Paper Mainly Descriptive But Will Function As The Basis For More Specific Papers And: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for the A2A, Dana!First, let’s make sure were talking about the same thing. I understand your question to be about public funding for college education -- specifically, whether African countries could achieve faster growth by spending more public funds on subsidies to allow more students to attend university. If that's the thrust of your question, I'd say no, at least for most of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Much of the basis for my response is already there (sometimes implicitly) in the answers by Abdullah Anowar and Emmanuel-Francis Nwaolisa Ogomegbunam, including his exchange with Jeff Verkouille, and the additional comment on Emmanuel's post by Erik Hille.In principle, public subsidies for helping a certain number of top students to attend university could accelerate growth, but only under fairly stringent conditions:First, there was already a strong market demand for their skills, demonstrated by near-zero rates of unemployment among university graduates.Second, that demand was not confined to the public sector, but mainly coming from private firms.Third, the domestic salaries commanded by these grads were sufficiently high to prevent them from looking for work overseas.Fourth and perhaps most important, the rest of the educational system was working well.Under these conditions, highly skilled graduates could play a vital role in helping private firms to identify and adopt appropriate technologies and business practices developed in more advanced countries, and often available very cheaply through various kinds of licensing arrangements. In this role as the country's eyes and ears on the global technological horizon, those grads could well generate benefits that far exceeded their salaries, thus justifying the subsidy. In that role, having more university graduates could indeed help African countries achieve faster growth and productivity and income. But please notice that even in this best case, most university students should receive only partial subsidies, recognizing that they will capture the great majority of benefits from their schooling in the form of higher salaries. “Free rides” should be the exception, rather than the rule, available only to the small number of poor students who manage to pass the university entrance exams.Unfortunately, the evidence I’ve seen suggests that these conditions apply to very few countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At the risk of overgeneralizing about 55 countries, the immediate problem that most countries in the region face is not a lack of university-educated workers, but rather economies beset by distortions that prevent the skills of the graduates they do have from being what used productively. As a result, many of the best-trained graduates from the more effective African universities find work abroad, where their skills are put to better use. Meanwhile, most, though not all African countries suffer major quality problems in their educational systems, including at the tertiary level. So before spending more to subsidize university education for more young people, African countries that want to grow faster should first eliminate the policy distortions that prevent their skills from being used productively; and where necessary, undertake major reforms of their existing systems of higher education. Finally, it’s important to recognize that in most African countries, the vast majority of the benefits from public subsidies for university schooling are captured by the richest households, who typically are the only ones with the resources to send their children to high-quality preparatory primary and secondary schools in order to pass the entrance exams needed to gain a place at those universities in the first place. The heavy subsidies many African governments provide to these lucky few students strongly exacerbate the serious inequality that besets many African countries. As documented in one of the references below, the predominance of full scholarships -- free rides -- without means-testing causes far-reaching damage to many aspects of higher education in many African countries.These broad generalizations are based on three sources, two of which you can look into yourself to find out much more. The other source, which I cannot share, is my own work on “inclusive growth diagnostics” of two counties in the region (which I cannot name), both of which broadly fit the description above. The other two are(a) The World Bank’s Enterprise Survey site, which summarizes the results of structured surveys of managers and owners of firms in 136 countries; those surveys provide valuable insights into the constraints that actually face those firms. http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/data/exploretopics/workforce#(b) A 2011 paper entitled “Making Higher Education Finance Work for Africa,” by the World Bank’s former Chief Economist for Africa, Shanta Devarajan, and Celestin Monga and Tertius Zongo, published in the Journal of African Economies. https://www.kiva.org/cms/making_higher_education_finance_work_for_africa.pdfThe Enterprise Surveys site is highly accessible and well worth exploring for all kinds of questions. In the context of your question, the simple point I want to make is that despite the relatively limited supply of educated workers in Africa, relatively few African firms identify this as a major constraint to their operations (see the table below). Rather, most firms identify other constraints as more problematic – the list varies from country to country, but region-wide, only 2.5% of firms identify “inadequately educated workforce” as their top constraint – behind “access to finance (25.6%), electricity (13.6%), “practices of the informal sector” (10.0%), political instability (8.8%), tax rates (7.9%), corruption (7.5%), customs and trade regulation (4.6%), and tax administration (4.3%). Under those circumstances, spending more scarce public funds sending more kids to college is likely to have little impact on growth.Note that there are exceptions to this generalization: relatively large shares of firms in certain countries do identify an inadequately educated workforce as major constraint, including Botswana (32%), Chad (53%), the Republic of the Congo (52%), and Tanzania (41%). Recognizing that the question does not specify college-educated workers, this variety may require a deeper dive into the circumstances of individual countries before drawing strong conclusions. Still, the broad pattern supports my generalization.Turning very briefly to the last source (because this answer is getting long already) Devarajan, Monga, and Zongo concisely document two key points about higher education in Africa: first, it’s under-funded, and second, the funds that are used tend to be used badly. They attribute much of the latter set of problems to the sector’s heavy reliance on public funds to provide free access to university training, despite the fact that most of the benefits are captured by those who receive that training. That arrangement has contributed to the politicization of higher education in much of the region, with faculties and student organizations linked to political parties rather than focusing on education. The paper proposes a reform of higher education finance, based on principles of rationalizing government’s role, taking into account the politics of such reforms and the institutional changes needed for a well-functioning system of tertiary education in Africa. Well worth reading.

Are there any structural similarities common to all languages? Maybe. We don’t know. But if there is, it isn’t anything like you would expect a “grammatical rule” to look like if you haven’t studied theoretical linguistics.There are basically two approaches to this, with a lot of variants:Some linguists believe that languages are learned from input, that their structures vary arbitrarily, and that there is nothing linking them inherently beyond the basic experience of human culture.Other linguists, probably the current dominant view, but this is very controversial, believe that language is acquired based on matching input to genetically predetermined expectations that all humans share, that all languages share some structural features, and that variation is just on the surface.Specific theories vary a lot but generally those properties pattern together: innate vs. learned, universal grammar vs. completely independent structures, surface-level vs. deep variation, and (sometimes) “logical” (at least in the sense of a formal grammar) vs cultural determinants of grammar.First, Noam Chomsky is the biggest name in the Universal Grammar group, and his work is very popular but also very controversial. Setting aside his conclusions for a moment, some of the arguments made by him and others from this perspective are very important. The most relevant is that all human babies can learn all human languages. We are, linguistically speaking, genetically identical. Adopted children prove this, among other things. This also means that whatever we all share is at least around 40,000 years old (bare minimum) and probably significantly older than that. Linguists are fairly certain that language originated between 40,000 and 2 million years ago. Various theories suggest a narrower window in between. Chomsky, for example, thinks it was a single mutation about 100,000–200,000 years ago. More on that below.Second, we have to decide what counts as a grammatical rule. I’ll take that question in the most abstract way. Are there any (structural) properties that all languages share? It’s very hard to find any, so even something as basic as asking whether all languages make a distinction between nouns and verbs is a good place to start. And maybe not. It’s controversial, and some languages seem to use words interchangeably as either. Some do that by adding prefixes/suffixes when a word is a noun vs. when it is a verb (consider sing>“a singer” vs food>“to be/make/eat food”). A few languages don’t appear to distinguish at all. A very interesting example is David Gil’s work on Riau Indonesian. The literal translation of the phrase “chicken eat” can mean just about any imaginable sentence involving the ideas of chickens and eating. A chicken eats. A chicken ate. I eat a chicken. Chickens are what we eat. We like eating with the chickens. And so forth.From a functional and surface-level perspective, not really as part of a theoretical analysis (but certainly relevant to one), there are what are called linguistic universals, or proposed universal features that are found in many languages. Some are found in almost all languages. But basically nothing is reliably found in every single language. There is almost always an exception. The patterns are sometimes so overwhelming, though, that are probably more than just coincidence. So in this sense most of these “universals” are just statistical universals— trends. The best candidates for true universals are known as conditional universals. That is, if a language has feature X, then it will (not) have feature Y. Some of these are remarkably reliable and might not even have any exceptions. But since they don’t actually apply to all languages, they aren’t truly “universal” either. The pioneer of studying linguistic universals like this was Joseph Greenberg, at Stanford University. Some relevant websites to look at for more information are WALS Online (nice maps, but not all about universals, mostly the data behind them) and The Universals Archive (about universals specifically, with lots of examples, but not so clearly organized).Do not confuse ‘linguistic universal’ with ‘Universal Grammar’. The universals are just descriptions of common patterns, while UG is theoretical and refers to whatever is the shared genetic basis for language. In fact, many linguists who work on one or the other are vehemently opposed to the other kind. (Some functionalist linguists who do comparative work with universals think UG is a myth, while some theoreticians who assume there is a formal structure to language based on UG take the descriptive universals to be irrelevant statistics. I find both interesting, and the best solution is to at least consider both, of course, but not everyone looks at it this way.)A good overview of how at least surface-level “universals” do not exist is given by Evans & Levinson’s 2009 paper The Myth of Language Universals. Almost nothing is consistently the same across all languages, to the point where some researchers have rejected the idea entirely, but see the long commentary responding to that article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.028). See also for example: Daniel Ross's answer to What are some features in certain languages that broke previously assumed linguistic universals?Chomsky’s work began in the 1950s and by the mid-1960s his approach to linguistics was taking over (not to mention that he really founded modern linguistics as a science, and it wasn’t until around then that “Linguistics” departments were being created at universities as opposed to “Anthropology”, “Language” etc.). At this time he assumed some of language structure was innate but that wasn’t really the focus of the research. It was more about the formal structure of language (he actually became famous in the first place especially because of the mathematical models he proposed for linguistic structure, more than for specific analysis of a language but his did analyze English in some detail as a model for what others would later do with other languages). During the early 1980s the Government and Binding theory was proposed and this made the comparison of different languages scientific. This can also be called the Principles and Parameters approach, including specifically Government and Binding as the first major proposal for how to operationalize it for cross-linguistic study. The principles are the grammatical rules of UG that are shared by every language— that’s what you’re looking for in the question (but wait!). The parameters explained variation: like light switches, some languages had a switch on, and others had it off. With the right switches, and enough of them, you could describe all potential variants and related them to a common structure. Not everyone believed this, but it was popular. Still, exceptions were found, and as the theory was expanded to account for more and more data, it became maybe overly powerful, and certainly overly complex. The idea was to figure out what humans shared as the genetic basis for language (UG), which would mean that all of these proposed rules were somehow coded in our DNA. Chomsky then in the mid-1990s proposed a new approach: Government and Binding was descriptively useful but was theoretically complex, so the direction of research should shift to trying to find the minimal theory that still explains the data. The Minimalist Program was born, and that’s the focus of current research in Generative Syntax (the framework of Chomsky’s work, and of many others). It’s not a theory! It’s just a research agenda: how much simpler can we make the existing theory by modifying it one bit at a time— how much can we eliminate?Chomsky’s current answer might be surprising: it all comes down to one rule, or one operation, called Merge. Merge takes two things (words or phrases), let’s call them A and B, and it combines them into one thing, let’s call it A+B. Then you can apply Merge on itself (it’s recursive!) and generate all sentences, including, in theory, infinitely long sentences and infinitely many sentences. This one “rule” is very powerful. It is constrained by the properties of individual words (or more technically morphemes or ‘lexical items’). Basically they have features, like a verb is “looking” for a subject, and so forth, so that it’s like a giant jigsaw puzzle where the pieces must fit together to be attached, but the same operation “add a piece” is used to combine everything. This single operation is what Chomsky says allows for human language, and it developed as a single genetic mutation. (Chomsky, Hauser and Fitch 2002 is the main reference for this, but also see his more recent work. A 2016 book by Berwick and Chomsky, “Why only us?” discusses it in detail.)Not everyone agrees! And let’s set that aside for a minute anyway.Aside from that, something so very general that it almost isn’t a “rule” (just that you can combine words repeatedly), some linguists still believe there is a fuller UG of some kind. But no one seems to know what it consists of. Some are still using the bloated principles and parameters to try to explain variation, and others are using a more restricted system, in line with the Minimalism, but with still more rules than Chomsky. The problem is, if UG exists, we just don’t know what it is. This and other reasons have lead some researchers to give up on the idea entirely. It’s a nice idea, but it doesn’t seem testable. Maybe at some point it will work out, but not yet, and certainly not in terms of basic rules like what I talked about for linguistic universals above.In fact, languages appear to be so different than many researchers have given up on the idea that different languages share any structure whatsoever. One of the most extreme views like this is that of Martin Haspelmath, a very well known and well respected comparative linguist, who used to think that languages could share structures (although not in the sense that Chomsky proposes, but more generally) but now argues that languages are inherently different systems that simply cannot be understood in compatible structural terms because nothing is in common even down to the most basic categories like noun and verb so there is no common core from which to build a structure. Individual languages have structures of their own, but not something universal or even shared in any sense. He has a very nice and very approachable paper for non-specialists about the definition of “word” and how we don’t even know how to separate/identify words in different languages! Maybe all languages have words, but they aren’t defined in the same way, so there’s no universal way to identify them. The concept of “word” then is somewhat meaningless in a comparative sense. Yet he still works in comparative linguistics, from the perspective that if you identify perceptually similar patterns defined in general terms, you can still meaningfully compare the (non-equivalent) grammatical properties of different languages to look at variation in how different languages “see” the world. You can read a little more about his perspective here.So now getting back to Chomsky’s idea of Merge, how can this be wrong? Words modify each other, and they get structured together. So is this UG? Maybe. Remember, some say that we still need more rules than this, while others reject any sort of universal structure all together. Another personal perspective I have on this is that it’s actually a very natural development in a complex language. Words modify each other and form larger phrases, and repeat. In some sense that seems inevitable in terms of intelligent communication. Animals lack it for the most part, but there are a few cases in which they can modify one “word” with another, and some hints they might even go farther than that. I’ve actually written recently about the hypothetical language of intelligent extraterrestrials. We don’t know anything about it (is it spoken, signed, smelled, electronic, or what?) but we can, I believe, safely assume they would have some functional equivalent to Merge in their language too, if their language is (at least) as complex as ours, which is to say it would be complex enough to support interstellar travel or communication. One way or another concepts (as “words” or something like that) combine and modify each other. Of course Chomsky might be right that Merge (and its specific mathematical properties) are human specific and that may be genetically encoded, but why this occurs, in an intelligent communication system like human language, is less of a mystery if you look at it like this.So, considering all of these perspectives, are there any universal “rules” of language that are unique to humans and specific to language? Probably not, or at least we don’t know yet. All we do know is that all human languages seem to be effective for communication and for organizing thoughts. So basic principles of social interaction (like speaking in a way that you can be understood) are also part of the “universals” of language. For an interesting perspective within a very long ongoing and controversial debate, this is a reasonable introduction to some of these questions (I’m not taking one side or the other about it): Why language is not everything that Noam Chomsky said it is – Daniel Everett | Aeon EssaysLots of sub-questions to be asked here and details I’m skipping over. Feel free to ask for more information about a topic or for references in the comments. I’ve done (and am doing) research on this very question, so there’s more than I can cover in a post here without writing a book. (If anyone wants to read something more technical, I wouldn’t be opposed to sharing my research, in addition to other references, but that’s far beyond what I’d post in an answer on Quora.) Or maybe I’ll just find and answer some of your future questions about linguistics.Actually, one final thought. We may not be able to answer your original question, but Chomsky and others might be able to answer the opposite: are there any rules that a language cannot have? Although this is still somewhat controversial (but a lot less controversial than other things), it may be the case that purely linear rules don’t exist (only hierarchical rules). For example: Move the third word in a sentence to the end. We could actually come up with a pretty good rule for English questions, something like this: Move the first verb in the sentence to the front of the sentence. (roughly)— but this doesn’t work. In a more complex sentence, the first verb is not the main verb, and we only know this because of hierarchical structure in the sentence. I think everyone agrees about this, but exactly why and how it happens (Chomsky would say Merge/UG) is a matter of debate. Consider this:Eagles can swim. > Can eagles swim?So, Can eagles that fly swim? > !!!Eagles that can fly swim. — that’s not right.Following the rule based on linear order doesn’t explain that case. Only structure can. The original sentence for that must have been: Eagles that fly can swim. This is Chomksy’s example, and it’s not the clearest in terms of meaning, not necessarily even true about eagles. But the structural properties are clear: the question is asking about swimming, not flying.Also see here: Is recursion a necessary feature of a language? and Do any other animals, aside from humans use language, and not just sounds? and What are some examples of universals in Chomskyan linguistics?One other property that all languages share is that in their sounds (or gestures) they vary arbitrarily. That’s not really a rule but more like a lack of a rule in terms of sound-meaning correspondence. See What would language be like if it was not arbitrary?

Hello Guys, I am Amit Punia and I have cleared RBI Grade B DR 2019. I am sharing my strategy which helped me to clear this exam.RBI Grade B exam consists of 3 phases: Phase 1 , Phase 2 and Interview.Phase 1 :Phase 1 is just an elimination round and hence is the toughest.200 marks which include: General Awareness (80 marks); English Language (30 marks) Quantitative Aptitude (30 marks) and Reasoning (60 Marks).The Key to clear Phase 1 is GA and Reasoning. To clear this phase, one should aim for atleast 130 marks (60 GA + 30 Reasoning + 20 each in Quant and English).GA:Sources: I covered this mainly from Affairscloud + newspaper + PIB. Attempted monthly GA quizzes on Gradeup which was very helpful.Making Notes : I used to make GA notes on daily basis and updated them regularly from monthly AC PDFs and mock tests. I preferred digital notes as it gives much more flexibility for editing. I have uploaded my GA notes for May-Aug 2020 on Google Drive https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-36ZOc--LZkoAcFqRFNjav42qfWtBHK7 which I made for NABARD 2020 mains preparation. Hope it helps. I prepared GA notes keeping in mind both phase 1 and 2.Reasoning: This is also a very important topic and should be prepared well. I followed Adda247 daily quizzes for Reasoning practice. I found them very useful from exam point of view. Since there was sectional cutoff this year, i preferred attempting questions other than Puzzles e.g. inequalities, blood relations, direction based questions, Assertion reason type questions so that I can clear sectional cutoff first. Then I attempted puzzles in remaining time.Quant: I didn’t prepare anything specifically for this section. I just attempted some daily quizzes on Adda247 before Phase 1.English: Didnt prepare for this section too. Questions were very basic in nature.Some tips:Go through memory based past papers of phase 1 to get a fair idea on the scope of questions asked in phase 1.Attempt as many mocks as you can. Try going for multiple platforms if possible (1–2 are generally free)Revision is the key to score high in GA.Dont start with solving Puzzles in Reasoning. Try to clear sectional cutoff first.Attempt as many questions as you can. Smart guesswork always benefits when negative marking is just 0.254–6 months GA is sufficient for phase 1 alongwith Budget, Economic survey,After phase 1, dont waste time in cutoff, result date speculations. Start revising Phase 2 notesMy score in Phase 1 was 147.5 (67.5 GA + 21.5 Reasoning + 28.75 English + 29.75 Quant).Phase 2:I had already covered Phase 2 syllabus (static topics) before the notification was published. I utilized the time between phase 1 and 2 only for revision (multiple times).ESI:For static topics like Growth & Development, Poverty, Environment, economic reforms I used Summary sheets freely available on every telegram group.For old Govt schemes, I found a pdf on Skidha’s blog. I converted it into word file and started updating it by going through operating guidelines (available on ministries’ website) for each scheme. New schemes were covered in detail alongwith GA preparation in same manner.I used PIB, newspaper (Indianexpress and LiveMint), Affairscloud to cover dynamic topics relevant to syllabus.I focused on social issues in detail (learned from my mistake in previous attempt) - Health , education, Women, Tribals and Social justice.covered Budget, Eco Survey, SECC, govt policies and major missions in depthSpecial focus was on Reports and indices related to UN Agencies, Govt, committees, Social issues, Multilateral organizations, NITI Aayog etc. (u can see from my GA notes how I categorized various reports).Finance:Sources: To cover static topics, I used free summary sheets. PIB, newspaper (Indianexpress and LiveMint), Affairscloud, RBI Website, reports of committees & working groups to cover dynamic topics relevant to syllabus. I used Investopedia as secondary source for better understanding of finance topics. Focused on news related to BIS, OECD, FATF, IMF , WB, ILO, AIIB, NDB, ISA.Management: I made topicwise handwritten notes for mgmt compiled from multiple sources. I followed Principles of Mgmt by PC Tripathi ; free summary sheets and Managementstudyguide.com . I focused on identifying “keywords” related to various theories, models etc which helped me a lot in answering confusing questions.Descriptive:I prepared 5–6 essay topics for this….collected fodder points for 10–12 potential topics…used internet for precis and letter writing formats. Used factual data collected during GA preparation to enrich my essay.Some tips for Phase 2:Memorize the entire syllabus to filter irrelevant factual GA while making notes for phase 2Go through previous year papers to get an idea on scope of questions asked in Phase 2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdw1KMLKBCSxV3jirDb6MWSoqv1fzyeW/view?usp=sharingComplete Phase 2 syllabus well in advanceRevise the entire syllabus atleast 2–3 timesAim to score atleast 220–230 in Phase 2 as interview stage is very unpredictable.Make a timetable to cover the syllabus and stick to it.Unfortunately, there is no good test series for Phase 2 . Nowadays, there are some telegram groups which are doing a great job by posting exam relevant MCQs. Some of them which I used for NABARD 2020 mains preparation are: https://t.me/Rbigradebquestionnaires ; https://t.me/RBI_MCQs ; https://t.me/MCQ_MCQ ;For management, focus on keywords to identify various theories and models. Confusing questions are asked every time e.g. career path, career ladder, Job description, Job specification, etcDont neglect Descriptive paper and give proper time to it also.Attempt as many questions as possible (m always bullish on attempting when negative marking is just 25%) , Obviously with smart guesses.Dont waste too much time on Telegram, whatsapp groups. Go there only to collect exam relevant material.Dont skip numericals in Finance portion. They have not been asking numericals for past 2 -3 years but that doesnt mean RBI wont surprise you in next exam.Cover PIB urself….dont rely on its compilations or any PDFs. Also, information on PIB is not always correct…so dont blindly follow it. PIB is very rich source for ESI preparation when Parliament is in session.Aim for atleast 70 in ESI and 85+ in FM.Exam can be cracked without buying any coaching course.Interview: I had almost 3 months to prepare for interview which i did in a very holistic manner. I wrote down hundreds of potential questions based on my profile, my previous job(SBI), recent events, RBI Functions, Banking and finance.The booklet titled Functions and Working of RBI published by RBSC is a must read for interview.I went through RBI Website, annual report, Monetary policy report, Financial stability report, latest speeches, reports of committees and made notes from them. Previous year transcripts were helpful in plugging the gap of topics which I would have missed for interview preparation. RBI monthly bulletin is also a good source but I skipped it.My interview revolved around the topics for which I had prepared, so there were no surprises for me. I answered almost every question asked. Gave 1–2 wrong answers too. However , I was not fully satisfied with my interview performance as I could have done better that day.Some tips:Never bluff during interview. Be humble and honest. Its okay to say Sorry if you dont know the answer.You must have a good justification for your education and career choices. Grilling happens when you cant defend your position.Be ready to give 2–3 minutes speech on any topic given by RBISB chairman. Although, I wasn’t asked to do so.Be calm and composite. Avoid unnecessary movement of hands or legs. keep your hands free from items like ID card, Pen etc.Be crisp in you answers. I feel board looks for specific keywords in an answer to assess you knowledge level. They prefer bookish definitions. They want you to converse like an economist and not a common man.Smile but dont laugh.Maintain a positive outlook in your answers.Believe in urselfThats it from my side. Please forgive me if you dont find this answer well structured or interesting. I will update more after my marksheet is available. Hope this answer will be helpful for aspirants. Feel free to ask your queries in comments if I missed something.Link to my notes:RBI Syllabus: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdw1KMLKBCSxV3jirDb6MWSoqv1fzyeW/view?usp=sharingGA notes made for NABARD 2020 mains: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SAioMBY-jfaG_rdhUMsH6-ZX14sBQGoU/view?usp=sharingSept 2020: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LJCco7PueH3yWrJOAt9h-As6A7GyesrQ/view?usp=sharingGovt. Schemes : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rtboknH3ZtC8u7RRGcQt6jq2HSi5bATz/view?usp=sharingSEBI notes :https://drive.google.com/file/d/177r1bxdRUas4E-f7FcWvU9z2KkUBymcD/view?usp=sharingLink to my pvt channel which i made for NABARD Interview preparation:Interview Prep NABARDLink to my pvt channels which I made for NABARD mains revision:ESI / Finance for revisionManagement MCQs for RevisionNABARD ARD notes: Nabard Supplement.pdfImp PDFs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_z36klw43qjBOk79URhd9lqRKHnnos4M/view?usp=sharing