MAINS 2018 QUESTION PAPER Download the Mains 2018 Question Papers by clicking here. Papers Uploaded : Essay 2018 | GS 1 | GS 2 | GS 3 | GS 4
Mains Guidance Program, 2019 | Commences 28th October 2018 | Admissions Open

Admissions for the Mains Guidance Program 2019 are open, commencing from October 28, 2018. Optional of taking up MGP or MGP+ , which includes Essay. Visit http://academy.forumias.com to know more.

Paper Discussion : Sociology Mains paper 2018

Please provide the feedback on socio papers. The questions were very dynamic, and was fficult to prepare before hand.
«13

Comments

  • Yes could not complete the paper had to leave 30 marks because of lack of time. Could u complete?
  • No, I left 20 marks ques in each of the paper. Questions were unconventional and I had to frame answers, at the spot.
  • I had left 20 mark question in Paper 1. Questions were set in such a manner that one has to leave at least 1 question on 20 marks in optional questions.
    Paper 2 was fine but analytical.
  • Though I completed all answers .......but quality compromise was thr too.
  • Paper 2,Ambedkar wale answer mein kya likha? Kise ko proper answer pata ho to batao.
  • Paper 2,Ambedkar wale answer mein kya likha? Kise ko proper answer pata ho to batao.

    Did not answer dat qstn bt I guess it was regardin hw he emphasized constitution as means of empowerment and social change.

    Paper 2 was entirely generic dropped som thinkers name here nd der to make it sound sociological instead f a gs answer
  • Paper 2,Ambedkar wale answer mein kya likha? Kise ko proper answer pata ho to batao.

    Bhai polity hi paeli h. Equality, liberty, fraternity ( he wanted a social order based on these ye pada tha) kaise kaise ensure hoti h. Fir unka social democracy par kaafi emphasis tha to use explain kar dia. Dalit representation. Women's rights. Ek quote yaad tha basic sa. Kuch bhi sociology nahi thi.
    Prelims 2, Mains 2
    Sociology optional

    Happy to help.
  • I had left 20 mark question in Paper 1. Questions were set in such a manner that one has to leave at least 1 question on 20 marks in optional questions.
    Paper 2 was fine but analytical.

    Attempted 20 markers first. So, had to attempt all 10 markers in 1 hr 10 minutes. Did not leave any, but quality for 2-3 questions was not satisfactory.
    Prelims 2, Mains 2
    Sociology optional

    Happy to help.
  • What did you write in fact and value question?
    In common sense question , I focused on difference between common sense and sociology ignoring the interaction point. What was expected in that one ?
  • I think we should give representation on Common sense question since 'it' term was ambigous referring either to Sociology or interaction or both
  • What did you write in fact and value question?
    In common sense question , I focused on difference between common sense and sociology ignoring the interaction point. What was expected in that one ?

    I wrote about perspective of phenomenologists, ethnomethodologists ans symbolic interactions and showed how there exists very little difference between common sense and interactionist method .
  • What did you write in fact and value question?
    In common sense question , I focused on difference between common sense and sociology ignoring the interaction point. What was expected in that one ?

    Started with the difference between the two as given by beteille.
    Then, in a sentence moved from positivism to interactionism and verstehen, to show incorporation of commonsense in sociology. Then, wrote about ethnomethodology, since, they say they study the commensense nature of interaction. Gave example of Cicourel's study of Juvenile delinquents. Then, finished with the need to balance technique and common-sense, again by beteille.

    Mostly taken from an answer in Vision test series. Ethnomethodology from Upendra sir's printed notes.
    Prelims 2, Mains 2
    Sociology optional

    Happy to help.
  • What did you write in fact and value question?
    In common sense question , I focused on difference between common sense and sociology ignoring the interaction point. What was expected in that one ?

    In the fact and value question, I defined both of them in 10-15 words. Then, I wrote the first part of his study, where he compared different civilisations and the absence of spirit of capitalism in all of them, except western Europe, which shows the first dimension of his method. The second part, is the creation of an ideal type to suit his hypothesis, which is a value-positive exercise anyway, and here he ignores a lot of factors like precious metals, colonialism( wallerstein, gunder frank), other religions ( navaskar, geertz) and other factors. This shows his value bias. Also, he does not explain the demand side of early capitalism, where it should've been altruistic, and there is a bias there too.
    Prelims 2, Mains 2
    Sociology optional

    Happy to help.
  • Paper 2,Ambedkar wale answer mein kya likha? Kise ko proper answer pata ho to batao.

    The correct answer to this question is:

    According to Ambedkar constitutional morality has two dimensions. One, the substantive values like equality, non-discrimination etc. Second is, constitutional method - by which he meant conflicts must be settled within institutional framework. This means not taking recourse to civil disobedience which was the mainstay of national movement.

    For more information read Pratap Bhanu Mehta on Constitutional morality in Seminar.

    Luckily I got this right!
  • What did you write in fact and value question?
    In common sense question , I focused on difference between common sense and sociology ignoring the interaction point. What was expected in that one ?

    Both these questions are poorly framed. In fact and value to analyse it wrt to PESC is highly artificial.
  • Acidpop said:

    What did you write in fact and value question?
    In common sense question , I focused on difference between common sense and sociology ignoring the interaction point. What was expected in that one ?

    In the fact and value question, I defined both of them in 10-15 words. Then, I wrote the first part of his study, where he compared different civilisations and the absence of spirit of capitalism in all of them, except western Europe, which shows the first dimension of his method. The second part, is the creation of an ideal type to suit his hypothesis, which is a value-positive exercise anyway, and here he ignores a lot of factors like precious metals, colonialism( wallerstein, gunder frank), other religions ( navaskar, geertz) and other factors. This shows his value bias. Also, he does not explain the demand side of early capitalism, where it should've been altruistic, and there is a bias there too.
    I wrote on similar lines too. Defined both terms. Gave webers understanding of fact and value- that values decide what to study and how to construct ideal types. Once this is done have to proceed objectively. Then wrote about various facts like he found protestant regions to be more prosperous etc. In value part wrote about how he uses Calvinism as an ideal type.

    Will be happy to get 40%
  • Vikram89C said:

    Paper 2,Ambedkar wale answer mein kya likha? Kise ko proper answer pata ho to batao.

    The correct answer to this question is:

    According to Ambedkar constitutional morality has two dimensions. One, the substantive values like equality, non-discrimination etc. Second is, constitutional method - by which he meant conflicts must be settled within institutional framework. This means not taking recourse to civil disobedience which was the mainstay of national movement.

    For more information read Pratap Bhanu Mehta on Constitutional morality in Seminar.

    Luckily I got this right!
    Nice. If I remember it correctly, he had said something similar in his last speech in the CA, that there's no space for anarchic gandhian methods in a democracy.
    Prelims 2, Mains 2
    Sociology optional

    Happy to help.
  • Is it wrong to compare sociology with common sense and not including 'interaction' dimension into it since 'it' was signalling toward both Sociology as well as interaction ?
  • Anyone have attempted challenges thrown by religious revivalism to nation state ?
  • I mentioned religious revivalism is not harmful per se. But in extreme form, it is pathological or when it gets converted into communalism...whether u people hv written on same line ?
  • ansh225 said:

    I mentioned religious revivalism is not harmful per se. But in extreme form, it is pathological or when it gets converted into communalism...whether u people hv written on same line ?

    I started with why revivalism and modernity are connected ( consumer culture, identity crisis etc). Wrote the problems like anomie, which leads to cults etc. And the communal riots and electoral mobilisation. Gave examples related to each like dera Sacha Saundra which was a result of Dalits feeling alienation. Then built on this to fundamentalism. Wrote the characteristics defined by TN Madan to relate to different fundamentalist struggles like ISIS, Taliban, mentioning how they affect nations, apart from the obvious attack on the concept of nation-state and security situation, I included education ( Malala Yousafzai) and healthcare ( FGM in Al-Shabaab) to show that it is a contra-acculturative response to modernity. Finished with Durkheim's solution that secular ideologies to replace religion etc.
    Prelims 2, Mains 2
    Sociology optional

    Happy to help.
  • ansh225 said:

    Is it wrong to compare sociology with common sense and not including 'interaction' dimension into it since 'it' was signalling toward both Sociology as well as interaction ?

    Not wrong. But I think we have to write in light of interaction. I could not make proper connection. I wrote that the level of 'social' comes into play only when there is direct or indirect presence of another actor - and sociology ia concerned with patterned and persistent interaction based on norms and values. Then I wrote difference between common sense and sociology. Couldn't connect both.
  • ansh225 said:

    Anyone have attempted challenges thrown by religious revivalism to nation state ?

    Wrote about

    - Challenges the notion of citizenship which is central to nation state - revivalism demands special recognition of community rights while citizenship binds individuals in a relationship of equality.

    - Damages the notion of fraternity on which nation states are based.

    One or two more random points more.
  • Vikram89C said:

    ansh225 said:

    Anyone have attempted challenges thrown by religious revivalism to nation state ?

    Wrote about

    - Challenges the notion of citizenship which is central to nation state - revivalism demands special recognition of community rights while citizenship binds individuals in a relationship of equality.

    - Damages the notion of fraternity on which nation states are based.

    One or two more random points more.
    Hmm.. Kudos on bringing in citizenship, didn't think about that.
    Prelims 2, Mains 2
    Sociology optional

    Happy to help.
  • Very nice interlinking of citizenship with revivalism
  • Im expecting atleast 20 marks reduction from last year's score due to the difficulty level of papers. What about you guys?
  • Regarding Religious revivalism, first I had defined what it is, then secular state. How it can cause problem like majority can ask government to support it on national platform, majoritism vs minoritism, riots based on communal mobilisation for benefits from State. Then concluded on lines of principled distance.
  • Did you people know about neo farmer movement?
  • Did you people know about neo farmer movement?

    I linked it with price rise,subsidy,export import restrictions,GM crops...recent agitations and farmers suicide..it's no more for subsistence issues.
  • I wrote it like these movements started in 1970s, these movements are movements of rural rich who benefited from partial land reforms, methods of movement- farmers organisations like BKS, mobilisation on caste lines, safeguard their interests, connection with global economy yet to save themselves from harmful effects. Then wrote Bipin Chandra's thoughts about farmers movements. Finally ended on positive note on need to protect farmers.
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog