Last Needs before Putting the IIT JEE on the Electrical Chair
It is not fairly often that one gets to listen to regarding the goings on within IITs and also the opinions of the key stakeholders AT (deliberately capitalized) IITs. Whereas we've heard regarding the HR ministry’s call to merge the engineering exams that happen during this country, we tend to haven’t heard how the IITs themselves feel regarding this alteration.
Today, because of our former PI contributor Arvind, we tend to discover this incendiary minutes of Senate meeting at IIT Kanpur. It’s a mirrored image on how shallow the HR ministry’s unilateral call was. we tend to additionally get to grasp how the IITs themselves didn’t have adequate illustration within the call creating method.
The IITs are one amongst the few brands this country is aware of and also the contribution to India’s growth story cannot be gainsaid. Before tampering with a system that works (and works well), the govt ought to be additional cautious. This is often not an experiment where failure is appropriate - particularly once we grasp the system works well nowadays. The JEE additionally has been THE exam to check for and not while not reason. Virtually each IITian remembers his AIR (or hawa) though he passed out many decades ago. Because the Senate discussion shows, together with a comparatively subjective metric just like the twelfth category marks additionally can dilute the standard of scholars going into IITs. BITS Pilani, that had identical as a metric, has shifted totally to an entrance based mostly check – the explanations for this alteration ought to be enlightening reading for the ministry.
Below we tend to reproduce some sections from the Senate committee meeting. The complete document (link/pdf) is additionally an honest browse.
There are larger queries but to be answered – and that we would like to grasp your opinions.
a) The ministry is empowered – however is it capable to determine on changing the mode of exams?
b) Shouldn’t the key stakeholders have a lot of representation?
c) As autonomous bodies – ought to the IITs say digitus impedimentus to the ministry and do their own tests anyways?
d) Are we tend to building a nation of sissies who can’t take the pressure of tenth exams, too several entrance tests etc? Isn’t our culture of robust exams and large competition the most effective thanks to separate the wheat from the chaff?
e) Are the IIT exams such an enormous deal anyways?
Some candid points the PDF mentions:-
1. It had been disappointing that the report that has steered such sweeping changes to the admission method of IITs and has been accepted by IIT Council, while not seeking feedback from individual institutes (IITs).
2. Picking the admission method for IITs with none discussion with the IITs is an infringement of their autonomy. Till now, we tend to might claim that ministry doesn't interfere in educational matters, and that we had full educational autonomy. This claim can not be doable.
3. Ramasami Committee ought to have sought views directly from IIT college before getting ready its report, and another spherical of feedback from all stake holders once the draft report was ready.
4. Ramasami Committee claims to possess interacted with “several college members” of IITs. nobody within the Senate has admitted to possess communicated with Ramasami Committee. It shows that the interaction was very restricted.
5. It's strange that IIT Council, that ought to be primarily involved with IIT system, has approved a report that proposes changes to admission method of all engineering institutes within the country, not simply the IITs. How return IIT Council has such jurisdiction.
6. If coaching and stress are the foremost problems that Ramasami Committee is attempting to resolve, then a special approach are often thought-about. If we tend to don't assign branch at the time of admission, however do thus once a year, then the strain of every mark being necessary, can escape . we should always not be discussing simply the vi choices steered by Ramasami Committee. we should always explore all choices to enhance our admission method.
7. The $64000 downside is lack of opportunities, that causes five lakh students to do for ten,000 seats. Government ought to do one thing to enhance opportunities.
8. Using statistical procedures to work out rank of scholars from a really slender percentile band is problematic, each as a result of extraneous factors returning into determining student performance, and also the confidence one might place whereas applying to a private a statistical procedure developed on a way broader set of scores.
9. the most effective a part of JEE has been its method integrity, one thing that can't be expected from the boards to identical degree.
10. The most purpose of the ISI study is to recommend that computing percentile score on the marks- distribution from previous years additionally serves this year’s performance. This claim but isn't that well supported – e.g. around 90′ percentile level for the CBSE board, identical combination s_core (about zero.85, figure on page a pair of of ISI report) we discover a distinction of regarding 3-4 percentile ranks between 2007 and 2010. Given the formula they recommend, this may create a distinction of twelve to sixteen points within the final -”score”. However, the gap is smaller higher than ninety five percentile, and on the total, this could function a practicable approach.
11. Keeping the twelfth category marks as eligibility criteria, of the order of ninety percentile, can achieve the goal of scholars taking the board exams and hence college education seriously. it's not clear what additional are going to be achieved by giving 40‘percent weight to board marks.
12. Giving forty p.c weight to board marks will probably increase corruption and use of unfair means that within the board examinations. it's going to additionally result in favoritism.
13. Giving forty p.c weight to board marks can lead to increased coaching, as currently the scholars can select coaching for each the common entrance check and also the board examinations.
14. Giving forty p.c weight to board marks can lead to increased stress, as each mark in each subject counts for ranking within the admission method.
Difference in Standards
Consider 2 populations every of a thousand students with a complete ordering in benefit. allow us to say that Board A will manage to differentiate amongst the highest ten, these students get the marks in a very subject from a hundred, down to 91, consistent -with their individual deserves. within the different board B, the highest ten students every scores a hundred marks. within the normal means of computing percentile rank, the tenth student in benefit from the highest in Board B can have the rank ninety nine.5. Whereas the equally merited student in Board A would have scored ninety one, therefore, his percentile rank are going to be ninety nine.00, assuming no bunching in scores within the vary ninety one to a hundred in Board A. therefore 2 students, with same benefit worth, will get totally different percentile scores counting on the board, as a result of distinction of standards in Boards. ‘
For normalization of marks across boards, one shouldn't simply explore the statistical strategies, however there ought to be a gaggle that ought to each year explore the functioning the boards, the standard of question papers, etc., and tweak the normalization method on a year to year basis.
An Engineering Entrance Examination shouldn't and can't be viewed because the principal instrument of fixing massive scale issues. prevailing within the college education system-(lack of effective lecturers, mod.e of delivery, fraudulent and farcical science sensible, simply comprised processes etc.). It additionally can not be viewed as a method of ending competition for premium opportunities within the face of giant demand, despite how good is that the examination system. On the converse the doorway Examination ought to try to do its honest best to pick within the face of those issues.
We should begin with board marks solely getting used for eligibility. we are able to use board marks in future, if we are able to see that a bigger specialize in board exams have improved their functioning and reduced corrupt practices.
The Weaker Section
If corruption will increase in boards because of forty p.c weight of sophistication marks, it'll become terribly tough for college students with financially weak background to return to IITs. we are able to use the proposed Main-cum-Advanced check for shortlisting regarding fifty,000 students, and will have the old—style examination involving long answers and partial marking for proper steps. we should always do away with negative marking in JEE.
On BITS Pilani
We should study why BITS Pilani, that had its own normalization method of twelfth category marks, and used to admit students on the idea of normalized marks, has shifted utterly to an entrance check. IIT system will facilitate in guaranteeing integrity of the National check, however it can not be held chargeable for guaranteeing this on the dimensions and scope of a National check.
On China
We should study Chinese system, since they too have expanded in a very massive means within the last number of decades, they too have some superb universities, and an outsized variety of aspirants for those universities. How have they managed admission in such a situation.
On Multiple alternative queries and Aptitude Tests
Multiple alternative queries (MCQ) are terribly restricted in usefulness, and are necessary evil to modify sizable amount of candidates, together with necessity to machine grade their answers. traditional stepwise long answer queries are way more effective in assessing a learner’s skills, and thinking orientation and degree of match with the required thought method in a very context.
Multiple alternative Aptitude check is an untested bogey, or at its best an uncritical superstition, with no basis or proof that it works ( simply as measures of intelligence like IQ), de-contextualized pattern recognition or puzzle solving will fall simple prey to superficial coaching, or gaming the system, lacks the depth of a scholarly discipline or an intellectual tradition to check something real, and at its best will become some surrogate version of intuitive Maths.
We should add a check of comprehension and different subjects that are normality taught in class, however aren't a part of JEE as of currently.
Aptitude check can have a negative touching on the rural—urban divide. Urban students are going to be able to perform higher in a flair check. Hence it's unfair.
Statistical information from the past
Since we've JEE marks, board marks, and our performance information for the last many batches, we should always study correlation between these quantities, and in case, there's lack of correlation between JEE marks and students‘ performance in IITs, then JEE ought to be mounted to become a higher predictor of success, instead of removing JEE.
It is not fairly often that one gets to listen to regarding the goings on within IITs and also the opinions of the key stakeholders AT (deliberately capitalized) IITs. Whereas we've heard regarding the HR ministry’s call to merge the engineering exams that happen during this country, we tend to haven’t heard how the IITs themselves feel regarding this alteration.
Today, because of our former PI contributor Arvind, we tend to discover this incendiary minutes of Senate meeting at IIT Kanpur. It’s a mirrored image on how shallow the HR ministry’s unilateral call was. we tend to additionally get to grasp how the IITs themselves didn’t have adequate illustration within the call creating method.
The IITs are one amongst the few brands this country is aware of and also the contribution to India’s growth story cannot be gainsaid. Before tampering with a system that works (and works well), the govt ought to be additional cautious. This is often not an experiment where failure is appropriate - particularly once we grasp the system works well nowadays. The JEE additionally has been THE exam to check for and not while not reason. Virtually each IITian remembers his AIR (or hawa) though he passed out many decades ago. Because the Senate discussion shows, together with a comparatively subjective metric just like the twelfth category marks additionally can dilute the standard of scholars going into IITs. BITS Pilani, that had identical as a metric, has shifted totally to an entrance based mostly check – the explanations for this alteration ought to be enlightening reading for the ministry.
Below we tend to reproduce some sections from the Senate committee meeting. The complete document (link/pdf) is additionally an honest browse.
There are larger queries but to be answered – and that we would like to grasp your opinions.
a) The ministry is empowered – however is it capable to determine on changing the mode of exams?
b) Shouldn’t the key stakeholders have a lot of representation?
c) As autonomous bodies – ought to the IITs say digitus impedimentus to the ministry and do their own tests anyways?
d) Are we tend to building a nation of sissies who can’t take the pressure of tenth exams, too several entrance tests etc? Isn’t our culture of robust exams and large competition the most effective thanks to separate the wheat from the chaff?
e) Are the IIT exams such an enormous deal anyways?
Some candid points the PDF mentions:-
1. It had been disappointing that the report that has steered such sweeping changes to the admission method of IITs and has been accepted by IIT Council, while not seeking feedback from individual institutes (IITs).
2. Picking the admission method for IITs with none discussion with the IITs is an infringement of their autonomy. Till now, we tend to might claim that ministry doesn't interfere in educational matters, and that we had full educational autonomy. This claim can not be doable.
3. Ramasami Committee ought to have sought views directly from IIT college before getting ready its report, and another spherical of feedback from all stake holders once the draft report was ready.
4. Ramasami Committee claims to possess interacted with “several college members” of IITs. nobody within the Senate has admitted to possess communicated with Ramasami Committee. It shows that the interaction was very restricted.
5. It's strange that IIT Council, that ought to be primarily involved with IIT system, has approved a report that proposes changes to admission method of all engineering institutes within the country, not simply the IITs. How return IIT Council has such jurisdiction.
6. If coaching and stress are the foremost problems that Ramasami Committee is attempting to resolve, then a special approach are often thought-about. If we tend to don't assign branch at the time of admission, however do thus once a year, then the strain of every mark being necessary, can escape . we should always not be discussing simply the vi choices steered by Ramasami Committee. we should always explore all choices to enhance our admission method.
7. The $64000 downside is lack of opportunities, that causes five lakh students to do for ten,000 seats. Government ought to do one thing to enhance opportunities.
8. Using statistical procedures to work out rank of scholars from a really slender percentile band is problematic, each as a result of extraneous factors returning into determining student performance, and also the confidence one might place whereas applying to a private a statistical procedure developed on a way broader set of scores.
9. the most effective a part of JEE has been its method integrity, one thing that can't be expected from the boards to identical degree.
10. The most purpose of the ISI study is to recommend that computing percentile score on the marks- distribution from previous years additionally serves this year’s performance. This claim but isn't that well supported – e.g. around 90′ percentile level for the CBSE board, identical combination s_core (about zero.85, figure on page a pair of of ISI report) we discover a distinction of regarding 3-4 percentile ranks between 2007 and 2010. Given the formula they recommend, this may create a distinction of twelve to sixteen points within the final -”score”. However, the gap is smaller higher than ninety five percentile, and on the total, this could function a practicable approach.
40% to board exam?
11. Keeping the twelfth category marks as eligibility criteria, of the order of ninety percentile, can achieve the goal of scholars taking the board exams and hence college education seriously. it's not clear what additional are going to be achieved by giving 40‘percent weight to board marks.
12. Giving forty p.c weight to board marks will probably increase corruption and use of unfair means that within the board examinations. it's going to additionally result in favoritism.
13. Giving forty p.c weight to board marks can lead to increased coaching, as currently the scholars can select coaching for each the common entrance check and also the board examinations.
14. Giving forty p.c weight to board marks can lead to increased stress, as each mark in each subject counts for ranking within the admission method.
Difference in Standards
Consider 2 populations every of a thousand students with a complete ordering in benefit. allow us to say that Board A will manage to differentiate amongst the highest ten, these students get the marks in a very subject from a hundred, down to 91, consistent -with their individual deserves. within the different board B, the highest ten students every scores a hundred marks. within the normal means of computing percentile rank, the tenth student in benefit from the highest in Board B can have the rank ninety nine.5. Whereas the equally merited student in Board A would have scored ninety one, therefore, his percentile rank are going to be ninety nine.00, assuming no bunching in scores within the vary ninety one to a hundred in Board A. therefore 2 students, with same benefit worth, will get totally different percentile scores counting on the board, as a result of distinction of standards in Boards. ‘
For normalization of marks across boards, one shouldn't simply explore the statistical strategies, however there ought to be a gaggle that ought to each year explore the functioning the boards, the standard of question papers, etc., and tweak the normalization method on a year to year basis.
An Engineering Entrance Examination shouldn't and can't be viewed because the principal instrument of fixing massive scale issues. prevailing within the college education system-(lack of effective lecturers, mod.e of delivery, fraudulent and farcical science sensible, simply comprised processes etc.). It additionally can not be viewed as a method of ending competition for premium opportunities within the face of giant demand, despite how good is that the examination system. On the converse the doorway Examination ought to try to do its honest best to pick within the face of those issues.
We should begin with board marks solely getting used for eligibility. we are able to use board marks in future, if we are able to see that a bigger specialize in board exams have improved their functioning and reduced corrupt practices.
The Weaker Section
If corruption will increase in boards because of forty p.c weight of sophistication marks, it'll become terribly tough for college students with financially weak background to return to IITs. we are able to use the proposed Main-cum-Advanced check for shortlisting regarding fifty,000 students, and will have the old—style examination involving long answers and partial marking for proper steps. we should always do away with negative marking in JEE.
On BITS Pilani
We should study why BITS Pilani, that had its own normalization method of twelfth category marks, and used to admit students on the idea of normalized marks, has shifted utterly to an entrance check. IIT system will facilitate in guaranteeing integrity of the National check, however it can not be held chargeable for guaranteeing this on the dimensions and scope of a National check.
On China
We should study Chinese system, since they too have expanded in a very massive means within the last number of decades, they too have some superb universities, and an outsized variety of aspirants for those universities. How have they managed admission in such a situation.
On Multiple alternative queries and Aptitude Tests
Multiple alternative queries (MCQ) are terribly restricted in usefulness, and are necessary evil to modify sizable amount of candidates, together with necessity to machine grade their answers. traditional stepwise long answer queries are way more effective in assessing a learner’s skills, and thinking orientation and degree of match with the required thought method in a very context.
Multiple alternative Aptitude check is an untested bogey, or at its best an uncritical superstition, with no basis or proof that it works ( simply as measures of intelligence like IQ), de-contextualized pattern recognition or puzzle solving will fall simple prey to superficial coaching, or gaming the system, lacks the depth of a scholarly discipline or an intellectual tradition to check something real, and at its best will become some surrogate version of intuitive Maths.
We should add a check of comprehension and different subjects that are normality taught in class, however aren't a part of JEE as of currently.
Aptitude check can have a negative touching on the rural—urban divide. Urban students are going to be able to perform higher in a flair check. Hence it's unfair.
Statistical information from the past
Since we've JEE marks, board marks, and our performance information for the last many batches, we should always study correlation between these quantities, and in case, there's lack of correlation between JEE marks and students‘ performance in IITs, then JEE ought to be mounted to become a higher predictor of success, instead of removing JEE.
