Parameters to be considered:
1. Student Quality
2. 10+2 exams
3. Industry/foreign University perception and others worth considering.
Repost 2 Answers Mayank Singhal, Spent 5 years in IIT Bombay pursuing ... 3 votes by Vishesh Vadhera, Dushyant Bansal, and Tarun Chitra
1. Student Quality
There are multiple things that would be considered if you want to define student quality. If in the definition, you are inherently counting people with zero coaching as of higher quality than the rest than sure, for a couple of years there might be coaching classes will see lesser selection rates. I do not agree to the sentiment (my views are biased, I attended Bansal Classes in my 11th and 12th class) but if will try to remember all the points that I have heard so far and discuss them individually:
a. Inherent intelligence vs trained intelligence - Coaching classes are often equated to mass production industries where the products, students, have no individuality - no brains or efforts of their own. They are trained to be good at solving JEE questions; they tend to have no or less theoretical knowledge; and hence they do not deserve to be in IIT as much as those who had no formal training. While I agree that I would not be sitting in a room at IITB had I not been through the factory, you have to give me more reason than just inherent qualities to have me agree that I didn't deserve IIT. Efforts: I was putting on an average 3 hours in coaching a day, 9+ hours problem solving. I never mugged up a single formula. In fact in Physics, our ringmaster would only write the initial assumptions and final formula and we were asked to derive it entirely on our own. JEE is not a standard that coaching classes had set - through coaching classes, we were only training ourselves to perform better at a standard we were cross checked again. Would you value a cricketer less if he had formal training? Or a musician? Why is that at academics, any formal training is considered impartial and derogatory? Inherently intelligent people will still get through, but trained intelligence - if bad, has to be pathetic everywhere.
b. Affordability - Argument: Coaching classes are expensive and hence only the rich can afford it. I will give you a different side of the same story. I am a from a small town - a couple of decent state board schools and one CBSE School - a Kendriya Vidhyalaya (Central School). Let us assume that averaging across boards works perfectly. Now let me throw some light on the standards of the KV that we had, highest percentage that we were aware of: 93% in CBSE from the school. Highest percentage in CBSE: 100% or 99%. If CBSE is such a good judge of inherent student quality, I am pretty sure that small towns like mine, will never see a student reach IITs because we didn't have access to good education. There of course are rich people in the town, people who could afford to send their kids to big schools in bigger cities. Unfortunately, they are already overcrowded. You need more than just money to get in, you need to be kids of influentuial people. Of course these schools produce well rounded personalities, they have resources to do so. My math teacher was also my English teach next year and Sports instructor the next. I am from a middle class family, not infinite resources to spare on donations and, sorry for my snark, in buying expensive clothes to fit in with peers. I am glad that I rather went to Kota, a factory. I lived on my own for two years, I had coaching - I had school, I had expectations and I was more determined to make something good out of my life because I could see others feeling the same. I probably have less IQ than those who supposed to be IITians, but I try to make it up by putting extra effort. If you increase the weight of CBSE marks in IIT selections I can only see more students from big famous schools in big cities, for they have the training to crack JEE - we from the small schools in smaller towns don't - even if we had the money.
c. CBSE is THE standard - No it isn't. It was boring and repetitive and uninspiring. I would rather give 10 times tougher JEE than CBSE because there is no novelty in CBSE. The formats are the same, the topics are the same - the questions are repeated so often that you can see "question banks to crack 60-70% in CBSE" in every bookshop in India. CBSE books are okay, but that doesn't mean that the exam is a standard. If the intentions are to check theoretical knowledge of students - don't do it through CBSE that can be easily rigged by hook or crook, but my JEE Mains as in the old days. I feared Mains because the questions required deep thought. We prepared for them even though they were scratched ages ago because the questions were thoughtful and challenging. CBSE was just another school exam that we had to give but we hated it.
2. 10+2 As I mentioned in the earlier comment, CBSE is an uninspiring examination. When there are people scoring 100% in an examination and students are to be taught how to get that 1 extra mark by using a broader margin or a different pen - a saturation point has reached where students have to care more about presentation than content. The mess involved in generalizing standards across different state boards is obvious. Additionally, I know for a fact that there is corruption and cheating in board examinations - at least some of them. I would trust a random lottery more than boards.
3. Perception - the brand image JEE was a standard. Industry knew that the exams were tough and doing well in them required at least some basic knowledge of the subject. On the other hand, it really doesn't matter how much the student has scored in JEE in how the student will perform in IIT and after graduation. There is definitely some correlation in Cumulative Performance Index (CPI) and performance in JEE, but I think that it is rather weak. Everyone gets a fresh start in IIT. There is change in their hobbies, interests and behaviour. I see no reason for industry/rest-of-the-academia to suddenly see a increase or decrease in quality of people because of changed selection.Via Kiran Kadav.
1+ Comments • Repost • 21:40 on Sun Apr 01 2012
1. If the pattern and style of questions is changed considerably - and only this criteria is considered ignoring other factors - the student quality, at least initially, will be high. This is because coaching centers need 1 to 2 years to get used to the new pattern and to drill the techniques into students. Thus those students who know their fundamentals well and how to apply it will be at an advantage.
2. This is a big negative point. Firstly there is no level playing field - it is easier to score in state boards than central. Students might prefer to take up 11th, 12th in easier state boards than central boards. Also, now every student will be forced to do rote learning due to its high percentage of importance. This will be an additional burden on the students.
3. This will take some time to establish and is too dynamic to be predicted now. Some of the top NITs are better than the newer IITs but overall the IIT tag has more respect, if not value. Also currently the NITs have 50% local state reservation, I'm not sure what happens to that. If even that is removed, there will be a high degree of flux among the NITs and IITs in establishing a new college ranking