November 26, 2024   Academy | Blog  | Community  | Our Philosophy
Subscribe to ForumIAS
Nov 26, 2024  Academy | Blog  | Community  | Our Philosophy
1
Create
Create
Share GyanWrite an Article and share your knowledge or something you have learned recently.
Ask QuestionStart a discussion, ask a question, or ask for an opinion
Sign in

PSIR - Strategy, resources & discussion

Hi. I took Shubhra maam's crash course cum test series (2018 mains) and GS Score Chaubey Sir's in 2019 Mains. I'll give a brief feedback. While I myself couldn't make the best use of them, I hope this helps you all nevertheless. 

Shubhra Maam

I'd taken her usual foundation course beforehand. Those notes are good- more focused on giving background + giving lot of fodder for us to pick and choose. However, it doesn't focus much on exam specific answer writing approach (understanding the question-structure-way of presentation-academic rigour etc). The crash course fills these gaps. The sectional papers go to decent depths, the question range is good (I think they sift through top Universities graduate/post graduate level papers as well). The extra material is also quite useful to have a more diversified content from the foundation notes. Quotes from scholars and book references are particularly useful. She didn't do the entire syllabus with us, kind of mixed bag from all sections. More focus was on 2B since the foundation doesn't cover it well and plus it is super dynamic. Also, the batch size is huge, which helps in guaging peer competition and even learning from topper copies. 

I did have some issues, as follows:

1. The content gets overwhelming. If your PSIR syllabus isn't complete or notes half way done just after Pre, then it gets really confusing as to what should the focus be on. The stakes are higher if its your first attempt. 

2. Method- I'm not fond of her style of teaching via dictation. It gets slow, monotonous and you feel like this thing could have been done in more rushed manner. So most of the tests would be analysed this way- she'd give an initial idea of understanding the question, the approach to be adopted, and then dictate the answer.  

3. Evaluation- With the number of students involved, it is fair to assume she doesn't check your papers. 

Overall- If your content and notes coverage has been decent, this crash course really adds the killer shot without you getting overburdened. If this coverage is anyway excellent on your part, then the crash course might not have much value. Sadly they don't offer just the test series without the crash course.

Their online interface is good (I had both offline and online access in 2018) and they also check your copies well in time. If you've cleared Pre and need a particular test copy to be checked faster, you can request and they comply. It happened with me then. They also uploaded class notes just in case you missed a lecture.


GS Score

I chose this because there were a couple of toppers, getting 320+ in PSIR and crediting him, in recent years. Shubhra maam has the market, but to me, it seemed more of a 280-300 marks max market. Since most PSIR students are relying on SR notes, the niche factor that pushes your score to 320 (I felt), must come from somewhere else. 

Positives- The method to understand and approach the question, I felt, was better here. He is also the one who's evaluating your tests. Sadly these were the only positives I had.

Limitations- Very limited peer group; question range not as expansive; supplementary content not much useful; very bad website interface (I had joined online module this time) and a bit unprofessional with the evaluation timelines. There was one test I attempted i think a month before mains started, and they probably forgot to evaluate. I also didn't bother at this stage. And I was surprised to find it evaluated and sent on mail after my GS papers in the 4 day break :P

SR has a big team and institutionally, very professional in handling such nitty gritties. 

I hope this was helpful :)

94.7k views
@Hitman2021 Hey. The foundation notes are good. Since foundation coaching is mainly via dictation method, you don't really miss out if you've not taken it.
  1. Since you have time for 2021 mains, aim for completing the PSIR syllabus with all shorter notes in the next 3-4 months. Preferably by December since freshers tend to focus solely on Prelims January onwards.
  2. Even if you think you might not be able to finish all, atleast make sure you're sorted with 1A and 2A, which are the theory portions. 1A takes a lot of time, it is ma'am's forte as well so the notes are quite helpful. 
  3. When you start reading the notes, start from 1A and supplement with one book if you can. Rajiv bhargava, OP Gauba are the usual ones (1A), Andrew Heywood, Baylis and Smith (2A). 
  4. When you're doing a topic, check PYQ and try attempting them. If you're having the writer's block, go through topper copies and ransack their writing styles or interesting quotes, data, presentation etc
  5. Consolidate your notes in usually one page format. Say if you're doing western political thought, make notes of each thinker on one page, relying on pyq etc. When you do complete your syllabus, you can find interlinkages between several topics, so you write that as well on these notes. Finding such linkages takes time, but with more prep, it becomes feasible. 
  6. 2B is very dynamic. Ma'am's notes also aren't thorough in them. So you'd have to do major side by side work on this - reading editorials, scholars opinion/quotes, book references, data (eg trade). Besides Hindu, you can refer to other newspapers online just for the IR editorials, then think tanks like orf, idsa, magazines like the Diplomat are also a good aid. All of these are really the ideal, and if you do it, you'd be in great control. I couldn't, mix and match karna parhta hai and hope that atleast some things are done. 
  7. 1B is my Achilles' heel, so I can't help much here. I request others to please pitch in here. 
  8. Practice answer writing after the topics are done. If you do complete your preparation with a whole section (say 1A), you can find free sectional tests to practice 3 hour papers. 

If I have more suggestions, I'll share. This would have been my ideal approach (sigh) , but I couldn't implement it properly myself. One doesn't want others to go through similar mistakes. I don't know your academic background, but if you find PSIR interesting, it is a wonderful subject to fall in love with and prepare. You definitely wouldn't get bored of it. It is helpful with some overlap in GS2, essay and ethics. The only major constraint is the long syllabus- longer to complete and entire revision is a big headache after pre and in the 4 day break after GS. 


84.6k views
@Olive Ridley before reading the book, you can go through several reviews covered by scholars/former diplomats in the newspapers. They would cover the broad gist of the contents. I took relevant lines from those. Before the release, I think some newspapers even published excerpts. Since it's a short book, one can read it 30 min a day and hope to finish in a week or so. There are nice quotes at the beginning of the chapters. I've myself had just one reading session as of now, so can't comment how useful it would be overall. I'm particularly interested in the Mahabharat topic, probably not from exam perspective. Amitabh Matoo wrote a brilliant editorial in the Hindu couple of weeks ago, building further on that. 


14.2k views
PSIR Analysis- 2020 topper marks - Initial Observation and Analysis
Paper I- Navneet Mann (#33) - 146
Paper II- Navneet Mann (#33) - 149
Amongst the toppers, overall Navneet got the highest score (146+149= 295)
Some who couldn't clear mains/interview have individually scored better in either papers:
Paper I- 159 (Anonymous) 

General Analysis:
Overall score is really low compared to its past year scores (few exceptional scores would go above 320), and also with respect to scoring of other optionals this year. 
Keep in mind though, that all Optionals this year have been scored conservatively, psir seems to be more so. 
From the few marksheets I saw, Paper II has seen really low marks compared to Paper I. 
Ethics has been exceptionally rewarding this time. 

Take away( especially for those new to psir): Every year is a different story. Would be unwise to evaluate reliability of Optional from one year's performance alone. Individual paper marks suggest that  excellent content is getting rewarded. One just has to maintain consistency across both papers to ace the score.
I mentioned Ethics because PSIR gives content advantage for the Ethics paper. So that's a silver lining for you all. 

14.7k views

Learning for Myself:

Personally, I scored 117 in both papers (Total - 234). Was expecting better score than last mains (129+134=263), even though I wasn't able to complete my papers. So would have to focus a lot more on just consolidating on my optional (Proper note making) , writing practice to complete the papers and just hoping Leviathan is merciful next time :) 

14.6k views

Even AIR 6 had PSIR optional, she got 139+107=246. Though she really struck it out of the park with GS 2 (121) and Ethics (162). Quite unbelievable tbh. 


14.3k views
@Hitman2021 I actually haven't analysed how many from psir got selected this time. I can only hope that with time, their marksheets come out and one finds higher scores. Would restore some sanity. And yeah, that's what the logical conclusion would be, they covered up the flanks with GS, Ethics, Essay. All optionals have gone worse, but given the limited sample I've seen, it seems PSIR is one step behind :( 
I'm actually waiting for certain toppers ki marksheets (trupti, pari bishnoi). Since they're higher ranked, it'll give a better picture if PSIR got them up or brought them down


12.5k views

Highest 

Essay- 160 (anonymous) - Anything above 140 very good score 

GS 1- 112 (#114) 

GS 2- 121 (#6) 

GS 3- 101 (#1) - Very conservative marking for all

GS 4- 162 (#6) - Very liberal marking for all

Optional Papers- Anything above 280- very good score. Extremely few got above 300 (Pub Ad, Anthro), that too in 300-310 range max. Certain optionals butchered this time (PSIR) 

Interview- 206 (#5) 

14.4k views
@Hitman2021 so some top rankers have scored in 140s hi. Like bunching around at 145. 


12.4k views
@Hitman2021 yes, I'd forgotten to mention her. Please do update here if you get to know their marks. Thanks. Good luck to you too :) 


12.3k views
@Blueberry thank you for your inputs. I was just about to ask you the same, since your paper 2 marks have been an exception. It's a relief honestly that atleast someone is getting rewarded. Hope things work out well this year. There's also another saving grace. I saw another marksheet just a while back, 159 in paper 1. Didn't get into the list (paper 2 was 119). So probably all is not so gloomy 


7.8k views

From how I understood things after my first mains (2018), where I'd relied on Shubhra maams notes entirely, was that they're enough to get you till 275-280. The real game for the next 50 marks starts after that. For every additional mark in this segment, one has to put disproportionate amount of time, be it going beyond standard sources for selective topics (theory part particularly). Yet the real scope to take a lead away from the pack lies in part B of both papers, but more importantly 2B (SR notes usually lack in this, but her crash course notes cover up the gap). One can go without them also, by keeping track of books, data, editorials etc but this has to be done over a long term process, otherwise it is a huge task to be done between pre and mains. And lastly, writing practice to write better, faster answers with good presentation and complete the paper. 

I'm yet to dig deeper as to how this year gave such drastically variant results for myself. But in the end, my way forward would still be to do the above- consolidate notes that I already have, make them crisper (I liked@AzadHindFauz  style as seen few pages back), add value points from whatever material you see (topper copies, model answers from test series, peer review copies, and then just writing more and more mock tests. 

7.7k views
@sstarrr see, I'm not getting results in 2B, so take my suggestions cautiously.@Blueberry  has explained her approach a bit above. See editorials from exam perspective are mainly to understand the critical analysis. Quoting part is very specific, say, some data used in that editorial (eg Bilateral trade data). Scholars ke case me one has to be more careful. I'll give an example, say question is on India's Afghanistan concerning Taliban. A lot of editorials are coming nowadays on this. For such topics, just collect two kinds, one who are visibly against and those who are pro. Once you've segregated, then you just do name dropping and can even write your own overlapping opinion and not bother about their exact quote. Like you should know, and the examiner would know also, that Vivek Katju wants you to talk to the Taliban. You can't put him in the other segment of scholars asking to shun Taliban altogether. Or say middle East strategy, C Raja Mohan has clearly stated it's in Indian interests to align along the UAE-Saudi-Israel axis. Or what Bhadrakumar would argue contrarily, ki Iran ko nikalne mat do haath se. So you can just collect scholars as per that to argue. Obviously much better if you know their actual arguments, say for nuclear doctrine, you can quote K subramanian for general strategic argument, then say Gurmeet Kanwal on Tactical Nuclear Weapons. It would be disastrous if you quote subramanian for TNW because they weren't in the picture then. 
There are generalist scholars like Harsh V Pant, C Raja Mohan, who would keep writing lot of stuff. Use the editorial as the base of your reasoning and analysis. Lift their views for arguments only if they are very specific. Like I wouldn't find it valuable to quote Harsh Pant for a generic thing say, HV Pant argues that India US relationship has become stronger over the years. 
Also use the editorials to search for any book or thinker they quote from, like I remember finding about Paul Keneddy's idea of Imperial Overstretch from an editorial. He wrote that about the Roman Empire but clearly applicable in the case of US nowadays. 


9.6k views

Additionally, look for editorials or scholars' pieces (ORF, Diplomat etc) for particular phrases they've coined or like to use. 

Shashi Tharoor, Samir Saran: The New World Disorder and the Indian Imperative

- It may be time for aNew Delhi Consensus, which is not a metaphor for Indian exceptionalism but a call for a more inclusive and participatory world order

Or even what the PM says, like for BRI- On BRI

Modi: criticised countries for offering 'development partnerships that become dependence partnerships ' 
You can use Evernote to copy paste and keep compiling stuff. 

So this is an intensive process. You have time, so one can keep collecting stuff. If someone is giving mains this year, one just to do the bare minimum of finding 1-2 scholars on each side, some beautiful quote (Abe quoted Dara Shikoh for Indo-Pacific). And you're kind of sorted. 
7.7k views


11.2k views
@dragon_rider mostly yes. Though last year 2019 mains, there was an exception. In PSIR, one paper had 4 sides for all 20 markers, while the other paper had some 20 markers with 3 sides only. My memory is a bit hazy on this, so maybe others can shed light on which paper specifically. I think Paper 2, section B questions (India and World) had 3 side 20-markers. 2018 mains had 4 sides for both, as far as I can remember. 
One has no choice but to adapt in the hall, but do give a glance through the answer booklet in the begining itself and plan accordingly. 


7.3k views
I'd done a term paper a couple of months ago,  where one had to discuss how Constructivism and Post-Modernism look at the concept of ‘anarchy’ in international politics. My primary readings were Wendt (1992), Hopf (1998), Ashley (1988) and Walker (1991). Though it doesn't address your question directly, I'll add some of the arguments by these people and you can make conclusions accordingly. 

Constructivism 
  1. Wendt's aim was to bridge the two traditions of realism and liberalism and usher in the constructivist argument (Wendt 1992: 394). 
  2. The realist conception of anarchy is rendered “meaningless” as it constrains the ability of states to “socialize” in want of “intersubjective set of norms and practices” (Hopf 1998: 173).
  3. Wendt argues that “self-help and power politics” are not a logical or causal consequence of anarchy (Wendt 1992: 394).
  4. If one were to go by Wendt’s analysis, one can have states resorting to self-help and power politics, yet they will not be a “constitutive property of anarchy”. 
  5. Waltz’s political structure ignored the significance of identities and interests found within the system (Wendt 1992: 396). This brings unpredictability to anarchy, both in its content as well as its dynamics (Wendt 1992: 396).
  6. Ted Hopf’s assertion: “states have more agency under constructivism” (Hopf 1998: 177).
  7. Post-Modernist scholars like RBJ Walker acknowledge its (Constructivism) significance for opening “potential alternatives to the current prevailing structures” (Walker 1987: 76-77).
One can see that Constructivism upholds state centrality like Realism, but instead privileges the impact of processes over structure. This makes its understanding of anarchy, self help etc different from Realist understanding. As pointed earlier by people here, it is also prescriptive in the sense that through common norms, states can cooperate in different realms say, climate change, nuclear weapons etc

Post-Modernism
  1. Using a genealogical approach, one can comprehend all kinds of history and recognize the underlying basis of the order, produced through a constant power tussle of multiple wills (Ashley 1987: 409).
  2. Ashley does a double reading of the discourse of anarchy problematique. 
  3. The Waltzian notion of anarchy forms the basis of this discourse (first reading) - where similar multiple state-actors are present simultaneously in the absence of an effective center of global rule (Ashley 1988: 235).
  4. In the second reading, he illustrates the arbitrary characterization of anarchy by the mainstream theories. 
  5. He problematizes the notion of a well-bounded sovereign identity- an encapsulation of the state and domestic society, which has seen stable representation in the discipline (Ashley 1988: 250-251).
  6. “Sovereignty is not a permanent principle of international order” (Walker 1991: 448).
Post-Modernism does not aim to prescribe an alternative world order or redefine anarchy. It instead puts the spotlight on mainstream theories, making us recognize the power-knowledge connection and problematize the aspects to epistemological and political totalization with a special focus on the sovereign state.

To answer your question, both theories help unravel the foundational basis of the mainstream theories. Post-modernism helps us recognize the binding hold of the "heroic practice" that maintains the dichotomy between anarchy and sovereignty. Thereafter, the constructivist push to States in formulating their own making of anarchy (Wendt 1992) acts as the guiding light to bridge this dichotomy and overcome the pitfalls of anarchy. 
A major difference which one can point is how differently they deal with the idea of state centrality and state sovereignty in their analysis. 
Though from our exam perspective, straightforward questions from these IR theories aren't asked (last I remember was Functionalism in 2018?). They seem to be more relevant as how SR taught them, like a few lines each while critiquing mainstream theories. 

I included only a few parts that I found relevant to this discussion. Feel free to read the actual text (I recommend only Wendt and Ashley) for better understanding. I hope this helps :) 

4.8k views
I haven't read Milan Vaishnav's When Crime Pays, but had noted following things: 
1. Nexus began between underground network and criminal MPs once corporate funding banned by Indira Gandhi
2. Vertical integration happened- criminals directly joined rather than just ensuring booth capturing
3. Loopholes in law
4. First past the post system- winnability criteria forced parties to have rich candidates, musclemen

Such points can be added in how winnability and voter behavior got interlinked in the last through a criminal lens. I would also add in bits about Electoral Bonds vs need for State funding of elections now, one consequence of which is that the average MP is getting richer and poorer candidates have slimmer chances of success. 
Would need more scholarly analysis I guess here- views of Vaishnav, Jaffrelot, Yogendra Yadav,  Suhas Palshikar etc while analyzing the recent trends, particularly post 2019 elections. 
5.3k views
Write your comment…