In my opinion, Satyam Jain is just building his backup plan (Nothing wrong in it) as his attempts will be exhausted soon. He will soon launch paid courses if he doesn't end up in the service. None of his initiative meet logical conclusion. And why would they? Money ensures accountability : both legal and moral. And that is totally missing from all his initiatives
He ditches a lot of initiatives mid way. However I reiterate that Mains test series checking is structurally flawed (Forum, Vision or any other) and I don't think there is a solution to it given the limitations of supervising each and every evaluator.
The only solution to this IMHO is COSTLIER evaluations ( preferably face to face) where really good mentors check your copies
Why is mains answer checking structurally flawed according to you?
Hello Sir
Structurally flawed because Firstly it doesn't pay that well
Anyone who is intelligent & hardworking enough to know the nuances of this exam will invariably move upto a teaching role, which pays really well. Such a person will not have enough time to check the copies of even deserving student and track their progress (The best example is EdSarrthi, where Mr Varun Jain no longer offers the Google meet mentorship that made the brand what it was)
Even if such a person decides to check the copies of deserving candidates. It is very difficult to sort out the deserving from the non deserving as the non deserving candidates may turn into deserving and vice versa
Also there are numerous students who are diligent and hardworking but have very poor writing skills. How do you put them in the category of non deserving?
Hence in my opinion, we need a good team of evaluators who are known to be diligent and who take their role very seriously and not just another Rs 800. Their evaluation must build/erode their brand just like teaching. But then why would a reputed institute allow this brand building?
Also, all of this becomes difficult given the volume of such copies as such wonderful mentors are few. Hence, the only solution is costlier evaluations by worthy mentors to reduce the volume and incentivise these mentors.
Also I am taking the liberty of pointing out to the issues in current evaluations
1. Very difficult to monitor their checking due to the volume and the subjectivity
2. Usually evaluators take the safe approach : Award them average marks. Why? (THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN MY OPINION)
If they give high marks, they will have to face higher scrutiny and higher accountability given that such copies may make into topper copies.
Also if they give low marks, they will again have to face higher scrutiny of the student. Low marks means more suggestions especially in terms of the language, the structure AND not the content. They'll have to guide the students to improve.
Hence the best way to make 800 Rupees is give them all average marks and avoid any scrutiny. Also they are more likely to give remarks on content part as that can be readily copied from model answers. This is because remarks on heads like Structure, language and presentation require precise and personalised remarks, which demands greater effort. (This is how MOST evaluators think)
I have evaluated numerous copies and was never hesitant to tell a candidate that their English is pathetic and that they lack the ability to form sentences. Such remarks are rare and we need to tell the candidates: THE TRUTH. It can only come from someone who genuinely cares about the candidate and wants him to excel and improve.
Yet, I was not sufficiently rewarded given the efforts I had put in because the market has no mechanism to grade or sort really good evaluators from the bad ones.
I could help candidates/friends only when I started face to face evaluation on Google meet as then I could charge them more and tell them exactly what was wrong with them.
But I don't think the institutes allow that kind of evaluations as the brand obviously has to be the face and not the individual.
Also then, there is a risk of candidates being offered cheaper evaluations by such mentors on a private space (Just like the AC service guy from the company offers the service at a cheaper rate)
If an evaluator take 1000 rupees for a single copy along with a Google meet. Let us assume he takes 3 calls a day. Such a person can easily make 90,000/month. But then the volume will increase with the fame and this individual will delegate the work to people who can do the same at a cheaper rate. Again, issues of quality and competence will arise.
We all know that in thecase of Mains preparation, it is the Evaluator and not teacher on whom everything depends. He has the potential to transform a person into an IAS with his pen if he points out the exact issues (given that he is competent which most evaluators are not: No training at all).
Despite this, Evaluations are the weakest link of the UPSC coaching industry primarily because it does not pay well. It is not a digital asset like Recorded lecture/Model ans/CA booklet/Paper on which the total cost remains the same, irrespective of the number of students. Here the cost shall increase ( Rs 800 or so for every copy) with each copy submitted and thus it cannot be scaled exponentially.
But a question like - "Indian diaspora has scaled new heights in the West. Describe its economic and political benefits for India."is more open ended. So you can make up an answer and write on the basis of what you know. You will definitely see an averaging tendency in such questions.
A brilliant answer may fetch as high as 60% and a poor answer, but having written things substantially may fetch a 20-25%.
Humanities is not like. " Write down the 3 laws of Newton." Where you get a 10/10 if you write it and get 0 if you do not.
And in humanities, for the above question also someone who writes adding dimensions like
- Intro - who was newton
- three laws
- other theories by newton
- criticism by heisenberg and theory of relativity
he will end up scoring way better. When I was studying at Tata Institute of Social Sciences , we would often meet Profs who would award us 55% marks on a great assignment, and 35% marks in a poorly written one. And it was a premier institute. ( Those days results from Soth were better than North - check out 2009-2011 era.)
It is also the case that in UPSC the prof may award 70-80-90% marks in some questions. But then it is completly dicretion of the Prof - which cannot be done in a simulated test series - and serves no purpose!
** Why average marks may be given? Reasoning 2 ***
Imagine that I am very happy with a certain candidate in GS - IV. Let us assume a student has written exactly what I wanted, and I taught in the class. And if the student has answered all questions well - which happens, and I award her 70-90% marks in each question, the candidate ends up getting 160-170 in the paper!
Now this may happen in UPSC also!
But UPSC has two tools
1) It may have strict marking or lenient marking for some subjects in some years
2) It will do scaling.
So those people who make videos saying that UPSC gives such marks, you see the scores given by UPSC itself - which does not have a pattern!
IN GS 3 for the past 3 years not many have crossed 99 while in GS 4 in past 3 years people have gotten 147 also!
And just take the results from CSE 2016- 2018-2019. Noone was getting marks in Ethics, and GS 3 everyone got 110+
So we would rather not have a situation where someone is having 160 score in forum mock test and is getting 88 in actual civils! It is plain stupid!
Hello Sir, i disagree with you on some points:
If you look at GPSC (Gujarat) & BPSC (Bihar) copies which are out in open, you’ll realise this is not the case. People have been awarded a Single mark for a 250 words answer where they just spilled some content and have been awarded 80% marks too for a brilliant answer.
IMHO, Here in UPSC coaching an out of context answer written in 250 words receives far more than what it receives in the real exam.
Also, a brilliant answer in MGP or any other test receives far less than what it deserves because the evaluators are usually not that brilliant and lack the wisdom to appreciate excellent content. On the other hand, a professor in UPSC is far more appreciative of really good content that let’s say Dipin Sir gives in the CA classes. Also, evaluators are a weak link because they don’t carry the wisdom that a UPSC professor has.
Also, I don’t intend to counter any points wrt MGP. I strongly stick by the fact that evaluations need considerable improvements. Many institutes have already started providing face to face evaluations which is a more transparent way and ensures that the evaluator doesn’t just put a tick and some general comments. Most of us, the students and I can speak for Ishita (Rank 1) and Rahul (Rank 10) too, are usually awarded general comments that are of little help.
However, I cede to the point that students fail to consult mentors after the evaluation. But I also know that not everywhere you get the same mentors (Idk what is the status right now at MGP). Some mentors are not available especially during the 3 months b/w prelims and mains. It becomes really difficult to talk to a different mentor who has not been tracking your progress right from Day 1.
Again, my comments are not directed at MGP per se. I am talking about general status of evaluations and I am highly confident that these points of General comments, random ticking, evasive checking will resonate with most students reading this.
My critical view of evaluation is only meant as a feedback to what students feel on ground. Also, I must appreciate that at least the head of a leading institution is willing to hear and understand them with an open mind. I shall rest my case with this:P
Regards:)
