A Proposal to Strengthen IIT JEE - Aimed @ Merit with Transparency and Accountability
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Learning from Experiences
A Proposal to Strengthen IIT JEE
Aimed @ Merit with Transparency and Accountability
This proposal is in two (intermingled) parts; first, we detail the motivation behind these
proposals which are based on (i) learning from past three years’ experiences, which we gained
from JEE 2006 to JEE 2008, and (ii) carrying a comprehensive post-data analysis of marks-data,
which was received by invoking Right To Information (RTI) Act 2005. It has been established
that JEE selections in 2006 were certainly based on subjective likes/dislikes, while JEE 2007 and
2008 selections were flawed though consistent.
Therefore, we suggest workable solutions which would make the JEE selection
processes/system transparent, accountable and known a priori to the candidates. The proposals
eliminate the need/scope of making any subjective decision at any stage and promote
decisions-making with the participation of publicly available knowledge sources. We identify
the following major issues ::
Technical Issues ::
1. Introduce a cutoff determination procedure which gives meaningful, effective and
stable subject cutoffs over the years.
2. Invite public participation in exploring and validating the correct solutions before
evaluation of answer scripts.
3. Set proper/balanced questions within the syllabi. Facilitate wider dispersion of marks.
4. Introduce differential grading for all the multiple choices in each question.
5. Eliminate manual corrections. Provide carbon copy of ORS to candidates.
Administrative Issues ::
6. Constitute a core group to continuously review and (re-)formulate JEE policy.
7. Do not entrust raw and coded personal data of candidates in a single hand. Do not
allow merging of such data before finalization of the results.
8. Publish complete information (including cutoff procedures and calculation of cutoffs) in
the information brochure in such a way that XII class students can understand; delete
those pieces of information which confuse/mislead.
9. Disseminate complete information throughout the year through websites.
10. Publish questions along with detailed model answers on the examination day.
11. Publish marks of candidates at the time of result declaration.
12. Reduce time from examination-conduct to result-declaration.
13. Facilitate fully on-line admission counseling and fill all (including unoccupied) seats by
sliding the admitted candidate-list and making wait-lists. Arrange a second counseling
within a week of the start of the semester.
14. Engage people of proven record and integrity. Provide value-based JEE administration.
Strengthen vigilance.
15. Settle disputes during the period from result-declaration to start of counseling.
16. Amend declaration in application form to have a choice of not-waiving the right to
challenge the irregularities, if perceived by a candidate.
In rest of this concept (white) paper, we highlight the issues with sample specific cases
and suggest workable solutions. All the proposed solutions can be accomplished with minor
changes in the existing system at little additional cost. All the data used in this document is for
general category and/or combined data, as applicable.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 1 of 161. Cutoff Issue ::
Table I includes marks of some sample candidates who were selected in three consecutives JEEs
along with a few of those candidates who did not qualify in spite of scoring huge marks in JEE
2006. It can be seen that candidates with as low as 8 marks in Physics (Sl. no. 2), 10 marks in
Mathematics (Sl. No. 1), and 15 marks in Chemistry (Sl. no. 3) out of 162 marks were selected in
JEE 2008; such candidates have been admitted comfortably in better IITs. The reverse is the
case in JEE 2006, in which candidates with as high as 54 marks in Chemistry (e.g., Sl. no. 13),
were excluded.
Table I: Inconsistent and unstable selections across three consecutive JEEs, which
have similar examination, question patterns and information brochure1
Student_id Maths Physics Chemistry Aggregate Result
In JEE 2008 (total marks in each subject were 162)
1. 10 106 76 192 Qualified
2. 122 8 66 196 Qualified
3. 96 109 15 220 Qualified
4. 16 78 78 172 Qualified
In JEE 2007 (total marks in each subject were 162)
5. 12 108 118 239 Qualified
6. 81 22 106 209 Qualified
7. 89 106 18 213 Qualified
8. 47 112 47 206 Qualified
In JEE 2006 (total marks in each subject were 184)
9. 37 48 69 154 Qualified
10. 45 56 55 156 Qualified
11. 45 56 55 156 Qualified
12. 36 116 127 279 Not Qualified
13. 101 96 54 251 Not Qualified
14. 91 94 53 238 Not Qualified
15. 75 104 52 231 Not Qualified
The candidates, at serial nos. 13 to 15 listed above, have been excluded in spite of scoring more
than double of the marks obtained by many of the qualified candidates in Physics and
Mathematics (subjects which are most needed in engineering education), and an aggregate
score which is much higher than many thousands of candidates who were declared qualified in
JEE 2006. For qualifying, a student is required to score some minimum marks, which in JEE
2006, were 37, 48 and 55 respectively in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Thus, the
candidates, at serial nos. at 13 to 15, did not have the Chemistry score which is at-the most three
marks lower than the Chemistry cut-off in JEE 2006.
The corresponding marks, in a bizarre twist, fell to as low as 1, 4 and 3 in JEE 2007,
and to 5, 0, and 3 in JEE 2008 as shown in Table II; all the three JEEs were identical and have
exactly similar question patterns. Therefore, the main contentious issue is how to arrive at
such hugely varying cut-offs across three subjects, in three consecutive years, by which more
suitable and talented candidates have been excluded in JEE 2006. IIT Kharagpur, the organizer
of JEE 2006, has supplied multiple versions of the cutoff procedure, in the last 30 months, and
none of which yet could justify the imposition of subject cutoffs at 37, 48 and 55, respectively
1
The only difference is that JEE 2006 had three question papers of two hour duration each while JEE
2007/2008 had two question papers of three hour duration each.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 2 of 16for Maths, Physics and Chemistry. IIT Kharagpur has been pulled several times by Central
Information Commission (CIC), by issuing non-compliance orders/warnings/hearing-
notices/summon to its Director/Registrar/JEE Organizing Chairman, for their act in violation
of RTI Act, yet the subject cutoffs of 2006 remained unexplained even after 30 months of
result declaration.
Table II : Cutoff variations across 3 consecutive JEEs ::
Similar examination, differing major decisions
Year 2 Subject cutoffs Maths Physics Chemistry Aggregate
Marks 5 0 3 172
2008 Percentage 3 0 2 35
Percentile 19 17 18 98
Marks 1 4 3 206
2007 Percentage 1 3 2 42
Percentile 19 20 19 97
Marks 37 48 55 154
2006
Percentage 20 26 30 28
(Official)3
Percentile 92 94 95 96
Marks 7 4 6 172
2006
Percentage 4 2 3 31
(Correct)4
Percentile 35 36 36 98
There are many other instances of inconsistencies and instability in the final
decisions/selections which can be seen from Table II by taking multiple views of the cutoffs, in
terms of marks, percentage and percentile. While the subject cutoffs for 2007 and 2008 were in
the range of 0% to 3%, the cutoffs for 2006 were as high as 20% to 30% for the aggregate cutoff
which, in 2006, was at 28%. The biggest irony in 2006 was that Chemistry cutoff at 30%, was
even higher to the aggregate cutoff; this can never happen. This is the sole reason that many
meritorious students, as shown in Table I, have been illegally and illogically excluded. May be
Chemistry cutoff was artificially raised so high to specifically exclude candidate(s) to the
dislikes of the Chairmen, JAB/JIC 2006? On looking at percentile, the candidates up to 95
percentile only, in Chemistry, were considered in 2006, while this was as low as 18 percentile in
2008; similar is the case for Maths and Physics. Can anyone justify such contrast decisions for
exactly similar three examinations in three consecutive years?
Next, we analyze data of all the three years, and show that both the approaches, namely
2006 and 2007/2008 are inadequate and do not meet the objectives to be achieved with JEE
selections. The data analysis is included in Table III. JEE selection is a two stage filtering – first
level screening is based on subject cutoffs, and the second level is a final selection, based on
aggregate cutoffs, among those students who have cleared the first level of screening. In Table
III from column (v), rows 1 and 2, it can be seen that the Single Digit Cutoffs, in JEE 2007 and
2008, have made first level of screening completely redundant when none of the candidates,
2
Total marks in each subject were 184 in 2006 and 162 in 2007 and 2008; however, this variation does not
mean anything to the merit of the arguments given herein.
3No record in support of the stated cutoffs has yet been produced by the JEE Organizers in spite of many
notices/warnings/hearings/summon being issued to the concerned public/top-executives of IIT
Kharagpur under RTI Act.
4Cutoffs were precisely and accurately calculated using data and step-wise procedure both which were
provided by the Organizers. IIT took over 2 years to provide the information after receiving multiple
notices/warnings/hearings/summon from CIC under RTI Act.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 3 of 16among 2,43,101 and 3,11,258 candidates respectively in 2007 and 2008, was excluded due to
having the aggregate and not having the subject cutoffs. There were around 60% candidates
available after first level of filtering in 2007 and 2008, which are 20 to 23 times the candidates
needed for the final list, while this number was only 1.02 times in JEE 2006.
Table III: Data Analysis with cutoffs of last three years
Number of Candidates
Year Total With subject With aggregate Above three Excluded due
Candidates scores above score above Subject cutoffs to not
three Subject Aggregate and aggregate clearing all
Cutoffs Cutoff three subject
(Level - I (Level - II (In Merit List)
cutoffs
Filtering) Filtering
alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) = (iii) – (iv)
2008 3,11,258 1,82,200 7903 7903 0
2007 2,43,101 1,42,709 7203 7203 0
2006 2,87,564 5,638 9250 5527 3723
In contrast, the high cutoffs of JEE 2006 made the second and final screening almost
redundant; out of 5,638 candidates who had cleared first level of screening, almost all,
excluding 111 candidates, were included after second level of screening. Also, due to high
cutoffs, 3723 candidates above the aggregate cutoffs were excluded in first level of screening in
spite of having huge aggregate marks while none of such candidates was excluded in JEE 2007
and 2008.
Such inconsistencies in the results of three consecutive years cannot have any
justifiable explanation. This puts a BIG question mark on the JEEs’ decision makers, their
motives (hidden agenda), their professionalism and accountability, and/or the overall decision
making process of JEE.
The above data analysis confirms that the cutoffs decisions for all three JEEs for which
data is available, were taken without any objective consideration; Cutoffs for JEE 2007 and
2008 were too low to justify their existence, and those for 2006 were too high by which many
hundreds of very meritorious students, as shown in Table I, were excluded.
Cutoff Proposal ::
Consider Minimum of Top 20% in place of considering Max of Bottom 20% (unlike in 2007 and
2008). In support of our proposal, we did the analysis using three years of available JEE data,
and came up with the following calculations. The following Tables IV and V are for the
proposed cutoffs in place of Tables II and III:
Table IV: Proposed Cutoffs with Min of Top 20%
Year Maths Physics Chemistry
2008 30 21 30
2007 29 30 37
2006 25 24 29
From Table IV, it can be seen that cutoffs are quite stable and do not vary widely as was the
case in the last 3 years. There are some variations in the proposed scheme, for example, 21 for
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 4 of 16Physics in 2008 and 37 for Chemistry in 2007; these variations are justifiable and indicate the
varying difficulty levels of the question papers. Also, this justifies that cutoffs cannot be fixed
statically before the examination, though the cutoff determination procedure can certainly be.
Table V: Data Analysis with the proposed cutoffs of the past 3 years
Number of Candidates
Year Total With subject With aggregate Above three Excluded due
Candidates scores above score above Subject cutoffs to not
three Subject Aggregate and aggregate clearing all
Cutoffs Cutoff three subject
(Level - I (Level - II (In Merit List)
cutoffs
Filtering) Filtering
alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) = (iii) – (iv)
2008 3,11,258 24,225 8040 7907 133
2007 2,43,101 23,864 7203 7187 16
2006 2,87,564 22,091 5661 5558 103
Next, from Table V above, it can be seen that both the levels of screening is making the
desired effect. The number of candidates available after first level of screening is three to four
times the number of candidates in the merit list, which is very reasonable and enough. Though,
the factor is, in the range of 3 to 4 times the number of candidates in the final merit list with
Min of Top 20%, if desired, this factor can be increased by considering Min of Top 25% or 30%
candidates, up to a factor of, say 6, as shown in the following Table VI and VII respectively:
Table VI: With Min of Top 25%
Year Subject Cutoffs Candidates above
Maths Physics Chemistry all these cutoffs
2008 26 19 26 30,310
2007 25 26 32 29,870
2006 22 20 25 28,839
Table VII: With Min of Top 30%
Year Subject Cutoffs Candidates above
Maths Physics Chemistry all these cutoffs
2008 23 16 23 38,034
2007 21 23 28 36,345
2006 20 17 22 35,115
We have generated many more tables considering many more views, including
statistical procedures, which can be provided on request.
2. Invite public participation in exploring and validating the
correct solutions before evaluation of answer scripts
IITs never provided model answers till 2006. The writer of this document could get a copy of
JEE 2006 question papers along with the answers on the directions of CIC after much resistance
and steadfast refusal put up by IIT Kharagpur throughout a year. The fear of getting caught on
the wrong foot on this count was so intense that repeated applications, from the author of this
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 5 of 16proposal, under RTI Act to obtain the question paper and the model answers, did not evoke
any response.
Finally on getting a copy and doing a correctness checking, there were astonishing
result that 11 marks of two questions were wrongly evaluated and 12 marks of other two
questions were wrongly set in Chemistry. This brought a discrepancy of 23 marks in a single
question paper. One can see, from Table I, that there are many hundreds of meritorious
students who were excluded because of missing the cutoffs by a very narrow margin in
Chemistry. Therefore, such an act is a BIG BLUNDER. The, IIT took refuge, in court of law, that
the petitioner is the only one among 299 thousand of the candidates, who had noticed the
errors, in spite of the fact that he was the only one among 299 thousand candidate who was
having the model answers. Also, the merit of any argument cannot be judged by the number of
the proponents of the argument. More importantly, instead of explaining the correctness of
answers, IIT took the position in the court of law that the admission decision cannot be
questioned.
Similarly, Mathematics question paper of 2008 which was made public along with
model answers got around 10 marks of questions wrongly set/evaluated. In a subject whose
cutoff itself is 5 marks, 10 marks is a BIG number by any count. Then, IIT took refuge that it is
too late to do any corrections.
Proposal :: Soon after the exam is over - preferably on the same day - the model
answers should be published on the web-site. Public should be invited to send in
corrections within a week. The final model answers and marking scheme should be
frozen only after this exercise, and published again.
The above is being done by a few humble counterparts of this country. Why IITs who
consider IIT-JEE as one of the best managed and toughest examination of this universe, cannot
adopt such measure which brings trust of millions?
3. Set proper/balanced questions within the syllabi. Facilitate
wider dispersion of marks
IIT never released the JEE question papers till 2006. There is serious concern among many
about the type of questions set in JEEs. With setting of the questions too, the situation is
pathetic.
As stated earlier, the fear of getting caught on the wrong foot on this count was so
intense that repeated applications, from the author of this proposal, under RTI Act to obtain the
question paper, did not evoke any response. When finally the question paper was given after a
delay of one year, the author of this proposal found two questions, worth 12 marks, directly
picked from the solved examples given in undergraduate level book of Chemistry subject.
Needles to say both the questions were out-of-syllabi. What do the JEE paper setters wish to
test – is this the way to test the analytical ability of a candidate, which JEE boasts of doing? In
the name of setting tougher question paper, JEE paper setters simply pick a few ready-made
out-of-syllabi questions, on which the coaching institutes have expertise to make their students
to mug-up such questions/solutions.
Analogously, in JEE 2008, Mathematics question papers also had wrong and ambiguous
problems of worth 10 marks. In view of the incomplete description of the questions, there can
be more than one answers, which are correct.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 6 of 16There are many such instances of inaccuracies/ambiguities, which one can find on
careful scrutiny of question papers. Ultimate losers with such incomplete/improper
description, are serious candidates who spent their precious time seriously in finding a single
right choice, and ultimately may be awarded negative marks. Also, the questions should be set
in such a way that the obtained marks should have a wide dispersion.
Proposal ::. Proper and balanced, within the syllabi, questions should be set in
such a way which facilitates wider dispersion of marks.
4. Introduce differential grading for all the multiple choices.
There is serious concern among many about the objective selections of candidates through
multiple choice questions; such a system is often criticized that it doesn’t give the right
candidates. The problem lies in the binary evaluation of a correct answer.
Proposal :: We suggest a strategy where each multiple option is assigned
differential marks based on its closeness to the correct solution. Grading should not
be binary, it should be differential; each of the solution options may be assigned
marks, in positive or negative, depending on the closeness/distance of the option
with the desired solution.
This strategy will work for all types of questions, without putting much additional
resources. The negligible additional resource, that is needed, is to decide marks for each of the
choices listed against each question. As a default, some questions may still have the
default/current practice of marking. The strategy will also enhance the range of the marks
obtained, and thus will widen the histogram of the marks obtained resulting in wider
dispersion of marks.
In case of wrong/ambiguous setting of question/answer, which is the case with most
question papers, the above strategy will work the best and there wouldn’t be any need to make
any of the questions open. The strategy of opening a question in case of any ambiguity, always
penalizes serious candidates the most because they put enough time in an attempt to find a
single correct answer.
This strategy will tremendously improve dispersion of obtained marks, and thus, the
quality of selections.
5. Eliminate manual corrections. Provide carbon copy of the
answers to candidates.
There is constant fear among the candidates that their ORS answer scripts, which are marked
with HB pencil only, might be tampered by some or the other vested interests. Such fears are
not unfounded because there have been such reports in the past. To curb the possibilities of
tampering with the response-sheets duly filled in by a HB pencil which can be easily altered by
any eraser, some entrance examinations conducted by some state governments provide a
carbon-copy of the response sheet to be taken away by the candidate. Some other like AIEEE
ensures that the filling is done by a pen. Such measures ensure that the marked answers cannot
be tampered. Also, within a short while of the end of the examination, the model answers along
with the evaluations are published for a candidate to estimate his/her valid score by him/her-
self and to be matched with the official score when the result is announced.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 7 of 16There are confirmed reports of manual corrections, made in machine graded
Chemistry scripts, in JEE 2006. In contrast, JEE publicly announces that scripts are evaluated
by machines. Therefore, the manual correction in machine graded Chemistry answer scripts is
against the publicly announced evaluation policy of the examination. It is intriguing why such
a step was needed, especially around Chemistry paper when software to evaluate an Optical
Response Sheet (ORS) can handle any of the intricacies. The manual corrections of the machine
graded scripts, smells of the foul play - it provides for possible tampering of the scripts with
some ulterior motives.
Again, I submit that IIT should not claim that JEE is the best managed examination and
such fears are un-founded. There are very strong reports of manual corrections and tampering
in Chemistry scripts of JEE 2006 by which some wards of IIT’s influential professors have
scored exceptionally high marks in Chemistry without scoring any decent rank elsewhere.
The reverse is also true that the tampering is done to lower the Chemistry scores.
It is to be noted that IIT has not yet produced the copies of the ORS scripts, even after 2
years of examination; the appeal is pending with the appellate authority; such an act is in clear
violation of the existing act and procedures practiced at different courts of law. What is IIT
afraid of?
Proposal :: Eliminate manual corrections. Make ORS sheets along with a carbon-less
carbon-copy and allow candidates to carry the carbon-copy after examination for
validation afterwards.
6. Constitute a dedicated core group to continuously review and
formulate JEE policy.
In the past three years, it has been established that the current JEE management, consisting of
Joint Admission Board (JAB) and Joint Implementation Committee (JIC), have failed to address
any of the issues/challenges faced and/or the irregularities surfaced with the opening up of
JEE 2006 process/system. Most importantly, none of the technical issues arising out of cutoff
fiasco and wrong evaluation/setting of questions addressed yet. None of the issues raised in
the JEE 2006 writ petition, filed in Calcutta High Court, has found any answer yet, other than
giving legitimacy to a compulsory declaration extracted from a candidate that JAB decision
cannot be questioned. CIC has been continuously pulling up and summoning top JAB/JIC 2006
executives, though, JAB/JIC hasn’t come with any of the plausible explanation yet.
Therefore, it is strongly desired that a dedicated core group of think-tankers, whose
one-third members retire every year, should be formed independent of JAB/JIC. May this
group be fully dedicated and replace JAB/JIC
Proposal :: Have a standing body, independent of JAB/JIC or in lieu of, as a core
group of Think-Tankers to formulate and enforce (and/or to implement) policy on
JEE matters.
7. Do not entrust raw and coded personal data of candidates in
a single hand
It is a usual practice that the personal identity of a candidate is encoded so that it is hidden
effectively. To maintain the sanctity, the coding process is carried out by external machinery;
not to reveal the personal identity, the coded data is NEVER SHARED along with raw data.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 8 of 16However, it appears that the IIT-JEE does not have such a measure, in the strictest
sense, by which the above bare minimal, is followed. Of course, coding is in place, though, the
raw and encoded data is shared with the same person, which makes a mockery of the whole
process. For the purposes of sanctity, candidates’ raw data and marks should not be in the hand
of a single person, which is the current practice.
After all, in the existing JEE system, JEE Chairman or someone at the top in hierarchy
may have access to the original personal data and the corresponding codes. There were cases in
JEE 2006, which cannot otherwise occur without knowing the personal identity of the
candidates before finalization of the result.
Proposal :: A trusted and proper process to encode candidates’ identity should be in
place. It must be ensured that none, however, high one is, should hold raw and
coded data both before finalization of the result.
8. Publish as much information as possible in Information
Brochure
JEE Information Brochure is incomplete, confusing and in fact misleading at places. For
example, Section 10.1 on Ranking has the following “ . . . Based on the cut-off marks in the
individual subjects as well as the aggregate marks in the Examination, a common merit list will be
prepared without any relaxed criteria”.
The above sentence used four terms/phrases, namely, “cutoff marks”, “aggregate
marks”, “common merit list” and “any relaxed criteria”, without ever mentioning or defining
them. I do not think that a class XII student can understand in totality. At other places in the
same Information Brochure, “total marks” and “aggregate marks” are used interchangeably
without mentioning anywhere that both the terms mean the same.
Analogously, in Section 3.1 on “Question Papers”, the following is given “There will be
two question papers, each of three hours duration. Both the question papers would consist of
three separate sections on Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics. Questions in these papers will
be of objective type, which are to be answered on a specially designed machine-gradable sheet
(ORS – Optical Response Sheet) using HB pencils only. Incorrect answers will be awarded
negative marks”.
The statement that “Incorrect answers will be awarded negative marks”, is NOT
CORRECT; there were enough marks of questions in JEE 2007 and JEE 2008 which do not carry
any negative marks, if answered wrongly. What a student needs to know, is the following ---
what is the basis of splitting the examination in two papers? Is it based on content-wise? Is the
splitting based on type of question-type? And a lot many other such queries.
For example, the patterns of question papers should be included or a web-link
provided. Qualifying JEE, Ranking in JEE, and Extended Merit list should be spelt separately
and in clear terms. In the absence of above, students are left to seek information from coaching
institutes on such trivial matters.
Proposal : Vital Information that is useful for a candidate must be given in simpler
form, completely and un-ambiguously, with sampler examples, if possible.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 9 of 16Most importantly, subject cutoff determination procedure should be included in the
information brochure with sample subject cutoff calculated from the previous three years of
JEEs data for the procedure to be adopted in the forthcoming JEE.
There are many more things which will make the information brochure a meaningful
and complete guide to a candidate at different phases of time, namely, at the time of submitting
application form, preparing for the examination, waiting for the result, and so on. This would
heavily reduce dependence of a candidate on the coaching institute to get such information.
9. Disseminate complete information throughout the year
through websites.
JEE web-site management leaves much to be desired. It does not give most of the information;
selective information is given during some selected period of time. At times, most of the
information/links are not available. For example, now JEE web-site displays the Newspaper
advertisement which was published as the JEE 2009 announcement to the public. However,
there is a link to JEE 2008, which is not available through any of the IIT’s site. Similar things
happened during JEE 2008 result declaration too; the most vital information, which is the cutoff
determination procedure, was withdrawn at the time of result declaration. The author of this
proposal had to file an RTI Application for bringing the link back. The summer is the most
crucial time for a student to plan and prepare for a JEE; during such time, almost none of the
information is usually available even for the just completed JEE through the web-site.
Only IIT can explain – whether the above was intentional, or due to web-
mismanagement? Whatever be the reason, there is no other official source to get such
information. In the absence of all the above, a candidate has no place to go other than the
coaching institutes. This is the start, a student, at any stage of his/her planning and
preparation, start moving to the coaching institute.
Same is the case with the availability of question papers. One cannot get the question
papers or sample questions from JEE for most of the year, though a candidate can get the
complete question papers with a single key-stroke from publicly available other web-sites,
maintained by the coaching institutes.
By making many of the processes open and transparent, a dual purpose is served –
dissemination of information and making the accountability of JEE system visible. Both will
reduce the dependence on coaching institutes.
Proposal :: Make all the JEE related information available throughout the year.
10. Publish questions along with detailed model answers on the
day of examination
The current practice, in recent years, is that model answers are published only when the
complete process of JEE is completed in terms of examination, result declaration, counseling,
admission and after the semester begins. Then, in case of errors in model answers, JEE takes
refuge by saying that “it is too late” to make any correction.
In fact, in JEE 2006, the author of this proposal had to spend Herculean efforts running
over a year and moving from pillars to posts carrying the parliamentary act, just to get a
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 10 of 16question paper and model answers of Chemistry, only to find that 23 marks of questions in
Chemistry were wrongly evaluated/set after an year of examination.
Then, IIT, on behalf of its Director/ Chairman JAB/Organizing Chairman
JEE/Registrar, affirmed an affidavit in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta that JEE is the best
managed examination in the world, for the past four decades, and the person is the only one to
find an error. In the affidavit, IIT did not mention that JEE was never subjected to any iota of
scrutiny in the past. IIT did not find it proper to mention that this was the first set of
questions/answers, in the past 4 decades, which was released to a member of the public for
scrutiny.
This was not the end. In JEE 2008, it was found that around 10 marks of questions were
wrongly evaluated/set in mathematics question papers. Then, IIT, without any apology, stated
that it’s too late. On careful analysis, similar mistakes could be fond in other question papers
too.
What does JEE management wish to communicate to the Indian public on whose money
they have got the brand-name? Does the IIT-JEE management have any accountability?
Proposal :: Publish questions along with detailed model answers on the day of
examination.
11. Publish marks of candidates at the time of result declaration
In tune with the arguments above, JEE perhaps is the only examination which does not
announce/release the marks at the time of result declaration.
Why the fear of getting caught on the wrong foot on this count is so intense? In contrast,
all other examination bodies including CBSC/AIEEE and state examination boards publish the
marks instantly with the result declaration. Why IIT cannot do what is done by many other
humble counterparts in this country?
IIT started publishing, very recently, marks when the complete process of examination,
result declaration, admission counseling, admission and semester-start, is over. Then, for any
perceived irregularly, IIT takes refuge that it’s too late; who is responsible for the delay?
Proposal :: Publish marks at the time of result declaration.
12. Reduce time from examination-conduct to result-declaration
Prior to JEE 2006, IIT was getting three weeks to prepare the JEE result. From, JEE 2006
onwards, IIT is getting seven week time to do almost the same amount of work. Perhaps,
getting more time is counter-productive, therefore, so many errors in JEE 2006, possibly many
things are being done with subjective consideration rather than being objective.
Many of the proposals made in this white paper, will tremendously reduce the total
work to be done for result preparation. Most of the proposals will make most of the decision
making process a priori, and therefore, the job to be done, for the result preparation, is mostly
implementation by well-defined processes, which are automatic.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 11 of 16Therefore, if the examination is conducted, say, on the second Sunday of May, the XII
appeared student will get a 4-week extra time for their preparation. This will tremendously
reduce their stress. Spin-off of this proposal is that there wouldn’t be any effort to take
subjective decisions.
Time can also be saved in between from result-declaration to admission counseling, and
admission counseling to semester-start.
Proposal :: Shift JEE Examination by a period of, say 4-week, to be conducted on
second Sunday of May.
13. Facilitate fully on-line admission counseling and fill all
(including unoccupied) seats by sliding the admitted
candidate-list and making wait-lists. Arrange a second
counseling within a week of the start of the semester.
In JEE 2006, it was found that institutes/branches more in demand were shown filled, though
this was not the case. In JEE 2008, many hundreds of seats, even in general category are lying
un-filled, this is a criminal waste of so precise national resources, which have been created by
public money for the public. Importantly, there is no published data for this. It looks ridiculous
that, in spite of the fact that there is such a tough competition for each and every seat which is
filled through JEE in IITs, seats are lying vacant unnoticed.
There are instances, in the past that many of such seats were filled by out-of-turn
allotment and/or through back door entry. Also, in a recent judgment, the Apex Court ordered
for filling up of all the vacant seats by additional counseling. Rightly, the apex court sensed
possibility of a scam, which is partly true too; in the past, some of such vacant/unoccupied
seats were filled by out-of-turn allotment.
How many in India are aware that many such high-in-demand seats, even in general
category, remained unfilled and/or wasted every year. IIT/MHRD had not yet responded to
an RTI query on this issue.
Therefore, it is strongly desired that a candidate’s option should be recorded during on-
line admission counseling. (S)he should be instantly allocated a seat as per his/her preferences
and the availability, if it’s available. In case (s)he wishes to be on upward sliding, in case of
vacancies in future, (s)he should exercise the option, with a possible constraint that the sliding
will be effective in the Institute, in which (s)he is offered a seat. For those, who do not get an
allotted seat, should be put on the waiting list, for which second admission counseling should
be exercised within a weak of the start of the semester.
The sliding cum wait-list admission-procedure is being carried out at many of the well
known institutes (e.g., BITS Pilani, NITs and many others) for the past many years.
Proposal :: Use state of the art technology to make fully on-line admission
counseling. Facilitate sliding of admitted candidates and make a waiting list.
Arrange a second counseling within the week of the start of the semester for un-
filled seats.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 12 of 1614. Engage people of proven record and integrity. Provide
value-based JEE administration. Strengthen vigilance.
I am tempted to enlist some of the errors from JEE 2006, un-intentional or intentional, as sample
data, along with a brief profile of the top JAB/JIC management. Some of the obvious/not-so-
obvious reported errors by now are:
The institute/subject allotment process, starting from 1400 AIRs (approx.), was re-done
after a month because it was found that institutes/branches more in demand were shown
filled, though this was not the case.
JAB/JIC could not yet explain, after a period of over 2 years, how one thousand of
meritorious and high scoring candidates in spite of satisfying all the selection criteria
have been excluded from the merit list.
IIT could not yet produce a procedure, in spite of submitting many procedures till day,
which could calculate the stated subject cutoffs.
IIT did not produce many of the data/information for which they have been repeatedly
warned, called for hearing, and issued summon by CIC, which is against any common
form of ethics/decent behavior.
It has been found that some wards of some IITs’ influential professors have obtained very
high AIRs in JEE 2006 in spite of not scoring any decent rank elsewhere.
Not a single written letter, written in the past 2 years on related matters, from JEE 2006’s
executives has correct contents.
There are confirmed reports of manual corrections, made in machine graded Chemistry
scripts. In contrast, JEE publicly announces that scripts are evaluated by machines.
Therefore, the manual correction in machine graded Chemistry answer scripts is against
the publicly announced evaluation policy of the examination.
Why is IIT afraid of having the whole JEE 2006 process thoroughly scrutinized? Why has
IIT been influencing every agency by its vast resources and submitting factually wrong
and misleading information everywhere.
Next, to look at the profile of just two JEE 2006 authorities – Chairman, JAB 2006 and
Organizing Chairman, JEE 2006. The son of Chairman, JAB 2006, which is the highest body to
conduct JEE, was caught for impersonation in IIT-JEE, though no criminal case was registered
against him. The son of the Organizing Chairman, JEE 2006, the highest executive authority to
conduct JEE, was admitted in IIT Kharagpur without scoring any rank in any of the competitive
examinations of the country; surprisingly, he was the only one faculty ward getting such a
pleasure from the then Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT Kharagpur in that year.
A candidate scored very high AIR when his father was appointed an academic Dean of
an IIT, though, on ethical ground, none accepts such assignments when his/her son/daughter
writes JEE. In contrast, there are cases of strong ethics within IIT. One professor resigned from
his administrative assignment as Deputy Director of one IIT, when his niece was writing JEE
from another IIT. This is not an isolated case, there are many such cases too.
JEE administration had been enjoying absolute powers for the past many decades.
There was no transparency at all; question papers/model answers were not given, a candidate
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 13 of 16was not told about his score, no selection criterion was ever informed, a candidate was not told
the reason for his selection/rejection. A candidate had been receiving his final result as a bolt
from the blue. Never any communication, in this connection, was entertained. In case of any
legal suit, JEE used to submit a sealed envelope in the court which contained two things – (i)
marks of the candidate which were not even told to the candidate, and (ii) a compulsory
declaration from the candidate that (s)he is bound by the decision of the admission board, and
the admission decision cannot be questioned. Based on this, courts had been dismissing the
legal petitions under the umbrella that JEE administration is made up of holy-cows, and
nothing can go wrong.
With the announcement of marks, though late, and with the enactment of RTI Act,
when the anomalies in admissions became obvious, JEE 2006 management, in past 2 years, has
contributed the following:
First response, dated 26/09/06 from Chairman, JEE, about exclusion of a candidate was
factually/wrong and misleading.
Then, none of the responses given, under the RTI Act by the JEE administration, had
correct contents, in the past 2 years. For this act, IIT and JEE authorities were pulled many
times by CIC, under RTI Act, repeatedly by issuing warning/calling for
hearings/summoning under Civil Procedure Code.
On being directed by CIC, IIT/JEE issued first version of cutoff determination procedure
on 14/05/06. By which, it was shown by complainant that cutoffs, as stated by IIT, cannot
be obtained by the procedure and data supplied. For example, Chemistry cutoff cannot be
more than 22 in place of the official 55.
Then, on being warned by CIC, IIT/JEE issued another version of the cutoff
determination procedure by which the complainant had shown that the Chemistry cutoff
cannot be more than 26 in place of the official 55.
CIC warning and issuing of notices continued. Then, IIT/JEE approached Calcutta High
Court by submitting wrong information and suppression of fact, for getting a stay on a
CIC hearing. Subsequently, with all the facts placed before the Hon’ble court, the stay was
vacated, and CIC issued summon to IIT’s Director/JEE’s Organizing Chairman/Registrar
and directed them to release the whole data.
When IIT/JEE released the whole data, it was established that the Chemistry cutoff was 6
in place of official 55 and exclusion of many high scoring candidates was illegal. Then,
putting a brave face, Organizing Chairman, JEE alleged, in the presence of IIT Director,
Registrar and others, that the complainant had attempted to bribe him, two years ago, for
getting his son admitted in IIT.
IIT has not yet produced any record and/or calculation in support of their cutoff
calculation. Yet, they continue to claim that their calculation is correct; the latest being a
letter, dated 01/10/08, by IIT Kharagpur’s Director/Registrar/Organizing Chairman, JEE
to CIC that cutoff in Chemistry is 55. Though, any one including a XI class student with a
bit of computer knowledge can verify with a few key-strokes, that the Chemistry cutoff is
precisely calculated to 6.
How long IIT’s top executive can continue to mislead the nation? And why? Are there
vested interests?
. . . there are many other serious concerns in the JEE 2006 case which is continuing for the
past over 2 years.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 14 of 16Proposal :: JEE work should be assigned to people having strong academic values
and integrity. People associated with JEE work should not be allowed to have longer
tenures of JEE responsibilities. JEE administration should honor the trust of the
public and provide a value-based administration. Vigilance should be strengthened.
15. Settle disputes, if any, during the period from the day of
result declaration to the start of counseling.
For the past 4 decades, IIT-JEE authorities had been living with a notion that they are supreme
on this universe, they are above any law of earth, and they enjoy complete immunity for any
crime, including criminal negligence and delay. Sole reason for this is that the JEE was never
opened for any scrutiny. All the litigation were going in favor of IIT-JEE because of possibly
manipulated information submitted, in sealed envelopes in the name of confidentiality, to
appellate and law enforcing authorities.
JEE 2006 was the first JEE which was subjected to a few bits of scrutiny, and it could not
pass even a single bit of scrutiny. There were disclosures of serious irregularities committed by
JEE executives, yet none was addressed. Had the system been magnanimous and self confident,
the errors should have been readily corrected?
The first lesson IIT must learn that they are made of academicians, whose job is to
inculcate value education. Certainly, this cannot be achieved by submitting factually wrong
and misleading declaration, by suppressing facts, by influencing every agency by its vast public
resources to be used against the same public, and putting all the its resources in denying a
teenager his rightful right, to seek admission in IIT, which he earned by his dedication and
hard-work. IITs must distinguish themselves from others, and provide instant mechanism to
address any sort of grievances. As a first step, here is the proposal:
Proposal :: A special cell should be created to settle any dispute before the start of
counseling. IIT should not take refuge that it’s too late to do any correction. IITs
should not let the dispute go to the courts on the matters on which IITs are world
leaders.
16. Amend declaration in application form to have a choice of
not waiving the right to challenge the irregularities, if
perceived by a candidate.
In JEE 2006, it was established, with all the data and selection procedure made available under
RTI Act after a long delay of over 2 years, that 994 eligible candidates, including many who
could have had very high AIRs, have been illegally excluded from the merit list of JEE 2006 due
to wrong implementation of IIT’s own procedure to decide the subject cutoffs. However, IIT
took the position, in Calcutta High Court, that the admission decision cannot be questioned in
view of the fact that the candidate and his parent had given a signed declaration, in the
application form, which this was upheld by the Hon’ble Court at Calcutta.
In spite of the court’s verdict that the admission decision cannot be questioned and despite the
fact that a serious flaw in preparation of the merit list has been established, accountability
should be the supreme. The existing unilateral declaration, which has no option and which
every applicant and his/her parent remain compelled to sign, in the JEE application form,
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 15 of 16undermines the spirit of accountability. Therefore, I propose the following to be incorporated
along with the candidate’s declaration in the application form:
I waive my right to challenge the decision of Joint Admission Board, or
I do not waive my right to challenge the decision of Joint Admission Board.
with the following assertion incorporated, explicitly by the JAB, that in case, a candidate does
not waive the right, it will not have any bearing on his/her candidature.
∗∗∗
At the end, IIT should strive for humanitarian approach towards value-based JEE
administrative system. Couldn’t the whole IIT system, having hundreds of thousands of world-
class knowledge sources, find a single one who could do the simple calculation, involving
few key-strokes, to get mean and standard deviation from a given dataset to calculate subject
cutoffs, and then provide justice to the victims of JEE 2006, which has been lingering-on, due to
deliberate bureaucratic and judicial delays, for the past 30 months? Or is this in tune with IITs’
vast resources which can influence every bureaucratic and appellate machinery? It would be
highly appreciated if one can find answers to the following questions specific to JEE 2006:
How were the subject cutoffs determined at 37, 48 and 55 for Maths, Physics and
Chemistry in JEE 2006? No record has been produced yet.
Can anyone refute the subject cutoffs which are precisely calculated at 7, 4 and 6 by IIT’s
own procedure and on IIT’s own data, in place of official cutoffs at 37, 48 and 55?
Why has IIT to vary its response so many times regarding the cutoff decision procedure?
Why is IIT resorting to huge delays in providing information by non-compliance of CIC
orders and repeatedly submitting factually wrong and irrelevant information
throughout?
∗∗∗
Acknowledgements :: The author gratefully acknowledges receiving comments, suggestions
and feedbacks, while making this document, from many academicians (IITians and non-
IITians), professionals, social/right activists and NGOs.
End Oct. 08 RajeevKumar.cse@gmail.com EklavyaJee06.blogspot.com Page 16 of 16You can also read
