Back in August, I launched my first course. I wasn’t exactly sure how much I could handle by myself, so I took an extremely small batch of just 30 students and closed the admissions. 14 out of 30 students received an interview call. I never mentioned it on the channel because I had this strange fear of jinxing it. Weird, I know. 😅
Today, 4 out of those 14 students have made it to the final list.
And no, this is not the kind of association where someone once registered with me and that’s all. I was actively and personally involved with each of these students. Of course, the full credit always goes to the student who goes through this tormenting journey, but I feel honoured to have been a small part of their journey.
Many many congratulations to these students:
Vikas Kundu — AIR 27
Somya Jain — AIR 346
Siddhartha Krishna — AIR 431
Kaushal Kishore — AIR 670
If I missed somebody( not sure of some of your full names), then please reach out to me.
More importantly, my heart also goes out to some of the very brilliant and hardworking students I had who couldn’t make it to the final list. I am proud of each one of you who kept integrating the feedback, but the stars weren’t in your favour today.
Sometimes, even the most sincere effort must wait for its moment with destiny.
It resonates with a post on leadership by Mrs. Radhika Gupta that I recently read. She beautifully observes:
“Intelligence can be artificial, but wisdom is stubbornly human. It will keep you relevant when machines can out-compute you, but cannot out-care, out-judge, or out-lead you.”
The number of intellectuals and people in academia that were connected to the Epstein scandal is honestly appalling.
Noam Chomsky is the flagbearer of anti-capitalist critique, Deepak Chopra spoke about mental health long before it became fashionable and Stephen Hawking decoded the universe to make life on Earth more intelligible. These figures were considered as symbols of human progress.
Epstein’s closest associate, Ghislaine Maxwell is Oxford-educated, deeply embedded in academic circles, and the daughter of intellectual and media baron Robert Maxwell.
The disturbing assumption in our society is that intelligence, competence, and success naturally imply moral superiority. The world celebrates such figures and we quote them in essays as shorthand for progress.
Yet the Epstein files expose a brutal truth. These brilliant minds were either complicit or actively involved in the trafficking, sexual abuse, and rape of minor girls. Intelligence did not check power, it helped power become monstrous with greater sophistication. Intelligence itself was monstrous to the core.
What do we do with such intelligence which is so acutely deprived of morality? What do we do with intelligence that doesn’t elevate but degenerates humanity?
❌ ChatGPT tends to write stagnant essays. It keeps proving the quote again and again without allowing the essay to evolve along a meaningful arc, much like many aspirants do. It’s just that ChatGPT does it in a fancier way.
❌ ChatGPT leans toward creative writing, whereas a UPSC essay demands substantive writing. It often writes like those aspirants who believe good English automatically translates into a good essay. It doesn’t.
❌ A good essay written by a human usually has far greater smoothness and organic continuity than a ChatGPT-generated one.
And before someone says, “Oh, it’s all about the quality of the prompt,” let me remind you of the inherent limitation of LLMs: their finite context windows. It limits long-range coherence and argumentative evolution.
That said, I strongly encourage you to use AI to improve your essay, not to write it. You can, and should, take help for anecdotes, examples, stuck arguments, literary devices etc. Not while writing essay but before or after it. It is a powerful tool, and ignoring it would be naive. Your competition is using it.
But remember this: the aim of essay practice is to enhance your ability to think and express. That ability grows through an obsession with the process, not the outcome.
Force your brain to think in abstract.
Your brain is capable of being far more creative and argumentative than an average GPT-generated essay. You just don’t know it yet.
“Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination, nor both together go to the making of a genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.”
Here are two different ways of writing an anecdote conveying the same idea.
Which one do you like more ?
The first one clearly works better. Why? It uses the technique of micro-narrative.
The first one ties the idea to a specific event and personality commanding the reader’s attention. The identification of victim also arouses emotions in the reader. It humanises the information.
Saying “a horse was walking towards a tree” informs, but saying “a brown horse walked towards the banyan tree” ignites imagination.
The real skill, however, lies in brevity. Both anecdotes are of the same length, yet the first carries more substance.
This is why micro-narratives are so effective, especially in anecdotes.
Religion is not the absence of reason, but a belief beyond its limits.
Atheism is not the absence of belief, but the belief in absence.
This is why some people experience phases of atheism and religiosity, because both are shaped by not rationality, but emotions, beliefs and lived experiences.
Therefore, debates about God mostly remain unresolved because “heart has it’s reasons which reason knows nothing of”.
Also, such debates are hardly about God. They are, at the core, about authority, morality, meaning and the limits of human judgment.
(Having only superficially skimmed the Akhtar–Mufti debate, it didn’t achieve resolution because it cannot, but it set an example of civility in disagreement.)
When an interviewer asks, “If I visit your state for three days, where would you take me?”
Have a solid itinerary ready: not just famous monuments, but small cultural experiences like a local market, a craft village, a food street, a sunset point only locals know. This shows you’re rooted.
But the finest way to end this answer is:
“…and on the last evening, Ma’am/Sir, I’d love to host you for a simple home-cooked dinner with my family.”
Your plan shows your knowledge. Your closing shows your heart.
Moral of the story: In any room, information can impress the mind but warmth is what ultimately wins the heart.
Akshita singh baghel
UPSC Results 2025
Back in August, I launched my first course. I wasn’t exactly sure how much I could handle by myself, so I took an extremely small batch of just 30 students and closed the admissions. 14 out of 30 students received an interview call. I never mentioned it on the channel because I had this strange fear of jinxing it. Weird, I know. 😅
Today, 4 out of those 14 students have made it to the final list.
And no, this is not the kind of association where someone once registered with me and that’s all. I was actively and personally involved with each of these students. Of course, the full credit always goes to the student who goes through this tormenting journey, but I feel honoured to have been a small part of their journey.
Many many congratulations to these students:
Vikas Kundu — AIR 27
Somya Jain — AIR 346
Siddhartha Krishna — AIR 431
Kaushal Kishore — AIR 670
If I missed somebody( not sure of some of your full names), then please reach out to me.
More importantly, my heart also goes out to some of the very brilliant and hardworking students I had who couldn’t make it to the final list. I am proud of each one of you who kept integrating the feedback, but the stars weren’t in your favour today.
Sometimes, even the most sincere effort must wait for its moment with destiny.
2 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 49
View 7 replies
Akshita singh baghel
It resonates with a post on leadership by Mrs. Radhika Gupta that I recently read. She beautifully observes:
“Intelligence can be artificial, but wisdom is stubbornly human. It will keep you relevant when machines can out-compute you, but cannot out-care, out-judge, or out-lead you.”
Theme: Knowledge vs wisdom
Tg channel: t.me/UPSCwithAkshita
2 weeks ago | [YT] | 61
View 1 reply
Akshita singh baghel
The number of intellectuals and people in academia that were connected to the Epstein scandal is honestly appalling.
Noam Chomsky is the flagbearer of anti-capitalist critique, Deepak Chopra spoke about mental health long before it became fashionable and Stephen Hawking decoded the universe to make life on Earth more intelligible. These figures were considered as symbols of human progress.
Epstein’s closest associate, Ghislaine Maxwell is Oxford-educated, deeply embedded in academic circles, and the daughter of intellectual and media baron Robert Maxwell.
The disturbing assumption in our society is that intelligence, competence, and success naturally imply moral superiority. The world celebrates such figures and we quote them in essays as shorthand for progress.
Yet the Epstein files expose a brutal truth. These brilliant minds were either complicit or actively involved in the trafficking, sexual abuse, and rape of minor girls. Intelligence did not check power, it helped power become monstrous with greater sophistication. Intelligence itself was monstrous to the core.
What do we do with such intelligence which is so acutely deprived of morality? What do we do with intelligence that doesn’t elevate but degenerates humanity?
It’s heartbreaking.
It’s disgusting.
4 weeks ago | [YT] | 30
View 5 replies
Akshita singh baghel
Mistakes in ChatGPT’s essays:
❌ ChatGPT tends to write stagnant essays. It keeps proving the quote again and again without allowing the essay to evolve along a meaningful arc, much like many aspirants do. It’s just that ChatGPT does it in a fancier way.
❌ ChatGPT leans toward creative writing, whereas a UPSC essay demands substantive writing. It often writes like those aspirants who believe good English automatically translates into a good essay. It doesn’t.
❌ A good essay written by a human usually has far greater smoothness and organic continuity than a ChatGPT-generated one.
And before someone says, “Oh, it’s all about the quality of the prompt,” let me remind you of the inherent limitation of LLMs: their finite context windows. It limits long-range coherence and argumentative evolution.
That said, I strongly encourage you to use AI to improve your essay, not to write it. You can, and should, take help for anecdotes, examples, stuck arguments, literary devices etc. Not while writing essay but before or after it. It is a powerful tool, and ignoring it would be naive. Your competition is using it.
But remember this: the aim of essay practice is to enhance your ability to think and express. That ability grows through an obsession with the process, not the outcome.
Force your brain to think in abstract.
Your brain is capable of being far more creative and argumentative than an average GPT-generated essay.
You just don’t know it yet.
Tg channel: t.me/UPSCwithAkshita
4 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 24
View 1 reply
Akshita singh baghel
“Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination, nor both together go to the making of a genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.”
Cannot agree more with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
4 weeks ago | [YT] | 16
View 2 replies
Akshita singh baghel
History remembers the flame not for what it burnt, but for what it illuminated.
Theme: Sacrifice
Tg channel: t.me/UPSCwithAkshita
4 weeks ago | [YT] | 42
View 5 replies
Akshita singh baghel
Oh, to weave words like letters to Theo! Oh, to pour colors like the Starry Night! Oh, to be Vincent van Gogh!
Theme: Risk and courage
If you can roughly recall famous excerpts like these, they always make for a very powerful conclusion.
Some other famous excerpts include ‘The man in the arena’ by Theodore Roosevelt and ‘When you come out of the storm’ by Haruki Murakami.
4 weeks ago | [YT] | 42
View 13 replies
Akshita singh baghel
Here are two different ways of writing an anecdote conveying the same idea.
Which one do you like more ?
The first one clearly works better. Why? It uses the technique of micro-narrative.
The first one ties the idea to a specific event and personality commanding the reader’s attention. The identification of victim also arouses emotions in the reader. It humanises the information.
Saying “a horse was walking towards a tree” informs, but saying “a brown horse walked towards the banyan tree” ignites imagination.
The real skill, however, lies in brevity. Both anecdotes are of the same length, yet the first carries more substance.
This is why micro-narratives are so effective, especially in anecdotes.
1 month ago | [YT] | 70
View 8 replies
Akshita singh baghel
Religion is not the absence of reason, but a belief beyond its limits.
Atheism is not the absence of belief, but the belief in absence.
This is why some people experience phases of atheism and religiosity, because both are shaped by not rationality, but emotions, beliefs and lived experiences.
Therefore, debates about God mostly remain unresolved because “heart has it’s reasons which reason knows nothing of”.
Also, such debates are hardly about God. They are, at the core, about authority, morality, meaning and the limits of human judgment.
(Having only superficially skimmed the Akhtar–Mufti debate, it didn’t achieve resolution because it cannot, but it set an example of civility in disagreement.)
1 month ago | [YT] | 31
View 2 replies
Akshita singh baghel
When an interviewer asks, “If I visit your state for three days, where would you take me?”
Have a solid itinerary ready: not just famous monuments, but small cultural experiences like a local market, a craft village, a food street, a sunset point only locals know. This shows you’re rooted.
But the finest way to end this answer is:
“…and on the last evening, Ma’am/Sir, I’d love to host you for a simple home-cooked dinner with my family.”
Your plan shows your knowledge. Your closing shows your heart.
Moral of the story: In any room, information can impress the mind but warmth is what ultimately wins the heart.
3 months ago | [YT] | 44
View 7 replies
Load more