Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

[ganpat1956]

[LEFT]New Delhi, Aug. 7: The Indian Institutes of Technology still cannot explain the method they followed in setting the admission criteria in 2006 — a whole year after the process.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]They have so far given four answers, some contradictory and some impossible to verify.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]The Telegraph had on Monday reported an allegation by some candidates’ parents that the IITs had flouted their stated procedure — divulged under the Right to Information Act (RTI) — for setting the cut-off marks for physics, chemistry and math.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]That procedure was one of two contradictory explanations the IITs have given the parents. They have now given a third explanation to Calcutta High Court, where one parent has challenged the 2006 admissions.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]An IIT administrator involved with the 2006 Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) took position No. 4 when contacted by The Telegraph. He said “some fixed process had to exist” but had no idea what it was.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Replying to the parents’ RTI application last December, five months after the exam was over, the IITs had said there was “no fixed procedure” to determine cut-off marks. That reply was issued by D. Gunasekaran, registrar of IIT Kharagpur, the institute that oversaw the implementation of JEE 2006.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]The second answer came five months later after the Central Information Commission (CIC) intervened. The parents were given a definite formula, explained in this newspaper on Monday.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Calculations based on that formula — and checked by this newspaper — show the cut-offs for physics, chemistry and math should have been 22, 26 and 24. But the cut-offs the IITs had actually used were 48, 55 and 37. They had also set an aggregate cut-off of 154.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]The explanation to the high court tries to address this problem by offering a slightly amended version: formula II.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]According to this, the marks of students who scored zero or less in any subject — the JEE awards negative marks for wrong answers — were not considered while determining the subject cut-offs. This would raise the cut-offs.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]But one cannot verify if formula II exactly explains the gap between the official cut-offs and the parents’ cut-offs unless the IITs reveal the marks scored in each subject by all two lakh candidates.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]The institutes had flatly refused to do so when the parents asked for it under RTI, later releasing only the marks of the top 32,000 under CIC pressure.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Several independent statisticians told this newspaper that neither formula I (the one provided under CIC pressure) nor formula II “seems feasible”. Both methods could —and probably would — allow the majority of candidates who sat the exam to qualify.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]This is because either formula would let in “nearly 70 per cent” of the candidates considered while calculating the subject cut-offs, said Anish Sarkar, who teaches at the Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Ravindra Bapat, who heads ISI Delhi, and his Chennai-based colleague B.L.S. Prakash Rao gave a slightly different figure: “definitely over 50 per cent”.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Since the first formula considers all two lakh who sat the exam (as explained in Monday’s report), this means up to 1.40 lakh students could make the subject cut-offs. The second formula only leaves out those with negative scores, and unless their number runs into several tens of thousands, even this amended procedure would not help.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Since the IITs cannot have known in advance how many students would end up with negative marks, why would they choose this method prior to the exam, the experts asked.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]With such huge numbers clearing the subject cut-offs, it would be the aggregate cut-off — based on the around 6,000 seats available — that alone would make the difference.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Why should the IITs then set subject cut-offs at all, saddling themselves with a useless and cumbersome intermediate process, the statisticians asked.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]A selection process that initially weeds out less than 50 per cent seems incongruent with the objective of choosing 6,000 students, which is just 3 per cent, they said.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Shishir Dube, who headed the Joint Admission Board that decided the policies for JEE 2006, initially said the cut-offs were set by another body, the Joint Implementation Committee.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]When told that all policy matters are decided by the board, the former IIT Kharagpur director agreed that a definite procedure “must” exist.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]“But that must have been set before my time (as board chief). We didn’t decide any procedure,” said Dube, now a faculty member at IIT Delhi.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Gunasekaran declined comment.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]The Telegraph - Calcutta : Nation[/LEFT]

Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

• NUJ Warns FG on FOI Bill
• Nigeria: Information Bill - NBC Warns Broadcasters
• Post Master General told to explain non-delivery of UPC mail

[sidmis]

Sponsorer

How does the IIT-JEE, one of the most respected competitive examinations in the world, determine who makes the cut-off for admission?
In response to notices sent by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on an RTI application, IIT authorities have given conflicting versions, putting the JEE under a cloud.

CIC member O P Kejariwal has threatened to take an "extremely serious" view if IIT Kharagpur, which conducted the JEE in 2006, did not disclose by January 15 how exactly it had calculated the cut-off marks in that test in each of the three subjects: mathematics, physics and chemistry.

This is the third non-compliance notice issued by CIC to IIT Kharagpur, which was found to have given two different versions of the statistical procedure for the cut-off. Worse, neither of those versions was found to tally with the cut-off marks admittedly applied in the 2006 IIT-JEE.
As per the system, every year a different IIT conducts the JEE by rotation but now RTI has put a question mark on the credibility of what is considered a global brand.

Consider the sequence of events that led to such a pass:

• In October 2006, the parent of an unsuccessful candidate filed RTI applications asking for cut-off marks, procedure for arriving at them and marks of the students above the cut-off marks in the IIT-JEE held that year.
• -In December '06, IIT Kharagpur gave an evasive reply saying there was "no fixed procedure or technique" for deciding the cut-off marks. It said the decision is made each year "depending on the overall performance of the candidates".
• -In May 2007, after hearing an appeal filed by the aggrieved parent, CIC directed IIT Kharagpur to disclose all the information sought under RTI and issued notice on why penalty should not be imposed for its failure to do so till then.
• -The same month, IIT Kharagpur, besides disclosing the cut-off marks and marks of the students above those levels in each of the subjects in the 2006 JEE, came up with the first version of the procedure for arriving at the cut-offs.
• -In June 2007, CIC issued a non-compliance notice as the stated procedure did not tally with the cut-off marks.
• -In July 2007, IIT Kharagpur said the information provided by it was correct.
• -In August 2007, CIC issued a second non-compliance notice.
• -The same month, IIT Kharagpur came up with a second version of the procedure for determining the cutoff marks.
• -In September 2007, CIC closed the case on the basis of the second version.
• -In October 2007, the appellant asked CIC to reopen the case saying that even the second version did not tally with the cut-off marks.
• -On December 7, CIC, reopening the case, directed IIT Kharagpur to comply with its directions "in full" by January 15.

[RIGHT]NEW DELHI: 6 Jan 2008
Manoj Mitta ,TNN[/RIGHT]

[karira]

Here is a more detailed version of the same story.
IIT-Kharagpur puts JEE under cloud

New Delhi: How does the Indian Institute of Technology’s Joint Entrance Exam, IIT-JEE, one of the most respected competitive examinations in the world, determine who makes the cut-off for admission? In response to notices sent by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on an RTI application, the IIT authorities have given conflicting versions, putting the JEE under a cloud.

CIC member O P Kejariwal has threatened to take “extremely serious” view if IIT-Kharagpur, which conducted the JEE in 2006, did not disclose by January 15 how exactly it had calculated the cut-off marks in that test in each of the three subjects: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry.

This is the third time CIC issued a non-compliance notice to IIT-Kharagpur, which was found to have given two different versions of the statistical procedure for the cut-off marks. And, worse, neither of those versions was found to have tallied with the cut-off marks admittedly applied in the 2006 IIT-JEE.

The system, in which every year a different IIT conducts the JEE by rotation, is hard pressed to come clean on the procedure for cut-off marks as RTI has put a question mark on the credibility of what is considered to be a global brand. Consider the sequence of events that led to such a pass:

In October 2006, a parent of an unsuccessful candidate filed RTI applications asking for cut-off marks, procedure for arriving at them and marks of the students above the cut-off marks in the IIT-JEE held that year.

In Dec. 06, IIT-Kharagpur gave an evasive reply saying there was “no fixed procedure or technique” for deciding the cut-off marks. It said the decision is made each year “depending on the overall performance of the candidates.”

In May 2007, after holding a hearing on an appeal filed by the aggrieved parent, CIC directed IIT-Kharargpur to disclose all the information sought under RTI and issued notice on why penalty should not be imposed on its failure to do so till then.

The same month, IIT-Kharagpur, besides disclosing the cut-off marks and marks of the students above those l evels in each of the subjects in the 2006 JEE, came up with first version of the procedure for arriving at the cut-off marks.

In June 2007, CIC issued a non-compliance notice as the stated procedure did not tally with the cut-off marks.

In July 2007, IIT-Kharagpur dug its heels in saying that the information provided by it was correct.

In August 2007, CIC issued a second non-compliance notice.

The same month, IIT-Kharagpur came up with a second version of the procedure for determining the cut-off marks.

In September 2007, CIC closed the case on the basis of the second version.

In October 2007, the appellant asked CIC to reopen the case saying that even the second version did not tally with the cut-off marks.

On December 7, CIC, reopening the case, directed IIT-Kharagpur to comply with its directions “in full” by January 15.

CONFLICTING VERSIONS

How the two official versions of calculating the cut-off marks for IIT JEE 2006 submitted consecutively before CIC were found to be conflicting and erroneous

The cut-off marks were stated to be 37, 48 and 55 for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry respectively.

The first version of the procedure given in May 2007 for arriving at those figures was given as “mean marks minus one standard deduction.” But the cut-off marks by this method work out to 24, 18 and 22, respectively.

When those discrepancies were pointed out, IIT came up with the second version in August 2007 claiming that for this computation, “only scores of those candidates who have secured minimum one mark in each of the three subjects have been considered.”

But it was found that even this method of calculation led to some other cut-off marks — 24, 22 and 26, respectively. This puts a question mark on the credibility of the famed IIT-JEE as the administration has yet not been able to provide a scientific explanation for why the cut-off marks in the 2006 examination for Mathematics, for instance, was as low as 37 while they were as high as 55 in the case of Chemistry

Welcome

[maneesh]

I believe all such procedure should be the part of the prospectus only so that the candidate knows in advance what is coming.

[geminite]

Hi !!!

I wud like u to keep us informed of the latest developments in this case as i myself am a qualified candidate of JEE-2007 and hence, am very much interested in this case...

Thanx again for highlighting this case...

Geminite