.
The idea is to provide a safety net through rigorous practice so that one does not worry about the result after giving PRELIMS.That is the primary goal of our PRELIMS 2017 program.
One thing is pretty clear though, instead of 20 current affairs question per each set we will provide minimum of 30 questions from current affairs going forward and a complete paper only on current affairs, so that by the end of the program, we will ensure every details of current affairs is on your finger tips.
Before we decide the features of the test, we request you to give your valuable feedback , so that it will help us build a more inclusive and diversified PRELIMS 2017 program.
To save your time, we already framed few question, however you have the option to give in-detailed feedback.Your feedback is of immense value to us, hence , kindly don’t hesitate.
[polldaddy type=”iframe” survey=”229CF2CCBB025B10″ height=”auto” domain=”upsctree” id=”upsctree-prelims-2017-program-suggestions”]
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.