Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 37

Thread: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

  1. #17
    Posts
    44,017
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    546

    IIT selection under lens - Govt to quiz Kharagpur institute on 2006 admissions


    As reported by Charu Sudan Kasturi in telegraphindia.com on 9 July 2008:
    The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Frontpage | IIT selection under lens

    IIT selection under lens
    - Govt to quiz Kharagpur institute on 2006 admissions


    New Delhi, July 8: The human resource development ministry has asked IIT Kharagpur to explain discrepancies in the 2006 admission process of the Indian Institutes of Technology that may have denied seats to 994 deserving candidates.

    Top officials said the ministry’s move to seek an explanation on the selection procedure from the Kharagpur institute, in charge of IIT admissions that year, followed concerns raised by a Parliament committee.

    The IIT is also expected to be quizzed on the controversial admissions at a meeting of the board of governors on July 9, ministry sources said.

    “We have, in more ways than one, indicated our unhappiness over the controversy. We have also asked IIT Kharagpur to explain its position,” a senior official said.

    The ministry is likely to be represented by higher education secretary R.P. Agrawal at the July 9 meeting, sources said. Agrawal is a member of the IIT Kharagpur board of governors.

    “The contradictions in the admissions thrown up by news reports are part of the agenda for the board meeting,” the official confirmed.

    On August 6, 2007, The Telegraph had revealed that the IITs used cutoffs different from the ones thrown up by using the formula that the institutes claimed to have used.

    In response to Right to Information Act applications filed by candidates and their parents, the IIT had said it used 37, 48 and 55 as cutoff marks in math, physics and chemistry in 2006.

    But the formula that the IITs said they used to arrive at the cutoffs actually threw up 7, 4 and 6 as the minimum marks required in the three subjects to be eligible for the second round of qualification.

    Students who clear all three subject cutoffs are selected on the basis of their aggregate score — the total of the three subjects. Failure to meet a subject cutoff rules out a student even if he has a high aggregate cutoff.

    As many as 994 candidates who were denied admission in 2006 might have cleared the IIT entrance exam that year had the institutes followed their stated method of determining subject cutoffs, calculations later revealed.

    The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, which has Rahul Gandhi among its members, expressed concerns over the controversy surrounding IIT admissions at its last meeting, documents available with The Telegraph show.

    The committee, at its meeting in late April, asked the HRD ministry to explain how the IITs arrive at their cutoffs.
    Top



  2. #18

    IIT physics cut-off down to zero as seats increase


    IIT physics cut-off down to zero as seats increase

    As Reported in Times of India, 2 Aug 2008, 0025 hrs IST,TNN

    MUMBAI: Getting into the IITs just got a tad easier. With the increase in the pool of seats, the final cut-off score dropped to 180 as compared to last year's 206 out of a total of 489 marks. Similarly, the cut off for reserved category students —Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) — fell from 126 to 104.

    On Friday, the IITs for the first time made their performance card public. As reported by TOI on May 31, the Joint Admissions Board, which comprises the Joint Entrance Exam (JEE) chairman from each IIT, had agreed on making the cut-offs of JEE-2008 public after their offices were bombed with Right to Information (RTI) applications. The IITs also released the stream-wise opening and closing ranks for this year, as also the answer key to both JEE papers.

    Most IIT heads put the dip in the aggregate cut-offs down to the larger population of students they admitted this year to the 13 campuses across India. The total seats across the technical institutes went up from 5,537 to 6,992 this year.

    Subject-wise cut-offs for the top 80% qualifying students stood at 5 for maths, 3 for chemistry and 0 for physics. For SC and ST candidates, the respective subject-wise cut-offs stood at 4.5 for maths, 2.7 for chemistry and 0 for physics. Last year, these qualifying cut-offs for the top 80% in the general category stood at 1, 3 and 4 correspondingly. Since the last two years, these rock-bottom qualifying marks have rendered meaningless the minimum subject-wise scores to be achieved.

    However, these scores are just half the story. As the JEE has a negative marking for every wrong answer, these scores are merely set to eliminate the lowest 20% candidates. "In the JEE, the lowest score is not zero. It stretches to negative 38," explained IIT-Bombay JEE chairman N Venkatramani.

    Though the IITs have not relaxed marks for OBC candidates this year, they have decided to allow a 10% relaxation — they can score 10% lower marks than the last general category student admitted.

    IIT physics cut-off down to zero as seats increase-India-The Times of India

  3. #19

    Hearing on request for IIT names


    Hearing on request for IIT names
    as reported by CHARU SUDAN KASTURI | The Telegraph | New Delhi, Sept. 16

    The Central Information Commission has ordered a hearing with the IITs to decide if contact details of students, denied seats because of discrepancies in the 2006 admissions, can be disclosed.

    The apex umpire on the under the Right to Information (RTI) panel has called the registrar and a former director of IIT Kharagpur — the organising institute for the 2006 joint entrance examination — to appear for the hearing on September 19 at 3pm, sources said.

    The RTI Act prohibits the disclosure of personal details, especially of those who are not direct parties to a case — as the appellant or the respondent — without their consent.

    But the father of an aggrieved student approached the commission to identify others who, too, may have suffered in 2006 because the IITs did not use the cut-off determination procedure they claimed to have implemented.

    The Telegraph had reported, on August 6, 2007, the discrepancies between the cut-offs used by the IITs in 2006 and those arrived at using the formula the institutes claimed they used. As a result, 994 students who merited a chance to study in the IITs were denied seats.

    The IITs disclosed marks of all students who appeared in the 2006 JEE. The appellant has requested contact details of the 994 students.

    The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Hearing on request for IIT names

  4. #20
    Posts
    44,017
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    546

    Re: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT



    The IIT's should write to ALL third parties (994 students) who were wrongly denied admission and ask for their objections in writing to disclosure of the names under Sec 11. Why have they not done that till now ?
    Last edited by karira; 17-09-08 at 08:03 AM.

  5. #21
    Posts
    44,017
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    546

    IITs tinker with JEE cutoffs to save face


    As reported by Manoj Mitta of TNN in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 16 November 2008:
    IITs tinker with JEE cutoffs to save face-India-The Times of India

    IITs tinker with JEE cutoffs to save face

    NEW DELHI: Stung by the flak they got for having single-digit subject cutoffs in JEE for two years running — as was reported by TOI in a series
    of stories — IITs have come up with what seems to be an ad hoc attempt at raising the bar for the next entrance examination due to be held in April 2009.

    The formula for calculating the cutoffs has been changed from the needlessly low 20 percentile (the best of bottom 20% candidates) to the more respectable "average of the marks scored" by all candidates in each subject.

    In an image makeover to the cutoff procedure, IITs have also changed the nomenclature: the subject cutoff will hereafter be called the "minimum qualifying mark for ranking (MQMR)".

    The new procedure announced last week however smacks of adhocism as, far from being a systemic change based on a coherent policy, it seems to be more a frantic attempt to break out of the single-digit syndrome of the last two years.

    The application of the MQMR formula to the data of the two years in which JEE had single-digit cutoffs does indicate that the cutoffs in JEE 2009 could just about enter double figures.

    If the cutoffs in JEE 2008 were 5 in mathematics, 0 in physics and 3 in chemistry, the MQMR in those three subjects would have been 19, 12 and 18, respectively. Similarly, if the cutoffs in JEE 2007 were 1 in mathematics, 4 in physics and 3 in chemistry, the MQMR in those three subjects would have been 17, 19 and 21, respectively.

    Gautam Barua, director of IIT Guwahati, which is conducting JEE 2009, concedes that the cutoffs based on the new procedure "may not turn out to be dramatically higher." Asked why IITs have settled for a marginal improvement in the cutoff procedure, Barua told TOI: "Seeing that the cutoff formula of the last two years produced very low cutoffs, we have attempted to make the screening more meaningful in 2009. We didn't want the cutoffs to be too high or too low. So, after much discussion, we chose the middle path."

    The saving grace of the new procedure is that, since it is expected to yield slightly higher cutoffs, JEE 2009 may avert extreme examples like candidates getting admission into IITs despite scoring single-digit marks in one or the other subject.

    In JEE 2008, for instance, one general category candidate made it to IIT Kharagpur despite scoring 8 marks in physics.

    The new cutoff procedure is the latest in a series of changes IITs have been forced to make ever since they were unable to explain under RTI the basis on which they had fixed much higher cutoffs in their 2006 examination: 37 in mathematics, 48 in physics and 55 in chemistry.

    The RTI applicant is a professor of computer sciences in IIT Kharagpur, Rajeev Kumar, who was able to demonstrate before the Central Information Commission that the statistical formulas cited by them for JEE 2006 were wrong and contradictory.

    It was on the rebound that in 2007, IITs resorted to the 20 percentile formula, which plunged the cutoffs to single-digit marks. Such low cutoffs in turn allowed less meritorious students to slip into IITs in 2007 and 2008, as reported first in TOI, on the strength of their aggregates even when they scored miserably in one of the three subjects.

  6. #22
    Posts
    44,017
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    546

    Re: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT


    Unfortunately, the matter has still not been resolved.

    The appellant again filed a complaint against IIT KGP for non-compliance of its orders. IC OP Kejariwal heard the matter and once again granted time to IIT till 27 February 2009 to provide the information.

    Strangely, this much time has been provided because the Hon'ble IC has reasoned:

    While giving this time, the Commission has kept in view the fact that another case filed by the same Applicant against the same Respondents is pending in the Court of IC(SG) and in this case too a much mass of data has to be collected for which they have received time upto 30 January 2009. It is, therefore, understandable that they will apply themselves to collect material for this application only after completing the former exercise.


    As readers will note from the date line of various events (as per the datelines of various posts in this thread), the matter has been dilly dallying for a long time. What was IIT doing all this time ?

    Another important point is that applicants should keep a record of all correspondence and the proofs of postal receipts, etc. so as to prove everything before the CIC/SIC...
    Attached Files Attached Files

  7. #23
    Posts
    3,420
    Name:
    Atul Patankar
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    49

    Jury out, IITs shred scripts - Documents crucial to 2006 exam row destroyed unusually early


    As reported by CHARU SUDAN KASTURI at www.telegraphindia.com on 11 March 2009

    New Delhi, March 10: Organisers of the 2006 IIT entrance exam have revealed that they shredded answer scripts of students even while some candidates were pursuing allegations of manipulations in their scores.

    IIT Kharagpur, which organised the exam that year, has said it destroyed answer scripts that could have helped establish whether scores in that subject were manually altered after the test.

    The revelation, made in a Right to Information reply available with The Telegraph, also discloses that the IITs chose to break with their own tradition in 2006 to destroy answer scripts earlier than they normally do.
    That year, the IITs used subject cutoffs starkly different from the ones they claimed to have used. The irregularities, reported first in this newspaper, led to a denial of opportunities to 994 students who had cleared the cutoffs the IITs claimed to have used.

    The difference fuelled allegations that marked answer scripts may have been manually doctored to help some candidates, especially in chemistry, where the discrepancy between the cutoffs used and cutoffs claimed was the widest.

    JEE answer scripts are Optical Mark Reading (OMR) sheets — the answers are read by a special device and no manual involvement is allowed in evaluation.

    The IITs have denied any such manipulation. But the revelation that the institutes destroyed the most direct evidence of any possible manipulation even as candidates were alleging wrongdoing raises the question whether the 2006 irregularities were indeed completely unintentional.

    The minutes of a 1967 meeting of the IIT Kharagpur Senate — the highest executive body of an IIT — say that all exam-related documents, including answer scripts, are to be preserved “for a year”.

    But on August 24, 2006, within days of releasing detailed mark sheets to students, the Joint Admission Board (JAB) of the IITs decided to destroy the answer scripts in 2006 itself, according to the RTI reply. The JAB is the top IIT body responsible for conducting admissions.

    The admission process was challenged first in August 2006, more than three months before the answer scripts were destroyed on December 12, 14 and 16, according to the RTI reply.

    The father of one student had approached the Prime Minister, President and the central vigilance commission seeking an inquiry into the case by September 2006. The vigilance commission is still probing the case.

    In October 2006, the parent had appealed under the Right to Information Act, seeking details of the cutoffs used by the IITs in the 2006 entrance exam. One of his charges related to fears of manual manipulations of chemistry marks.

    Records show that the IITs retained answer scripts pertaining to an unrelated case that too had been filed before the dates when the remaining scripts were destroyed.

    The scripts related to this other case were produced before Gauhati High Court in February 2007.

    The central information commission, which oversees the implementation of the RTI Act, has the powers of a civil court.


  8. #24
    Posts
    3,420
    Name:
    Atul Patankar
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    49

    IITs won't fix blunders in JEE question paper


    As reported by Manoj Mitta, TNN at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 07 April 2009

    NEW DELHI: RTI applications of a computer science professor of IIT Kharagpur, Rajeev Kumar, might have forced a change in the procedure for determining cut-off marks in the JEE due to be held on April 12, but the administrators have remained silent on another serious deficiency pointed out by a mathematics professor of IIT Bombay, K D Joshi.

    On the basis of the model-answer sheet that was made public after the 2008 test, Joshi wrote to the JEE administrators in August that there were five major mistakes in maths questions, which could have cost a candidate 18 marks even if he had solved those problems correctly.

    Since the model answer sheet was disclosed after the admission process for 2008 had concluded, the administrators did nothing on Joshi's shocking disclosure, as a difference of even one mark could have dramatically changed the ranks of the candidates, and the options that would have been available to them in terms of branches and institutes. If a candidate lost 18 out of 161 marks for no fault of his, the wrong evaluation of those questions seems all the more unfair considering that the cut-off in maths in JEE 2008, as reported earlier in TOI, was no more than five marks and that somebody with just 10 marks in that subject could get admission into IIT Kharagpur.

    Though the Joint Admission Board of JEE 2009 discussed Joshi's correspondence, as disclosed to TOI by its chairman Gautam Baruah, its information brochure gives no indication whether the model-answer sheet would be made public at least this time, immediately after the exam, so that any mistakes there could be corrected before the damage is done with the announcement of results.

    Consider the five blunders in the maths papers of JEE 2008 exposed by Joshi, one of the senior faculty members of the IIT system:

    Question 7 of Paper 1:
    The accompanying instruction indicated that out of the four given choices, one or more could be correct and that the candidate would be given four marks for the complete correct answer or zero for an incomplete one. While the model answer sheet said that the complete correct answer was options B and D, Joshi discovered from his calculations that the correct answer was only D.

    Question 23 of Paper 1:
    The instruction on the question paper said that ‘‘only one'' out of the four given choices was correct. This turned out to be misleading as the model sheet conceded that there were actually three correct answers. So, if a candidate rightly chose more than one correct option, the examiner was obliged not only to give him no marks but also penalize him by deducting one mark.

    Question 7 of Paper 2:
    Though the model answer was given as option A, Joshi found that the ‘‘complete correct answer'' was missing from the four given choices. Since the question itself had a mistake, a candidate after doing his calculations might have avoided answering it lest he attracted negative marking for a wrong answer.

    Question 17 of Paper 2:
    Joshi found that due to omission of plus/minus sign, the correct option was not the ‘‘complete solution''.

    Question 21 of Paper 2:
    The official answer was that Statement A in Column I matched with Statement R in Column II. With detailed calculations and drawings, Joshi showed that there was actually no match for Statement A in the other column. The candidate who figured that out would have however lost three marks

    Source: IITs won't fix blunders in JEE question paper - India - The Times of India

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android