IIT JEE Reform Proposal : A Summary

1. Welcome Steps : On Plus Two

− Common Plus 2 curriculum and Common Question paper base/format
− Suggestion : Include Aptitude Test in Plus 2 curriculum to minimize coaching.

2. Deficiencies of Acharya Committee’s Alternative

− No details of how to normalize the marks of Plus Two; in the absence of this
crucial input, Acharya Committee’s alternative is for ‘Academic Use’ only.
− Instead of the premise to have a single examination, the alternative has
multiplicity of examinations – One Plus Two, Three NATs, and Add-on(s).
− Increases coachings – one coaching each for Plus 2, NAT and Add-on(s); no
attempt to increase the attendance in schools
− Tremendously increases the stress level of a candidate by spreading
examinations throughout the year
− Increases eligibility cutoffs beyond 90% from the existing 60% in Plus 2
− A subjective evaluation of Add-on is error-prone and open to manipulation
− Final selection is based on a one-time manual evaluation.
− Widen rural-urban divide as well as gender bias.
− Is silent on many issues involving large scale bungling in the past JEEs.
− Acharya committee had no discussion with any real stake holders – students,
parents and teachers; Reports did not have any suggestion given by IIT faculty.

3. Salient Features of the Another Alternative as Proposed

− A single examination for admissions to all (IITs, IISERs, NITs, IIITs, states and
private) with a single merit list (all India and state ranks) for each category.
− Single examination is conducted with 4 subjects -- PCMA for engineering and
PCBA for medicals -- having equal weights; add-ons for architecture, design.
− Instead of having the above as a one-time examination, take an aggregate of
three sittings of the examination conducted thrice over a fortnight/month.
− Examination to be of multiple choice objective type with complete and
balanced coverage of Plus 2 curriculum.
− Increase the spread of marks by proper setting of questions with multi-level
evaluation (a.k.a. differential grading) in place of the existing binary.
− Integrated admission counseling (with sliding) to avoid wastage of seats.
− Student with UID is given two chances as of now, additional chance for rurals.
− With transparency, e.g., sample question, instructions, answer keys, evaluation
scheme, cutoff decision, filled-in seats etc. to be disclosed at appropriate time.
− Add safeguards, e.g., ORS filling by Pen, carbon copy for self evaluation, use
trusted softwares and ethics in all operations; eliminate manual operations.
− Change the mindset from feudal to facilitator. Attend to all errors/disputes
before admission counseling, encourage involvement of real stakeholders.
Version 09 July 2010 Page 1 of 11
 IIT JEE Reform Proposal
(As An Alternative to the ‘Alternative to IIT-JEE, AIEEE and State JEEs’,
Placed in the Special Senate Meeting of IIT Kharagpur on 02 July 2010)

Rajeev Kumar
Dept. Computer Science & Engineering, IIT Kharagpur

In reference to my oral submission, in the Special Senate Meeting of the Institute, that
the recommended alternative to IIT JEE et al. as proposed by Four IIT Directors’
Committee, headed by Professor D. Acharya, do not meet the objectives as stated in
the said report, and consequent to the directions of the Chairman, Senate, IIT
Kharagpur, I submit the IIT JEE Reform Proposal, herein, as an alternative to IIT JEE,
AIEEE and state JEEs.

I call the “Alternative as proposed by Four IIT Directors Committee” as ‘Directors’

Alternative’ in rest of this document. This report is organized into the following
Sections. Section I is on the welcome steps regarding proposed reforms in Plus Two.
Section II highlights the inherent contradictions. Section III is on desirable features of
the entrance examination as identified by the Directors Committee. Section IV is on
Directors’ Alternative and Section V is on major issues on which the Directors’
Alternative is completely silent. Additionally, I have interspersed my views,
comments, proposals, issues and challenges at appropriate places for better
readability. Finally, an alternative proposal by me to the existing IIT JEE, AIEEE and
State JEEs is included in the Last Section VI.

I : Welcome Steps
The following “Plus 2 Reforms” are welcome, however, there are some concerns:
S. Plus 2 Reforms Concerns
No.
1. Common PCMB curriculum across all boards Feasible
2. Common base of the question- Feasible
paper/instruction-format across all boards
3. Unique identity of a student to be ensured by Feasible
the UID project
4. Conducting online NAT This will further widen the
existing urban/rural divide.
5. Availability of final results across the boards Doubtful, due to unforeseen local
by the prescribed deadlines disturbances etc., though this is
indispensable to the success of the
Directors’ Alternative
6. Conduct of free and fair examination across Extremely doubtful due to local
all boards considerations, favoritism and

Version 09 July 2010 Page 2 of 11

 influence, etc.;

My Submissions : To circumvent the above concerns,

1. NAT should be made online as well as offline, by use of pen and paper, to
minimize the urban/rural divide.
2. Addition of another test at ‘Plus 2’ level will further stress an already stressed
‘Plus 2’ candidate. There will be tremendous stress on appearing three times in
NAT during one year in addition to study for the Plus 2.
3. Therefore, it is recommended that NAT should be made part of the Plus 2
uniform curriculum. Such a scheme will have PCMA in place of PCM, PCBA in
place of PCB. Such a scheme will have psychological advantages to de-stress.
4. With the above proposal, there is no need to have an X-factor weighted CWP. In
calculating a candidate’s school level performance, all the four components out
of five, PCMBA, will get equal weight of 0.25 each.
5. A model/system whose success is dependent on achieving Items, 5 and 6, as
envisioned above cannot be a practical.

II : Inherent Contradictions, Extraneous Factors, Unrelated

Data having Zero-Effort
S. Extracts from Directors’ Report Concerns
No.
1. Consultations were held with the Consultations were held with
stakeholders Chairmen/Directors/VCs/Secretaries
who CANNOT be called stakeholders;
they are the organizers, unlike the real
stakeholders, who are candidates/
parents/school-level teachers who
have at stake their careers.
Additionally, to reach to real
stakeholders and to enable their
participation thereby enhancing the
acceptability of whole scheme, the
Committee should have invited
suggestions/feedback/comments
online/offline through issuance of
Public Notice in leading newspapers
(as is done by the Parliamentary
Committees), in the matters of Public
Interest.
2. State of Tamil Nadu abolished JEE This is not relevant due to the facts that
– (i) TN has many more engineering
seats than the aspirants, and (ii) Most of

Version 09 July 2010 Page 3 of 11

 the candidates admitted are from the
TN board(s).
3. Conclusions drawn from the This section does not contribute much
performance analysis of JEEs as until complete data and quantitative
presented in Section 6 of Directors’ results are presented. Correlation
Report analysis including certain conclusions
such as “poor correlation between AIR
and CGPA from 2nd year onwards”
does not have any relevance. This is
mainly due to many extraneous factors.
Thus, the conclusions drawn, in this
section, have no relevant basis.
4. Focus shifted from +2 Science With the Directors’ Alternative,
education in School to Coaching for importance of coaching is
JEE strengthened further. Now, a student
will go for 3 types of coaching – one for
Plus 2, second for NAT and third for
Add-on tests.
5. School attendance has become a With the Directors’ Alternative in place,
casualty a student will go to Plus Two coaching
rather than attending the school.
6. Coaching classes concentrate on IIT JEE’s question paper setters are
teaching student tricks responsible (elaborated later)
7. Students suffer from burn-out Extraneous factors are responsible,
syndrome
8. JEEs are urban centric Directors’ Alternative will further
widen the gap due to increased
importance of coaching
9. Girl students fare worse than boys As above and not addressed any where
10. Dearth of quality institutions Not within the purview
11. Increase in number of students This is bound to happen in a Social
Inclusive Model, which runs on Public
Exchequer, and must be based on
growth for all

III : Desirable Features as identified by Directors Committee

S. Desirable Features Concerns
No.
1. Decision based on one-time test Directors’ Alternative is still a one-time
needs to be examined test; one-time for Plus 2 and one time for
the most crucial ‘Add-on’ test; only NAT

Version 09 July 2010 Page 4 of 11

 is best out of three, which has only 30%
weightage and that’s too in qualifying
phase
2. Students must be relieved of the In fact, Directors’ Alternative is for
pressure of multiple JEEs multiplicity of tests. For IIT-alone, there
would be 1 + 3 + 1 = 5 tests. In the same
way, many more high-in-demand
institutes (e.g., better NITs, IIITs, many
good state and private colleges) will opt
to have their own add-on tests.
3. Influence of coaching for JEE needs In the new set up, a candidate has to join
to be minimized 3 coaching (one each for Plus 2, NAT
and Add-on) in place of a single
coaching
4. Urban-rural and gender-bias has to In fact, with increased coaching effect,
be eliminated gaps for both will widen
5. Objective type of examination Not necessarily; it is due to wrong
lends itself to undue influence of setting of question paper as well
coaching unbalanced coverage of the topics. Also
due to unnecessarily silent race between
JEE question setters and coaching.
(elaborated later)
6. JEE, especially the IIT-JEE, have This is contributed mainly due to lack of
become a huge money spinning adequate transparency in the
activity processes/practices in the actual conduct
of past IIT-JEEs. Also attributed to
essentially random nature of selections
in the past JEEs (elaborated later)

IV : Directors’ Alternative
S. Alternative
No.
1. NAT should not require extensive
preparation and coaching
− Any time in a year
− Best of 3 attempts
2. Normalized Plus 2 score
Concerns
India is flooded with coaching for
Aptitude tests (for CAT, GMAT, GRE
etc.). Since there are three possible
attempts spread over a year, NAT will
take a heavy toll on school level
examination.
There does not exist any formula to
normalize effectively. Whosoever used
normalization of marks in the past,
including IIT-GATE, UPSC-CS, and

Version 09 July 2010 Page 5 of 11

 BITS, has discarded normalization.
3. Composite Weighted Performance Success of CWP solely depends on the
(CWP) Normalized Plus 2 score, which cannot
be done. Therefore, it is futile to talk for
CWP.
4. Add-on test for candidates three Major problems –
times the seats
− It will indirectly make Plus 2 cutoff
above 90%;
− Add-on is based on subjective
evaluation which is error-prone,
biased to examiner, slow, open to
manipulation and cannot scale.
− Many institutes will start opting for
add-on tests.

V : Major Issues on which Directors’ Alternative is Silent

1. Normalization: – Success of CWP in Directors’ Alternative solely depends on
normalizing the Plus Two Score. There does not exist any statistical formula –
simple or complex - which can effectively neutralize the variability quotient. Since
there are tens of Board, across the country, having hugely varying population of
candidates (in the range of a few thousands to a few millions), normalization of
Plus 2 score CANNOT be done.
Due to large variation in population, percentile is clearly ruled out.
Here, I would like to present three case studies – First is the case of BITS PIlani
who used the normalized scores for a few decades, ultimately they discarded
normalization by observing that in spite of normalizing the Plus 2 score, more than
70% of the total candidates admitted in BITS were from a single board.
UPSC used normalized score across a range of elective subjects in their Civil
Services – Preliminary and Main – examinations for the past quarter a century.
Unable to meaningfully normalize, they are under so much fear that they did not
disclose their normalization procedure in spite of receiving directions and flak
from CIC. Now, instead of disclosing their normalization procedure, they have
come up with their new proposal for Civil Services (Preliminary) in which they
discarded all those components which need normalization.
Third example is of IITs themselves. After self-realization that the GATE-
Percentile does not tell much about the candidate’s performance, IITs introduced
in early 2000s, a concept of Normalized GATE Score across the disciplines. In a few
years, IITs had their own realization that neither Percentile nor the Normalized
Score is of much worth. Consequent to which IITs started revealing THE RAW
GATE SCORE, which they could hide since GATE was introduced, approximately
three decades ago.

Version 09 July 2010 Page 6 of 11

 In the simplest term, normalization cannot be done, therefore, much hyped,
CWP is of no use. A merit list as proposed in Director’s Alternative, if done
based on CWP, wouldn’t be of any use.

2. Issues with Question Paper Setting :-- The major problem with IIT JEE, in the
current form lies with improper question setting. I include a few of the sampler
excerpts taken from the commentary of JEE Mathematics question paper of the
renowned JEE mathematician, Professor KD Joshi of IIT Bombay, who while
presenting a commentary on JEE 2008 Mathematics question paper included that:
− we have also pointed out how the questions could have been made more
interesting and challenging even within the framework of a completely
objective type testing,
− one of the reasons for the dearth of interesting questions seems to be that the
paper-setters have either simply omitted or only given a lip service to many
topics where there is an opportunity to ask interesting problems.
− there are many avoidable instances of such duplications.
− these repetitions have made the papers heavily dominated by calculus and
coordinate geometry. A rough count of marks shows that out of the combined
163 marks of the two papers, calculus takes more than 50 marks and
coordinates geometry takes even more. These are the areas where the mediocre
students are more comfortable. With nearly two thirds of the marks catering to
these areas, mediocre students who can compute fast and without making
numerical mistakes must have had an easier time.
− it does not appear that the paper-setters took an over-all view of both the
papers together. Had they done so, the duplicate and triplicate appearances of
the same concepts would have been noticed and after dropping some of them,
room could have been made for areas which have received little or no
representation.
− the greatest disappointment came from the so-called comprehension questions.
− but even after making an allowance for such inherent human fallibility, the sad
conclusion is that JEE 2008 stands out for the mistakes in it.
− There is a long list of such comments.
3. Question paper, Model answers and Evaluation:-- Professor KD Joshi In his
commentary stated that “But as far as model answers are concerned, there is
hardly any reason to hide them from the eyes of those who may be victimized
because of mistakes in them. It will be highly desirable if the model answers
prepared by the paper-setters and scrutinized by JEE experts are made open to
public scrutiny before freezing.”
4. De-Stress:-- The first and foremost objective of an examination should be to de-
stress a candidate. The Directors’ Alternative will unnecessarily put a candidate
under tremendous stress mainly due to the following two factors – (i) multiplicity
of examinations, and (ii) a huge cutoff (may be much above 90% in Plus 2 and
NAT) for a candidate to qualify to sit in ‘Add-on’ Test.
Version 09 July 2010 Page 7 of 11
5. Promoting coaching:-- It is no secret that there had been a race between JEE
question paper setters and coaching. In the process, question papers became the
un-necessary causality which forces JEE aspirants to look for coaching.
On the other hand, attempts of some of the JEE coaching (e.g., Super30 of Patna)
have been lauded by many including Prime Minister, Minister HRD, Chief
Ministers of many states and national and international media. Very recently,
PACE Mumbai coaching was accorded a status of Science School. Also, it is well
known that many of the science schools across the country do not have adequate
science teachers. Such coachings are being recognized as value additions to science
learning among school-going students.
It’s time for IIT-JEE to keep their house in order by setting proper and balanced
questions from and within the Plus 2 syllabi.
Further, there are many acts of IIT-JEEs, which promoted coaching. For example,
coachings display model answers on same day of the examination, and thus boost
their image in public, while IITs never did or did in next 3-4 months; JEE 2010 is
the exception. Candidates login to their web-sites and thus become soft target.
Similarly IITs do not disclose marks at the time of result declaration. Essentially
black-boxed nature of JEEs had been the real promoter.
6. Transparency:-- In spite of large scale JEE bungling in the past (from JEE 2006 to
JEE 2010), Directors’ Alternative is completely silent on measures for inculcating
greater transparency in the whole process of examination including admission
counseling.
7. Accountability:-- The experience of JEE 2006 to JEE 2010 has firmly established
that JEEs were/are-being conducted with zero accountability. None of the
blunder/bungling could ever be explained by any of the IIT-JEEs executive, rather,
all efforts were made to “Change the Rules of the Game after the Game was Over”
and/or take a legal shield and delay the matter to make them infructuous. All the
publicly known blunders remained unexplained yet.

VI : My Alternative Proposal
1. Best is to have a single examination (replacing IIT-JEE, AIEEE and all other
states’ JEEs) by which a student (securing a UID) can have a score and an all
India as well as State rank. A single (all India level and state level each) merit list
should be prepared by which one can seek admission in one of the engineering
colleges, including IITs, IISERs, NITs, IIITs, states and others.
2. Instead of having the above one-time examination, a candidate should appear in
three sittings of the same identical examination conducted thrice over a
fortnight/month. An aggregated score over three sittings of the examination is
considered for the final ranking.
3. The single test is conducted with four subjects of PCMA (Physics, Chemistry,
Mathematics and Aptitude). Test has equal weights for all the four.

Version 09 July 2010 Page 8 of 11

 4. There would be add-on tests for additional skills needed, for example, for
Architecture, Town & Planning, Design etc. There should not be any additional
test to test PCMA/PCMB, which is already tested by the single test.
5. Examination should have the Common Plus 2 curriculum. Thus, school level
and entrance examination have the same uniform curriculum and a student
cannot afford to ignore Plus 2. It is proposed that the testing of the knowledge of
Aptitude should be included in Plus Two common curriculum/examination.
6. Present IIT-JEEs have a heavily skewed marks distribution. There is essentially
a bimodal marks distribution, a few hundred candidates score decent marks for
around 10000 seats; most others are in the other. Therefore, scoring of marks for
most such students can be contributed to random selection of choices.
The main reason for this is that the questions are unnecessarily complex;
questions do not test much of analytical or conceptual knowledge; questions do
not have proper coverage.
Therefore, the care should be taken for setting correct, unambiguous and
within the syllabi Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs). Set proper and balanced
questions of Plus Two standard; this will reduce dependence on coaching;
students will concentrate for school level examination.
7. However, since a binary grading of MCQs does not test much of the skills of a
student. Introduce multi-level grading to test intelligence as is tested in long
question-answer format. Each option can be assigned different marks, in positive
or negative, based on its closeness to the correct solution.
Such a scheme, which is not based on binary evaluation, will yield the
evaluation quality akin to testing long question-answer format. This scheme will
make dispersion of marks wider and improve selection quality drastically. This
strategy will take care of wrong setting of questions, if any, without making it
open.
8. A student, having a UID, is given two chances as it existed now. UID will ensure
that none can abuse the system by availing multiple chances in JEEs by repeating
Plus 2 examination.
However, candidates from rural background can be given one extra
chance to minimize the urban-rural divide and ultimately make Social
Inconclusive model.
Hopefully, the gender bias may be reduced implicitly by the above reforms.
9. Currently JEEs are conducted too early, on second Sunday of April. Students do
not get time after Plus 2 exam, thereby, they do not concentrate much on Plus 2.
Having the same curriculum of Plus 2 and deferring the examination by a period
of 4-6 weeks, a candidate can do additional preparation needed for JEE. Yet,
there would be enough time left for result and admission.
10. Conduct examination with complete transparency. For example,
− Disclose model answers after the examination on the same day (current
practice is to disclose model answers after 3-4 months of examination when
Version 09 July 2010 Page 9 of 11
 all admissions are completed; JEE 2010 is the exception); invite public to send
feedback regarding correctness within a week and then freeze the answers for
final evaluation. This is the practice used in some states, e.g., CET in
Karnataka,
− Disclose complete information at appropriate time, e.g., disclose model
solutions on the day of examination; disclose marks and ORS with result
declaration so that errors, if any, can be corrected immediately.
− Make counseling fully on-line and publish filled-in and vacant seats on day-to-
day basis. Prepare a wait list during admission counseling and fill/upgrade
seats by sliding. Set deadline for students to join, else allot those seats to wait-
listed candidates. It would be best if JEE, AIEEE and all other counseling are
combined. A UID can provide a perfect solution.
− Make all decisions, including cutoff decisions, open.
− Make question format along with the Instructions public. Perhaps, there existed
no other examination in which question/instruction format is not known a
priori. If this had been public, the blunders of ambiguous instructions would
not have happened.
11. Print question paper in English and Hindi both; the left page of the question
booklet may be for Hindi and the right-side for English. Print marks of each
question (positive and negative both) along with the question. Such printing of
the question papers, will eliminate many of the printing-errors as noticed in JEE
2010 question papers.
12. Additional safeguards should be taken in terms of marking ORS by black ball
pen. Backside of ORS should be coated with a carbon film to ascertain any
tampering and a carbon duplicate of the ORS can be retained by the candidate as
a proof. A student is given a carbon copy of his/her for self-evaluation of the
score.
13. Safeguards should be taken to ensure trustworthiness of all the software used in
JEE operations along with soft data integrity.
14. Improve ethics. Do not repeat same set of people for question setting, computer
experts and JEE administration. The current practice of empowering JEE
Chairman, with the raw and coded data must be abandoned; personal identity of
the candidate should not be revealed. Randomly allocate examination centre.
Take finger prints at the time of application, examination, counseling and
admission. Strengthen vigilance
15. Change the mindset from feudal to facilitator. Amend the declaration to have a
choice of not waiving the right to challenge irregularities without having any
bearing on candidature with an explicit disclaimer that not waiving the right is
not a disqualification. Correct the errors, if any, instantly rather than taking a
legal shield and/or changing the rules after the examination is over. Settle
disputes, in house, during the period from result declaration to counseling. All
records must be kept till disposal of disputes.

Version 09 July 2010 Page 10 of 11

 16. Encourage involvements of real stakeholders – candidates, parents, school-level
teachers – in decision making of JEEs. Attend to errors rather then repeating “all
is well” though it is universally known, at times, that “none is well”
***
Acknowledgements :: The author gratefully acknowledges receiving inputs,
comments, suggestions and feedbacks, while working on many versions of the
proposals in the past four years, from many stakeholders including school-level
students, their parents, school-level teachers, IIT and non-IIT faculty (from India and
abroad), IIT students and alumni, professionals, social and media persons, RTI
activists, public watch-dogs and NGOs.
***

Version 09 July 2010 Page 11 of 11