345 - The old IIT entrance test format is for the rich: Kapil Sibal- IBN Live

The old IIT entrance test format is for the rich: Kapil Sibal

Jun 21, 2012 at 10:59am IST

Sagarika Ghose CNN

Union Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal has made it clear that there is no going back on the new entrance test format for all the engineering institutes including the IITs. In an interview with CNN-IBN Deputy Editor Sagarika Ghose, he defended the new format saying it would help improve the declining school standards and will also help more girl students get into the IITs considering they do well in the Class 12 boards.

Following is the transcript of Sagarika Ghose's interview with Kapil Sibal on the new entrance test format:

Sagarika Ghose: Hi there. A warm welcome to this Face The Nation special. Union Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal sparked a controversy when he announced that there will be single entrance test for all the engineering institutes including the IITs. The IITs have come out strongly in opposition to this move. We have heard from the IITs so far. Let's now hear from the Union Minister himself, Mr Kapil Sibal. Thank you so much for joining us. Explain to us why you think this new exam is an improvement from the joint entrance exam.

Kapil Sibal: First of all two statements. Number one this is not my decision, this is the decision of IIT Council, which is a statutory authority under the IIT act. This is not the government's decision or a minister's decision. Number two, the IITs by and large have accepted this decision. The only opposition that is emerging at this point in time is from the senate of IIT Kanpur, and that opinion we also respect. Number three, I want to make it very clear that the last thing that the Council wishes to do is to dilute the quality of the IIT system. In fact, we are very jealous and want to protect the excellence of the IIT system. So nothing will be done to dilute their excellence. Now let me explain to you what this exam is. We feel that in India, children because they have to sit for the IIT don't bother about their class 12 board. So the school system and the standards of the school system is declining, that is number one. Number two that this has let to a plethora of coaching institutions. An IIT Bombay study shows that out of 476 students that were admitted, 300 came from coaching centres, which means that this exam has become urban centric. Those parents who can afford to send their children to coaching get admission into the IIT system. So this has resulted in diluting the school system and has resulting in a pro-urban approach and caters to the rich and powerful who are able to send their children. Number three, if you notice girls do best in the Class 12 exams. In fact any board in India the top students are girls and yet there are no girls in the IITs. Why, because parents can't send their young girls to Kota. And if they can't send their girls to Kota they can't compete.

Sagarika Ghose: Let me come to a point that is agitating a number of representatives of the IIT system, which is that this move severally intrudes the autonomy of IITs, the statutory autonomy of the IITs, that the government of India is violating the independence of the IITs.

Kapil Sibal: Well, first of all the admission process is controlled by the Council it is not controlled by individual IITs. There are audiences of all IITs saying that the Council will decide on the JEE, that is the old system that is continuing. So it is the Council that is holding the exam, which is under the Council.

Sagarika Ghose: If I could just say that many say that IIT Council itself is not representative of the IIT.

Kapil Sibal: Anybody can say anything. There is a statutory authority; there is a provision in the IIT act which says that the Council will advise on the admission process. So unless you change that law, unless you say that law is unconstitutional… this is something that the system has accepted. And no body is interfering with that system. So the final exam in this particular case is going to be set by IITs, it is not going to be set by anybody else. So that autonomy of IITs is not impacted at all.

Now what is the process? There is a two tier process and for IITs there is a separate process and for other technical institutes, funded by Center, the process is different. We have made this different for the IITs because of their objection, we have accepted their objection.

Sagarika Ghose: Well that is an important. So it is not a single exams for all engineering institute.

Kapil Sibal: No.

Sagarika Ghose: It is a two tier exams for the IITs.

Kapil Sibal: No, no, no. first of all for the centrally funded institutions which are not IITs. The NIITs and the IIITs and other centrally funded institutes, what is the exam - the class 12 board that weightage would be 40 per cent, 30 per cent for the main exam and 30 per cent for the advanced exam. The advance exam will be setup by the JAB that is Joint Admissions Board, which is an IIT. 

The main exam, majority will be IIT. So they will be setting the exam. So the ratio is 40:30:30. There will be an all India merit list and on the bases of this merit list children will choose their courses and institutions. That is for the centrally funded technical institutes. For the IIT, the board exam is not given weightage. For the IIT system the board exam will count for 50 per cent and the main exam will count for 50 per cent. Then the top 50,000 or whatever the limit is, their papers in the advanced will be judged. Their merit in the advanced examination alone will count for the admission to the IIT system, which is entirely under the control of IITs. So there is no impact on the autonomy of the IIT system.

Sagarika Ghose: So you are visualising a two tier exam. The board exam will count in the first tier, in the screening level. Then after that candidate will take advanced test, which will be set by IITs, that will determine his admission to the IITs. So even if his board exams count in the first tier, it will not count in the second tier.

Kapil Sibal: There is no weightage in the final exam because merit in the final advanced test will only be counted.

Sagarika Ghose: But the objection still is that this will hurt poor students or people who are from an inferior board.

Kapil Sibal: Let me deal with that. You know, when we confronted this issue and this issue was raised in the Council itself. Then several committees were set up, there was the Acharya Committee, there was Kakodkar Committee on autonomy, there is the Ramasami Committee on these issues that you are talking about. And then the Indian Statistical Institute was asked, Is there a formula through which we can equalise the results of all boards. So the Indian Statistical Institute, which is the top most institute, worked on a formula through which a student in a Jharkhand board gets 70 per cent and student in a Tamil Nadu board who get 89 per cent, the 70 per cent will be equated with 89 per cent. In other words there will be no comparison of marks. Nobody will get an advantage; the student in Tamil Nadu will not get an advantage. The equation will be done on a percentile bases.

Sagarika Ghose: Why will the better student not get an advantage.

Kapil Sibal: It is not better. The marking is different. There is no question of better or worse. Some boards may mark strictly some board may mark liberally. So the top percentile, the top 1 or 2 per cent will be taken. They will be equalised and the Indian Statistical Institute has tested this formula on the basis of four board results for the past four years and applied those formula to those results and realised thee is complete equalisations.

Sagarika Ghose: So if one state wants its students to get into IIT and therefore over marks its students, they can't do that because it will equalise on the percentile.

Kapil Sibal: And difference in marks in any case is 5. So he wouldn't be able to do in the main exam and then in the advanced exam.

Sagarika Ghose: But the other objection to this is that the coaching institutes will continue because advance test continues, the board exams continues. Competition continues to be as cut throat as it always is, so coaching will only increase.

Kapil Sibal: It is speculative whether the coaching will continue or not continue, I don't know. But one thing will be clear that today when children don't bother about their boards after class 10 run to Kota and for 2 years, you know, get into coaching institutions, at least they will now care about their board results. You see, when I'm living in a house, a large mansion, and I look outside and I see shanty huts outside my house, right, either I close my eyes and say that I live in my own world or I say look I have a responsibility towards other people. I think the IITs have a responsibility to strengthen the school system., and I think they must join in this national effort.

Sagarika Ghose: So what you are basically saying is that you will not sacrifice the standards of school system in order that the IITs are satisfied about their demands of excellence.

Kapil Sibal: No that demand of excellence is maintained. If there was any dilution of excellence, I would have not allowed this to happen. I would have requested the IIT system Council to relook at it. But as I said the formula so devised, it takes care of the IIT excellence and improves the quality of school system. And then takes away the tension which is the most important thing. All exams are meant for children, all admissions are meant for children so when you device a system you must look at children and not at faculty. And what is the future of children, the future of children depend on what they do in class 12 board.

Sagarika Ghose: So this is your way of bringing emphases to the class 12 board. To address the urban bias of students who are getting into IITs. And take away tension and to address the coaching industry. You believe that the coaching industry is far too powerful.

Kapil Sibal: There is a study done in IIT Bombay, by a professor of IIT Bombay saying that of the 476 students admitted, 300 came from the coaching industry, that is a 2006 study.

Sagarika Ghose: And is this going to be the format for 2013?

Kapil Sibal: Well the Council has decided, you keep on saying you have. It's not me, it is the Council.

Sagarika Ghose: So if I'm an IIT aspirant and I want to take the exam in 2013 this is the exam I would take.

Kapil Sibal: Yes.

Sagarika Ghose: There is no going back on this.

Kapil Sibal: There is no going back on this. It is a Council decision and the Council has to decide.

Sagarika Ghose: What if some of the representative challenge you in the court?

Kapil Sibal: Sagarika, any decision of the government can be challenged. The decision of the President of Indian can also be challenged. I mean, there is no issue. People have a constitutional right to go to court and vindicate their rights. So nobody can object to that.

Sagarika Ghose: The feeling is that it is too much in a hurry.

Kapil Sibal: Two and a half years is a hurry? Two and a half years of application of mind by committee after committee, Indian Statistical Institute, putting things on the website, getting comments from people, having full discussions. People went throughout the country. Ramaswamy went other people when to IITs to discuss all of these issues. It is not as if two and a half years… if two and a half years is not enough then the government should not take decisions.

Sagarika Ghose: So why do you think there are so many vocal members of the IIT system who are speaking against this.

Kapil Sibal: Sagarika, the IIT senate in Madras says it is fine. How is it any worse than the IIT senate in Kanpur?

Sagarika Ghose: But the fact is that IIT Kanpur is now going to have its own entrance exam.

Kapil Sibal: Whether who does what is something… who does what, what those procedures…

Sagarika Ghose: Will you reach out to IIT Kanpur?

Kapil Sibal: I reach out to all of them. I talk to them. And first time in the history of this country I had a personal interaction with the faculty of all the IITs. The only one objection is coming from the senate of IIT Kanpur and the argument is that no the rest is all rubbish. But IIT Kanpur represents the wisdom of community. I'm not saying no, it may, but I'm sorry democracy involves discussion. But democracy doesn't involve one section saying either you are with us or you are against us.

Sagarika Ghose: So for the moment 2013, this new common entrance test will apply.

Kapil Sibal: For the moment. The IIT Council has decided it.

Sagarika Ghose: And there is no going back?

Kapil Sibal: I don't know the IIT Council, it is the Council's decision. If the Council goes back it is the Council's decision.

Sagarika Ghose: Tell us exactly what your objections were to the existing system, to the old system.

Kapil Sibal: The existing system didn't bother about school results. The existing system made children and their parents go through mental tension. It made children go through 30 separate exams and go from institution to institution. The existing system brought about the coaching industry, which means only the urban rich or those who can afford to send their children… and the existing system didn't bother about the girl students. It didn't allow the girl students to compete; they are the best students in the country. So the existing system has a lot of flaws and I tell the IITs even today, you give me a solution, I will request the Council to look at it.

Sagarika Ghose: But they are saying that in the last 40 years we have created excellence precisely because of the controlled nature of the admissions.

Kapil Sibal: The excellence of this system is because of the excellence of the quality of the students and I also give great credit to the faculty. But it is the quality of the students because the best students come to the IITs and the best students will still come. So there is no dilution of that quality. But there are certain ills in the implementations of the present system which need to be addressed. The IITs themselves should have come up with solutions in the last 40 years.

Sagarika Ghose: What would you tell the student who is today faced with some uncertainty because he doesn't know what kind of exam he would have to take.

Kapil Sibal: You take care of your class 12 board you will have many opportunities. Because at the moment after class 10 if you run to the coaching industry you don't do well in the class 12 exam, you don't get into IIT and then you don't get to any institute. So if you really take care of your class 12 your fundamentals will be much better. And I tell the IIT system to open your windows and look at the ordinary student who doesn't necessary get into the IIT system.

Sagarika Ghose: But they will have to however now have the double burden the board exam as well as the IIT advance exam.

Kapil Sibal: Well, you know, Sagarika there is a flaw in your question, the moment you say that the board exam is a burden that destroys the argument. A board exam is not a burden it is the foundation of future knowledge.

Sagarika Ghose: Just a small technical question. How will they repeat the exam?

Kapil Sibal: They can repeat. If they are happy with their board exams they can sit for the IIT exam next year.

Sagarika Ghose: But how can you repeat the final school leaving exam that will create chaos?

Kapil Sibal: Why. You can improve your board exams. We also want two, three exams for IITs every year. Then the IITs will decide.

Sagarika Ghose: We are coming to the end of the interview but let me ask about the vision of education. You have come across with the lot of reform measures, the RTE, the standard board exams. Do you feel it is difficult to push reforms in the education sector because the stakeholders have to be persuaded, point number one. And point number two what is your vision of education because many say that you are in your quest to reduce elitism you are also reducing excellence.

Kapil Sibal: Please tell me in what manner any single decision I have taken reduced excellence. In fact all my reform measures address two issues - access and quality. And both go hand in hand, without them you cant have an appropriate school system. And you can't have a knowledge society. So children must be empowered by their school system and through the class 12 board. We must not dilute excellence and if anybody has a better solution I will embrace it.

Sagarika Ghose: So if the IITs even today come up with a better solution… are you willing to IIT faculty members.

Kapil Sibal: See anything which is better we must be open to it.

Sagarika Ghose: But for the moment these exams stand but if there is an even better exam, even better formulation.

Kapil Sibal: They may come up with something and say look this is even better let's achieve these very objectives which you have talked about in this particular manner. I'm sure the Council will embrace it.

Sagarika Ghose: Last question. Would you like to reassure the IITs that you don't want to dilute the excellence that they are so committed to?

Kapil Sibal: Absolutely. Not only… we are protective about the quality and excellence of the IIT system and its autonomy. Now we will continue to protect it because they are our premier institutions. We very much respect the faculty. Even if they have voice their opinion against us we don't think that opinion can be just brushed aside. We have issues that need to be addressed and as we move along there will be changes in this system also. We will accept those changes because ultimately that's what we are looking at.

Sagarika Ghose: So you will keep changing till you arrive to a perfect formula.

Kapil Sibal: There is never a perfect system, till we arrive at the best possible formula.

Sagarika Ghose: For the moment that joint entrance exam, the old exam is not to your liking. We need to change that. On that you are unbending.

Kapil Sibal: Even they know that. They want a different kind of change. You know, if they wanted all that why did they wait for so many years. Suddenly when I'm moving forward they are saying no that is not right, this is right. But they should have come up with these solutions because they are more concerned for the future of their children.

Sagarika Ghose: Kapil Sibal thank you very much for joining us.

Kapil Sibal: Thank you.

280 - How Kapil Sibal rode roughshod over IIT autonomy - First Post

How Kapil Sibal rode roughshod over IIT autonomy

by FP Editors Jun 12, 2012



The problem with Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibal is that he tries to be too clever by half. It was clear right from the beginning that he wanted a common entrance examination for engineering, and that is what he has now engineered by trampling on the autonomy of the IIT Senates and using the IIT Council – where the votes are stacked in favour of the government – to push his idea through.

Sibal’s technique was this. First, pretend to hold a dialogue without actually listening; next, push the idea through a rubber-stamping body and then claim that the whole process was done through dialogue and consensus. A dialogue of the deaf is no dialogue at all.

An Indian Express story explains the sequence of events to prove that Sibal did how own thing and ignored the actual consensus. He may insist that he had consulted all stakeholders before deciding on the common entrance exam for all engineering colleges, but the fact is the IIT senates and faculty members had raised objections to the new format on various occasions and these were studiously ignored.

Each IIT has a senate,  created under the IIT Act, which consists of representatives from the faculty of the IITs and students. The senate discusses the operation of each of the institutes. It is headed by the Director of each IIT.

Representative image of IIT Bombay. AFP

A committee headed by Damodar Acharya, the Director of IIT Kharagpur, was formed by the HRD ministry in 2010. According to the Express report,  the IIT Kanpur faculty had rejected the committee’s report saying it hadn’t consulted with specialists. This was as far back as 2010.

In 2011, a committee headed by T Ramasami, secretary of the Department of Science and Technology, made the recommendation that weightage should be given to Class XII marks in addition to the two exams – JEE mains and JEE advanced.

This was then endorsed by the councils of the IITs and NITs in November 2011 and by state education ministers in February 2012.

However, this new measure never found any favour among most IIT senates.
IIT Kanpur senate held a meeting on 15 February in which members of the senate criticised most of the new measures and suggested they not be implemented until all the IIT senates had discussed it. Among the major complaints they had included the quality of the class XII examinations conducted by each state education board, the methods used to collect the views of all stake holders among other issues.

However, the HRD ministry instead set up a core committee to interact with the older IITs and said they would also reach out to the academic community from the IITs to get their views on the issue.

On 5 May, the IIT Bombay senate also recommended that the new system not be implemented from 2013 and should instead be ratified by them before being implemented. The IIT Delhi senate also raised objections to the new JEE format being implemented from 2013.

Despite these varied recommendations from IIT senates and the faculty on the new JEE format, the HRD ministry told them that the final decision would only be taken by the IIT council which did not have to be dependent on what the senates had said.

However, whether the the IIT council truly represented the opinion of the IITs is debatable. Of its membership of 30-32, roughly half (16) represent the IITs and IISc (through their respective chairman and director, and the balance are all nominees where the government has clear influence. This means Sibal only had to split opinion among some of the IIT directors and a majority would support his ideas at the IIT council.

Thus even as the All India IIT Faculty Federation met Sibal on 25 May to impress on him that the senates’ views should form the basis for any decision on a common entrance test, Sibal had already decided otherwise. Which is why he told them, that while their inputs would be taken, “final decision will be taken only by the IIT Council which could be different from the IIT senates’ majority decisions”.

This statement, quoted by the Express, clearly shows how Sibal won the day by disregarding what the faculty were telling him and breaking the unity of the IIT faculty on the issue. This is not a difficult task since the appointment of IIT chairmen depends on the HRD ministry.

And on 28 May, Sibal held a meeting with the councils of the IIT, IIIT and NIT and announced the creation of the new entrance examination for engineering colleges from 2013.

While the new examination scheme  may be the future of the IITs, it perhaps wouldn’t have hurt if the minister had chosen to preserve the autonomy of the IIT senates. The faculty have a bigger stake in brand IIT than politician Sibal. All the IIT Senates were asking for was to defer the common entrance exam decision to 2014 to consider better options. But Sibal was in a a hurry for his own reasons.

150 - Scientific approach needed to include board marks in Indian Science Engineering Eligibility Test, says govt committee - TOI

Scientific approach needed to include board marks in Indian Science Engineering Eligibility Test, says govt committee

Abhishek Choudhari, TNN | May 27, 2012, 01.06AM IST

NAGPUR: The two government-appointed committees set up to look into a common engineering exam have strongly suggested a 'rigorous and scientific approach' for including Std XII board marks in the admission process.

Both the Acharya and Ramasami committees have made their stand clear on an issue which now pretty much threatens the union HRD ministry's plan to give India its first common entrance test.

TOI has accessed both the committee reports and it gives an insight to the road map for the proposed Indian Science Engineering Eligibility Test (ISEET).

The HRD ministry first constituted a committee in March 2010 under the chairmanship of D Acharya, director of IIT Kharagpur, and tasked it with finding an alternative to the present examination system into engineering colleges, including the prestigious IITs.

Later in May 2011, another committee was formed under the chairmanship of T Ramasami, secretary in the department of Science and Technology. The second committee's task (which included former chairman Acharya) was to work out a realistic method of holding the ISEET in a country where there are multiple boards and similar methods of evaluation.

While setting up the committees, the government had made it clear that the board exam marks should be 'given due weightage' thus leaving aptitude to be the main focus area for the ISEET. An HRD ministry letter dated March 8, 2010 which announced the formation of the Acharya committee emphasized that the new CET should 'constitute of an aptitude test which gauges the raw intelligence of students and lays less emphasis on physics, chemistry and mathematics as these are already tested at the board level'.

The Acharya committee recommended that before the inclusion of board marks there should be a common syllabus across the country. In its interim report, the Acharya committee says 'the board examination results could be brought to a meaningful common base if all boards use the same question paper for examination and common model answer for evaluation'. In their consultations with the Council of Boards of School Education (COBSE) the committee was informed that 'most of the boards will implement the common curriculum and syllabus in physics, chemistry, mathematics and bioscience by 2012'.

It further added that board results across the country should be released by May 1 to facilitate a smooth coordination for the ISEET, along with every student using the Unique Identification Scheme.

Later, when the Ramasami committee submitted its report to the government in September 2011, the ISEET had taken a more definitive shape. The committee said that a rigorous and scientific approach has to be taken if board marks are to be included.

This 'scientific approach' job was then given to the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) which studied results of ICSE, CBSE, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu boards. 

The ISI worked out a mathematical formula which is aimed at 'normalization' of board marks before its inclusion in the admission process.

It is this formula which is not finding favour with the IITs. A source in one of the older IITs said, "It is impossible to equate scores of CBSE to that of Bihar board. 

It is just not the curriculum but also the evaluation methods that are being used at these places." The HRD ministry officials however are convinced that the IITs are not favouring the idea of inclusion of board marks itself.

Many meetings have been held between all stakeholders but no common ground has been reached. Now everyone, including HRD minister Kapil Sibal, will assemble for a major meeting in the capital on Monday where a final decision on the ISEET is to be taken.

65 - ACHARYA COMMITTEE SLIDE SHOW

CLICK ON IMAGE TO WATCH AS SLIDE SHOW

58 - ANNEXURE - 3 Alternative to IIT-JEE, AIEEE and State JEEs

ANNEXURE - 3Alternative to IIT-JEE, AIEEE and State JEEs


An Interim Report
Submitted by the Committee

Prof. Devang V. Khakhar Prof. S. C. Saxena
Prof. M. S. Ananth
Prof. D. Acharya

Member Member Member Chairman

September 1, 2010

Sl. No. Title
Introduction 3-4

1. About Joint Entrance Examinations 4-5
   
2. Current Status of JEEs 5-6
   
3. Evolution of JEE Patterns 6
   
4. Variations among the JEEs and Admissions 6-7
   
5. Impact of JEEs in the present form 8
   
6. Expectations from JEEs 8-9
   
7. Analysis of JEEs and Suggestions for change 9-10
   
8. Recommended Alternative 10-11
   
9. The National Aptitude Test 11-12
   
10. Adjusted School Science Performance 12-14 Score and Ranking
    
11. Plus 2 Reforms 14-15
    
12. Some Deadline Dates 15
    
13. Expectations from Boards 15-16
    
14. National Testing Agency 16
    
15. Conclusion 16-17
    
16. MHRD Order for Committee Composition 18
    
17. Test Centre Design etc. 19-24
    

Content

Page No.

ALTERNATIVE TO IIT- JEE, AIEEE AND STATE JEEs

The following Committee was formed vide Order No. F.19-2/2010-TS.I dated, 8th March, 2010 (Copy given in Annexure-I) to explore possible alternatives to the present IIT-JEE, AIEEE and other State Joint Entrance Examinations for admission to engineering programmes in the country:

1. Prof. D. Acharya, Director, IIT Kharagpur -
   
2. Prof. M. S. Ananth, Director, IIT Madras -
   
3. Prof. Devang V. Khakhar, Director, IIT Bombay
   
4. Prof. S. C. Saxena, Director, IIT Roorkee -
   

Chairman Member Member Member

The Committee also had the mandate of streamlining and rationalizing other examinations such GATE, JMET, JAM etc. The Committee was advised to invite / associate Chairman CBSE, COBSE officials and Chairman CCB for AIEEE.
The Committee met six times:

1. (1)  On 16th March, 2010 in IIT Madras. Chairman, COBSE, COBSE officials, Chairman CCB, AIEEE, JEE Chairman of all IITs were present. The Committee took cognisance of the report of the IIT-JEE reform committee set up by the Directors in 2007 with Prof. V. G. Idichandy, Deputy Director, IIT Madras as Convenor and the findings of Prof. A. N. Samanta, Chairman, JEE, IIT Kharagpur in 2010. Prof. M. Anandakrishnan, former VC, Anna University, shared the experience of Tamil Nadu in the abolition of JEE in the state and admission based on the normalized +2 results with the Committee. The Committee discussed the JEEs and their impact on school education in general and technical education in particular and prepared a document suggesting alternatives.
   
2. (2)  Four different consultations were held with the stakeholders in different zones.
   
   •   In Kolkata (East Zone) on May 17, 2010
     
   •   In Delhi (North Zone) on May 19, 2010
     
   •   In Hyderabad (South Zone) on May 25, 2010 and
     
   •   In Mumbai (West Zone) on May 31, 2010
     The stakeholders included the Vice Chancellors / Directors of the Universities, Secretaries of Technical Education and Directors of NITs and one of the Directors of IISER. The MHRD was represented by the Additional Secretary and a Director in some of the consultations. While the Chairman of IIT Delhi participated in Delhi consultation, the Chairman of IIT Kanpur participated in both IIT Madras and IIT Hyderabad consultations. The Directors and senior colleagues of IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay
     

participated in the consultation meetings held in these Institutions. Director IIT Hyderabad participated in the consultation held in Hyderabad. Representatives of the Directors of IIT Patna, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar and Ropar participated in Kolkata consultation.

3. (3)  The outcome of these consultations was discussed by the Committee on 15th June in Kolkata and a draft proposal was prepared. The proposal was then circulated in IITs for wider consultations.
   
4. (4)  The Directors of the IITs met in IIT Kharagpur on 11th July 2010 to deliberate on the proposal and arrived at a consensus on the proposal on a subject test for select few and on making the merit list available to all those Institutes who have research and innovation focussed education.
   
5. (5)  The proposal was discussed with the members of COBSE in Delhi on August 27, 2010 to ensure the full support and cooperation of School Boards in bringing in desired reform in Plus 2 education.
   

1. Joint Entrance Examinations
Joint Entrance Examinations are being conducted to admit students to a group of Institutions offering degree programmes in Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy, Architecture, Management, and Computer Applications. Students from various Boards at XII level whose curriculum, syllabus and standards vary appear at All India, State and Institution level JEEs. Each JEE prescribes its own syllabus which may be different from or similar to a Board’s syllabus. Each JEE serves as a common base to evaluate students from various Boards and rank them in the order of their test score.
The JEEs differ in terms of the syllabus and the method of examination and evaluation. This calls for extra preparation and coaching. The performance in the JEE is the sole basis of ranking. Other inputs such as XII performance, aptitude, teachers’ feedback etc. to judge the merit and suitability of a student are conspicuously absent in the admission process.


The Common Entrance Examination (CEE) for admission to IITs in 1961 evaluated students on a common curriculum and syllabus. CEE did away with the multiplicity of tests, minimised costs and inconveniences to the students. The test format was designed to evaluate the higher analytical skills and ability to use combination of concepts in solving problems. Test of English, General Knowledge, Engineering Drawing etc. helped to evaluate the communication, aptitude and general awareness of the students. The

students were ranked based on CEE Score and Institution – Branch of study allocation was done as per the choice of the student and availability of seats.


Institutions like IITs used the All India Rank. The State conducted JEEs used the State level rank for admission to State level Institutions. AIEEE used both All India and State level ranks to facilitate admission to Institutes having both State and Central quota. Other Institutions also used these ranks to admit students as per their requirement. All JEEs also prepared ranks category-wise (General, SC, ST, OBC, Female and Physically Challenged etc.) to facilitate category-wise admission to Institutions.


With the increase in number of Institutions and number of candidates appearing at JEE, pen and paper mode of examination gave way to answering Multiple Choice Questions and their evaluation through use of OMR sheets.


2. Current Status
The IIT JEE is considered to be one of the toughest examinations. Nearly 500,000 students appear at IIT JEE and compete for about 10,000 seats. The number in terms of both the candidates and the available seats is likely to grow by 10% every year.


Nearly 11 lakhs students appear in the AIEEE for admission to about 20 NITs, some of the Deemed Universities and over 100 Private Colleges. This number is also expected to grow by about 10 percent a year.


For admission to State level Government and Private Engineering Institutions, State level JEE is conducted, practically in every State except Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu has dropped State level JEE and admits students to their Engineering Institutions based on normalized +2 marks. Though a student now appears at 3-5 Entrance Examinations to get an admission into a Technical Institution, the total number of students appearing at one Joint Entrance Examination or the other is around 25 lakhs.


A student is offered admission to the Institution and discipline of his / her choice based on his / her rank. The rank of the students in the JEE is determined by his / her score in the JEE. Some JEEs prescribe an eligibility criteria based on +2 examination result. For instance, IIT JEE prescribes 60% mark for General candidates and 55% mark for SC/ST candidates. Some State JEEs also insist on minimum of 40-45% mark in +2 Examination. Some States like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh gives 50% and 25% weightages respectively to the +2 performance in preparation of the Merit List.


The number of students appearing in the JEEs in many States is less than the number of available seats. Therefore, the qualifying mark for inclusion in the Merit List of the Joint

Entrance Examinations even goes down to below zero! Some of the States such as Bihar, Jharkhand and North-Eastern States do not have many Government or Private Institutions. 


Students of these States appear at either AIEEE or State Level JEEs of other States to seek admission to Technical Institutions.


The JEEs are limited to multiple choice questions in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM) for Engineering or Bio-Science (PCB) for Medicine and Pharmacy,. For admission to Architecture, in addition to a test in PCM, one has to take Aptitude Test. For lateral level admission to Engineering, the syllabus for the JEEs is limited to that of the discipline specific diploma programmes.


3. Evolution of JEE Patterns
As noted earlier, the “Common Entrance Examination” was started in 1961 for admission to 4 IITs for nearly 700 intake at both First Year and Second Year level. Nearly 15,000 candidates appeared. CEE used long answer, problem-solving, manual evaluation format to search for talent. In the early 60s, the name of the examination was changed to the JEE. In the late 70s Engineering Drawing and General Knowledge were dropped and in 1988 English was dropped. Coaching for JEE started in 70s. The perceived competition between coaching classes and paper setters made the examination more tougher and the students became more dependent on coaching. IIT JEE remained a low scoring tough examination. To cope with the increase in number of candidates, two stage JEE was introduced in 2000: an objective Screening Test followed by a Main paper that was evaluated only for those who qualified in the Screening Test. Objective testing alone was introduced in 2006.
With expansion in Engineering Colleges JEEs at State level started in late 80s. The AIEEE was introduced in 2002. RECs / NITs opted for AIEEE while deemed Universities and Colleges opted for AIEEE for some percentage of their seats. Multiple Choice Test is being followed in AIEEE and State JEEs from the beginning. Most JEEs have focused only on testing PCM or PCB neglecting other attributes.


4. Variations among the JEEs and Admissions
The country has large number of Institutions with widely varying capabilities, focus and standards. Institutes like IITs and IISER are on the top of the ladder. These Institutions offer research and innovation focused education that requires higher analytical abilities and problem solving skills using multiple concepts. Therefore the IIT-JEE tests higher analytical abilities and concurrent use of multiple concepts even from multiple disciplines in solving problems. Though the syllabus is at the +2 level, the test is well above the XII examinations. It is considered to be one of the toughest examinations and a time-tested filter of talent for admission to the IITs. It has earned a well-deserved reputation for fairness and for the integrity of those organizing the examination.

NITs and several Government and Private Institutions offer quality technical education. They admit students through the AIEEE. AIEEE tests the students on clear understanding and application of concept covered at standard 12 level in PCM. The syllabus used for the AIEEE is primarily the CBSE syllabus with suitable modifications to take care of the needs of other Boards.


The State level JEEs are used to admit students to the large number of State level Government and Private Institutions. The tests are designed based on the State Board syllabus for PCMB.
For admission to B. Pharm Courses, the States conduct Joint Entrance Examination along with the JEE for Engineering Courses. For B. Pharm, normally the States conduct tests on Physics, Chemistry and Bio-Science. However, for admission to Pharmacy Courses, IITs conduct test on Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Deficiencies in Bio- Science is made up through bridge courses.


In addition to the above at State level JEE, Entrance Examinations are conducted for lateral entry of Diploma holders in Engineering and Architecture to Degree programmes. Here, the Test syllabus is same as the State level Diploma syllabus.


For admission to many leading Institutions in Medicine and Central quota on State level Medical Colleges, CBSE conducts a Medical Entrance Test. The test is on PCB and the syllabus is CBSE XII level plus. This test is considered to be very tough requiring extensive memorization and coaching to crack.


JEE Merit List is used as the sole criteria not only for admission to an Institution but also for the allocation of the branch of study to a student in that Institution. Institution and branch allocation requires assignment of distinct ranks to individuals. The number and difficulty level of the questions that have to be answered in a limited time have been increased to make the tests more discriminating. Bunching is minimized by the design of the questions and by the use of several tier tie-breaking rules.

5. Impact of JEEs in the present form

• Since the success in JEEs is the sole criteria for admission to many technical Institutions, the focus of the better students has shifted from +2 Science education in School to Coaching for the JEEs.
  
• School attendance has become a casualty.
  
• Many coaching classes concentrate on teaching students tricks that help crack Multiple Choice Questions.
  
• Some students suffer from burn-out syndrome; some think they have “arrived” just because they cracked the JEE; some who failed to get admission to the disciplines of their choice feel frustrated.
  
• JEEs are urban centric and rural students without access to coaching fail to qualify.
  
• Girl students fare worse than boys in the JEEs despite their superior Board performance.
  
• Dearth of quality Institutions has increased the competition for admission to the few available ones beyond desirable limits.
  
• Increase in number of students has led to Multiple Choice ORS based examination, which is pedagogically not as effective as the long answer format.
  

6. Expectations from Joint Entrance Examinations
A student seeking admission to Engineering, Pharmacy, Architecture etc., has to have (1) good knowledge and clear understanding of Science subjects and (2) reasonable level of intelligence, analytical reasoning skills, general awareness and communication skills.


Joint Entrance Examinations currently assess the students in the former. Later competencies are not tested. There will be no need for the JEE in the present form if we have (i) only one Board in the country, and (ii) we conduct examinations and have assessment in fair and transparent manner. 


Present form of JEE in State or AIEEE level only assesses the performance on a common base through one time test. The Board Performance in the subjects is not taken into consideration.

Exception is the JEE conducted by IITs where one tests the higher analytical and problem solving skills using multiple concepts. Such skills are essential to admission to the Institutions having research and innovation focus in their education. Therefore, IIT JEE test items are distinctly different from the other JEEs.


For vast majority of the Institutions who focus on producing engineers for routine jobs in industry and government, a good knowledge and understanding of the basic science concepts is enough. A good XII examination and evaluation system should be able to assess the same. A method to reduce variations from Board to Board and equalization of the score should suffice.
A test needs to be organized to assess the second component as they are not currently being evaluated at the School level.
For research and innovation focused Institutions in Science and Engineering, an add on test is essential to test the higher competency level in Science subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Similarly Architecture will require a special Aptitude Test.


7. Analysis of JEEs and Suggestions for Change
An analysis of the performance of the relatively few students admitted to the IITs over the last decade in the IIT-JEE and subsequently in the IITs ( 2 tier JEE was conducted between 2000 and 2005 and a single objective-type examination has been conducted since 2006) leads the following broad and somewhat expected conclusions:

• There is a strong correlation between the Standard X and Standard XII marks and CGPA including the final performance in IIT.
  
• Both AIR and percentage marks at Standard XII are better correlated to the CGPA only upto the end of the first year.
  
• There is poor correlation between AIR and the CGPA of GE and OBC candidates from 2nd year onwards.
  
• Percentage of marks at XII level better explains group performance in later years.
  
• Students with high AIR (less than 1000) have higher score at XII level while aberrations are more prominent at lower AIRs.
  
• An analysis of the performance of students in the screening and main tests of IIT
  

JEE between 2000 and 2005 showed a considerable overlap between the sets of top 5000 students although their ranks within the sets showed little correlation. Hence it would be expedient to settle for a completely objective single examination.


The studies recommended (some already implemented)

• Screening based on normalized Board scores at Standard X and/or Standard XII and Multiple Choice examination replacing the two stage JEE from 2006.
  
• Entry barrier to be raised to 60% in the +2 examinations.
  
• Factors, other than the Standard XII marks and AIR based on PCM testing, such as raw intelligence, logical reasoning, aptitude, comprehension and general knowledge need to be considered.
  
• Need to factor in school performance more significantly into the selection process.
  The last two recommendations are applicable to all JEEs. From the discussions held by this committee the following additional desirable features of the admission process were identified:
  
  • Decision based on one time test needs to be re-examined. Opportunities to improve must be built in.
    
  • Students must be relieved of the pressure of multiple JEEs. Currently a student appears on an average at 5 JEEs all within a few days of the Board Examinations.
    
  • Influence of coaching for JEE needs to be minimised.
    
  • Urban-rural and gender bias has to be eliminated or atleast minimised.
    
  • The objective type of examination lends itself to undue influence of coaching. The conventional pen and paper examination with well designed long and problem solving oriented questions should be revived by keeping numbers in any JEE within reasonable limits.
    
  • JEEs, especially the IIT JEE, have become a huge money spinning activity for coaching centres with attendant undesirable consequences.
    

8. Recommended Alternative

•   Scores in a well-designed National Aptitude Test (NAT) should be used to capture parameters of interest such as raw intelligence, aptitude, general awareness, comprehension and written communication skills.
  
•   NAT should not require extensive preparation and coaching. The questions in the test should be so designed that it would not require inputs beyond the +2 level.
  
•   Ideally candidates should be able to take NAT any time in a year. One can also have the option to improve over (say) 3 attempts. The test could be an online test and the highest of the 3 scores shall be considered.
  
•   Standard XII Scores normalized appropriately across Boards, considering PCM for Engineering, Science and Architecture and PCB for Medicine and Pharmacy should be used to capture the School Science Performance (SSP).
  
•   A Composite Weighted Performance (CWP) Score may be computed as follows: CWP Score = X (SSP Score) + (1-X) (NAT Score)
  An X value of 2/3 is recommended to begin with. This may be revised after a few year’s experience.
  
•   There is wide variation in requirements and standards of admitting Institutions. While CWP Score should be compulsory for all. Some Institutions whose curriculum and syllabus is research and innovation oriented require students with higher analytical skills and problem solving competence using multiple concepts. Such students only can contribute effectively to research and innovation. An add on test need to be conducted in order to meet the specific needs of such Institutions of National Importance and Universities. In these Institutions the CWP Score should be used as a screening criterion to reduce the number of candidates taking the add on test to about 1 lakh. The students qualified in such a National Test should be available for admission to Science and Engineering programmes. To encourage bright students to go for higher education and research in Science and Engineering, the Government may also consider giving scholarships to the Add On Test qualified candidates similar to INSPIRE scholarship for education in Science in leading Institutions. The National Add On Test may be named as National Engineering and Science Test (NEST).
  

9. The National Aptitude Test

• The test has to be a online test that can be taken by a candidate any time. A candidate must get a chance to improve, thus may have maximum of 3 chances.
  
• To handle about 5 millions on line test, several test centres of about 500 in number have to be created.
  
• Each Centre should have its own server, thin clients, printers, storage devices, security and internet connectivity. Power back up has to be ensured.
  
• Mock testing facility should also be made available with the Test Centres. The same, however, could be made available online.
  
• The test system has to be designed and test items are to be created to make sure that large number of unique test with identical difficulty level could be administered. This will eliminate chance of malpractice. Instant evaluation and reporting of score have to be done.
  
• To have necessary credibility, the test system has to be created, administered and managed by the Government through a statutory agency.
  
• The facilities thus created could be used for other tests such as GATE, CAT, PMTS and UPSC for their preliminaries.
  

 The credibility of National Aptitude Test has to be high. Active involvement of Institutions like IITs is required at initial stage to make the test credible.

• Implementation of the scheme requires broad consensus building and commitment of the State Government and Boards to improve School education, examination and evaluation system. They must also adhere to strict time schedule for publication of result in a form that can be used by the Central Agency and admitting Institutions.
  
• Central Government must commit to the creation of Test facilities, consensus building through CABE and giving statutory status to the credible Agency.
  •To organize 5 million tests a year, 25,000 test seats are to be created to conduct one test of three hours a day for 20 days in a month. The number of tests could be doubled or even tripled to take care of the peak load. Each Test Centre should have 50 test seats and 20 mock test seats. Thus there will be 500 Test Centres. Depending on the load, one city may have several Centres. Annexure II gives typical configuration of a Test Centre. Designing, validating and administration of
  

NAT is crucial to the success of the system. Annexure III gives their salient features.
10. Adjusted School Science Performance Score and Ranking


The country has 30 Boards for conducting examinations and evaluation of performance of the students in the Science subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology. Currently, the performance evaluation across the Boards vary considerably as they differ in their curricula, syllabi, the setting of the question papers, the conduct of examinations and the evaluation of answered scripts. The variation in performance evaluation can be minimized by adopting a common curriculum and syllabus, by using common format for the question papers, by developing model answers and by adopting model evaluation schemes.


Despite all the above steps, it is not possible to completely eliminate the differences in the performance evaluation across the Boards. It is, therefore, essential to “adjust” the performance evaluation in Science subjects of the students from various Boards by comparison with a reference Board (hereafter referred to as the “Anchor Board”) using the concept of “equivalence”. The score in a Board and the score in the Anchor Board are equivalent if they represent the same relative position in the group of examinees. This will call for “adjusting” the individual Board’s scores by “equating” them to the Anchor score. Choosing the entire population to represent the Anchor Board is the best impartial choice. i.e The Anchore Board will include all the Boards. The following linear equating scheme can then be used for “normalization”.


If X represents a score in a Board and Y represents a score in the Anchor Board, then X and Y are equivalent in a group of examinees when

where, mean (Y) mean (X)
SD (Y) =
SD (X) = Adjusted (X) =

= =

= X – mean (X) SD (X)
the mean of performance in a subject in the Anchor Board
the mean of performance in the same subject in a Board Standard Deviation of performance of all students across in the
Anchor Board in a subject
Standard Deviation of performance of all students in a Board in
the same subject
SD(Y) X + mean(Y) – SD(Y) mean(X) = Y SD(X) SD(X)

Y – mean (Y) SD (Y)

The School Science Performance Score will be based on the adjusted scores in the individual subjects. The performance in each subject could be measured in a scale of 0 – 200. Thus, the School performance will be measured in a scale of 0 – 600. As the Adjusted Score is unlikely to be an integer form, we may compute upto 3 places of decimal for ranking purposes.


The score in the National Aptitude Test (NAT) may be obtained on a scale of 0 – 300. The Adjusted SSP score should be added to the scale of NAT score. This will give 2/3 weightage to SSP and 1/3 to NAT scores.


Ranking of the students will be based on the Composite Weighted Performance Score (CWPS). The choice of Scale and computation upto 3 places of decimal will reduce bunching to a great extent. However, some bunching will occur as the number of students involved is large. In such cases the ties can often be broken by using such tie breakers as (i) SSP score, (ii) NAT score in Mathematics, (iii) NAT score in Physics, and (iv) NAT score in Chemistry. Despite such tie breakers, two candidates with the same CWPS will be given the same rank.

11. Plus 2 Reforms

The Committee felt it was advisable to articulate a few necessary reforms in the +2 system in this context:

• Common curriculum for PCMB across all Boards should be introduced. (According to COBSE, most of the Boards will implement common curriculum and syllabus in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Bioscience by 2012).
  
• Efforts need to be made to ensure free and fair examination and evaluation at the +2 level in all the Boards.
  
• The Board examination results could be brought to a meaningful common base if all Boards use the same question paper for examination and common model answer for evaluation. This can facilitate use of raw SSP scores for computation of the CWP Score. Till then normalized scores can be used to compute CWPS.
  
• An agency to conduct NAT online test should be created. Necessary infrastructure has to be created to conduct test for about 5 million candidates. The physical infrastructure shall include servers, thin client, printers, broadband connectivity, standby generators, security etc. Adequate administrative support infrastructure has to be provided.
  

• The availability of Board result in time is critical to the success of the alternative. It was agreed that +2 results could be made available by May 1 in all Boards by 2012.
  
• The issue of unique identity of a candidate was discussed. It was generally agreed, the Unique Identification Scheme would be operational by then and each candidate would have a UID number.
  
• The COBSE Members have agreed to the above. They, however, require the support of the States.
  12. Some Deadline Dates
  

• Standard XII results should be available by 1st of May.
  
• All India Rank based on CWP Score shall be prepared for all candidates by 10th of May.
  
• All India Rank Certificates shall be made available category-wise : General, SC, ST, OBC, Male, Female and Physically Challenged to all candidates by end of May. This rank shall be used for admitting students to Universities and Institutions who admit students based on All India Rank.
  
• State and Category-wise Rank Certificates shall be made available for admission of candidates to State Government and Private Colleges to all candidates by 31st of May.
  
• Based on CWP Scores candidates shortlisted for add-on test for admission to Institutions of national importance and Universities focusing on research/innovation shall be available by 10th of May.
  
• These add-on tests shall be held by the end of May and the Rank based on the test shall be available by 20th of June.
  
• Online counseling shall start by 1st of July and be completed by 15th of July. Online counseling can be done at State level for State and Private Colleges and centrally for admission to IITs and NITs based on CWP Score.
  

13. Expectations from Boards

1. UniformCurriculumandSyllabusforPCMB.
   
2. Common structure of Question Paper.
   
3. Fair conduct of Examination.
   
4. Model Answer.
   
5. Model Evaluation Scheme.
   
6. Allocation of UID to all students admitted to 11th Class.
   
7. All references to Performance based on UID.
   
8. Separation of internal and Board Examination Scores.
   
9. Result Publication by May 1.
   
10. Common Software for result preparation and processing. This may be developed
    and distributed to all Boards and portability.
    
11. Passing of raw scores to the Testing Agency.
    
12. Encouraging the students to take more than once NAT over two years i.e. 11th and
    12th
    

14. National Testing Agency

1. (1)  National Testing Agency is to be created by an Act of Parliament. Only a statutory agency can ensure independence, transparency in testing of the magnitude that is being envisaged. It will have the necessary credibility and confidence of the people. To start with, NTA will conduct NAT and prepare State level and National level merit list for admission to the Science, Engineering and Pharmacy programmes. The same agency could prepare merit list for medicine. Later it may be empowered to prepare merit for other examinations such as GATE, CAT, MAT etc.
   
2. (2)  The Agency should be run by a Commission with few members of high academic stature and a Chairman.
   
3. (3)  Creation, running and maintenance of Test Centres will be the responsibility of the Commission.
   
4. (4)  The Commission will have a unit to develop testing plans and test items. Testing and validation of test items will be the responsibility of the unit.
   
5. (5)  A research unit attached to the Commission will be responsible for generating several unique test sets with equal difficulty levels besides validating and equalization of test scores.
   
6. (6)  The Commission will have a Technology Support Unit to take care of IT needs of the Test Centres, creation of Data Centre, Networking of the Test Centres etc.
   

15. Conclusion
This Interim Report gives the views expressed after wide consultation with the stakeholders on evolution of an alternative to IIT-JEE, AIEEE and State JEEs. Members of COBSE requested for State level consultations to ensure smooth implementation of teaching, examination and evaluation reforms at +2 level. It is also necessary to work out the nitty-gritty of conducting NAT, design of test system, equalization of Board scores, unique identification of candidates etc. If the alternative is in principle accepted, the details will be worked out and final report will be submitted.

Annexure – I

Test Centre Design

Each test centre should consist of a reception area and multiple testing rooms. The space designs will be created to efficiently manage test centre operations, minimize disruptions to the candidate testing experience and assure the highest levels of physical security and test integrity. A Centre should also have a mock test area.


Waiting Area
The test centres will have a waiting area for candidates so that once examinees have been checked in, no unauthorized persons—including children, family members, co-workers or friends of the examinee—remain in the waiting area or any other part of the test centre. Only candidates and authorized visitors would be permitted in the test centre. It is proposed to provide a storage facility to the candidates to place their personal belongings before entering the testing area. Within this area all check-in formalities would occur, like image capture, biometric and physical identification document verification, before the candidate is allowed inside to take the test.


Test Area
It is proposed that each testing station will be separated by sound and light absorbing privacy dividers and the computer stations would be placed in a formation restricting visibility of other computer screens. Surveillance cameras will be strategically located in testing rooms to allow viewing and recording at all times when testing is in progress.


It is proposed to take several steps to ensure that the test administrations are consistent and provide a pleasant experience to the candidates. These testing venues conform to local municipality requirements, and provide adequate parking facilities for candidates. Additionally, measures will include:

•   Ensuring Quality Candidate Services—The TCAs, proctors and other staff will be trained to be courteous, candidate friendly, disciplined and efficient.
  
•   Ensuring Test and Environmental Quality--by regularly checking the cleanliness of all test stations and testing that the quality of the monitors and test delivery output is of acceptable standards by launching demo tests.
  
•   Ensuring Security—by certifying TCAs and conducting security audits on a regular basis.
  
•   Ensuring Consistent Client Policy Adherence—In the ‘Client Practice’ manual, ( a manual where all exam policies will be documented) we instruct the test centre staff as to what needs to be done in certain situations, so that there is standardization in the conduct of tests all across the country.
  
•   Deter and Detect Test Fraud—There will be use of video cameras, their live monitoring and recording, physical proctoring, etc.
  Mock Test Area
  Mock Test area will be required to offer mock testing experience to the candidates. It will be exactly like the Test Area but with fewer seats. It will not have any physical or electronically connectivity to the Test Area. Candidates using Mock Test Area should have no access to the Test Area.
  

Annexure – II

Test Centre system setup :

Technical Requirements Hardware requirements

Configuration


CPU
RAM
HDD (Minimum) Network Internet Connectivity CD-ROM
Network Cards (NIC)
Monitor
Cabling
Printer
Crossover Cables

Server
2GHz or higher
2 GB (mandatory)
20 GB 100 Mbps 512kbps
CD / DVD ROM (Bootable)
1 NIC
15” Flat Screen / 17” CRT, 24Bit/32Bit color

Admin Node
2GHz or higher 1 GB
20 GB
100 Mbps 512kbps
CD / DVD ROM (Bootable)
1 NIC
15” Flat Screen / 17” CRT , 24Bit/32Bit color

Testing Node
2GHz or higher 1 GB
20 GB
100 Mbps 512kbps
CD / DVD ROM (Bootable)
1 NIC
15” Flat Screen / 17” CRT (screen resolution 1024 * 768) , 24Bit/32Bit color

Proxy Server
2GHz or higher
1 GB
20 GB
2 * 100 Mbps NIC 512kbps
CD / DVD ROM (Bootable)
2 NIC
15” Flat Screen / 17” CRT, 24Bit/32Bit color

Standard CAT5/CAT5e/CAT6 Cables to be used Laser printer
To be provided by the college wherever required

Software Requirements

Software / Application Operating System
Antivirus
CC proxy Windows Installer 3.1
Microsoft Net 2.0 Framework SP1
MDAC 2.8 MSXML 4.0 SP2
Adobe Acrobat Reader 9.0
Internet Explorer 7.0

Server
Windows Server 2003 SP2 Standard Edition (100% patched)
Trend Micro (from IT x.x Media)
No Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes

Admin Node
Windows XP SP2
(100% Patched)
Trend Micro (from IT x.x Media)
No
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes

Testing Node
Windows XP SP2
(100% Patched)
Trend Micro (from IT x.x Media)
No
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes

Proxy Node
Windows XP SP2 (100% Patched)
Trend Micro (from IT x.x Media)
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes

Note: The Windows Operating System software for Server, Admin, Testing and proxy node need to be 32-bit only.
Internet connectivity

•   Primary wired Internet Connection with one internet IP / Public IP for each proxy which will be configured on the outside (site facing interface).
  
•   Outbound Internet access to ports (TCP 80, 443, 11001 and 11002). Bi-directional traffic on both firewall and router, allowed for the IP assigned in step 1.
  
•   Backup Internet connection using a wireless / broadband internet provider, with demonstrated bandwidth capability to transmit 30 MB of data within 1 min; must be demonstrated per lab.
  
  
  Network Configuration
  

•   TCP/IP network
  
•   100 MBPS Switch
  
•   Server, Admin and Testing Stations has to be on the same VLAN (with same subnet)
  
•   The lab Network should be physically / logically isolated.
  DVR Requirements
  

•   Cameras should be placed so that all workstations and workstation numbers can be clearly seen.
  
•   There needs to be audio recording capability and microphones in the test rooms.
  
•   Need to ensure that the audio from these microphones can be heard on playback.
  

•   For sites that have high ceilings (10 feet or higher), the cameras should mounted to the walls at 10 feet or lower.
  
•   A camera with microphone should be placed so that the Proctor Desks can be clearly seen and heard upon playback.
  
•   A camera with microphone should be placed so that the Biometric Capture station can be clearly seen and heard upon playback.
  
•   A camera with microphone should be placed so that the Server can be clearly seen and heard upon playback.
  
•   Need to program the DVRs so that the lab number, current date and time is evident on playback.
  

 Signs will need to be placed in the cameras view indicating which lab is being recorded.
Technical staff to install, maintain and support the test centres
Trained workforce is required to install, maintain and support this network. The technical staff will undergo rigorous training.
These dedicated technical engineers will help in troubleshooting any technical issues arising at the test centre for a seamless test delivery. They would further be supported by a dedicated helpdesk network running 24x7. These technicians would also be required to pass a re-certification exam after every one year. This helpdesk network will have adequate number of level 1 and level 2 support engineers for resolving the technical issues.

Annexure -iii

Test Development

The mandate is to develop an aptitude test that can be applied universally to the wide array of engineering entrance examinations (like AIEEE etc). To do so while also introducing non-cognitive measures into the exam raises the bar still further. The selection methodology employed could very well become the new standard for all undergraduate level entrance examinations.
The test development process consists of several steps as outlined in the chart below and encompasses all aspects of continued exam maintenance. Though every step listed is not necessary, the activities included in the chart explain the types of work. The test development plan will produce a robust item bank with new items that are designed for the unique needs of H.E.T. Attributes of Raw Intelligence, General Awareness, Aptitude and Comprehension & Communication have to be taken to prepare H.E.T.

	Test Definition	Define the purpose, scope, target population, general topics, duration, number of forms, number of items and types of items.
	Job Analysis	Define the tasks, knowledge, and skill important for performing the specified role.
	Test Specifications	Review the importance and determine how many items should be written to each objective.
	Item Writing	Provide training on item writing to meet the test specifications and amounts listed in the blueprint.
	Technical Item Reviews	Review items for language and technical accuracy
	Item Analysis	Compute statistics that measure item performance.
	Item Selection	Determine which items will be used on final forms and which will be discarded or rewritten.
	Form Assembly	Distribute items across forms so that each form meets the specifications of the blueprint plan and remain equally difficult.
	Standard Setting	Establish the cut score.
	Maintain Exams	Conduct ongoing analysis of item and test statistics. Revise exams with updates periodically.

While a significant amount of analysis and design work would need to be performed before one is in a position to fully articulate a plan for H.E.T.S, a brief high-level summary of some of the key activities might prove useful to determine the course of action.


Job Task Analysis
Everything will be derived from the job task analysis. It will therefore be critical that we first validate the assumption that there is a core set of attributes and success criteria that can be used as predictors of future performance.


Test Blueprint
The data collected through the job task analysis will serve as the foundation for the test blueprint, which is an inventory of all the test objectives that will be measured by the exam. Each of the agreed upon attributed and other success criteria are converted into test objectives which are assigned various weights based on their frequency, criticality and importance. For example, an aptitude or task

In-service Psychometrics & Item Analysis Test Construction Development

Test Design

that happens frequently but is neither critical nor particularly important is given a lower weight than an objective that happens infrequently but is highly critical and/or important to the goal of being a successful engineer graduate. The weights, or multipliers, are used to determine how many items should be in the finished test for each of the objectives. An objective that has a weighting of two might be assigned one item, whereas an objective with a weighting of six might be assigned three items. The specific number of items assigned to each weight can be adjusted according to the test design.


Test Design
The number and complexity of the test objectives will help determine the types of test questions, or items that will be used in the exam, the number of items that will be presented in any one test form and the likely length of the exam. The industry standard for a recall item is one minute but items that require analytical thinking skills or higher-order cognitive abilities can require more time.
Pilot Testing
It will be important to validate any assumptions made regarding the test design through pilot testing or, at an absolute minimum, stakeholder reviews. The quality of the test questions, the amount of time required for the exam and many other factors can be verified with a properly constructed and administered pilot test. A critical aspect of the pilot test will be the cohorts selected to participate.
Registration Process
The prospective student should be provided effective and flexible options as it is a critical element in any examination programme. We propose to provide your candidates with multiple options for purchasing of bulletins (with vouchers) and a convenient registration and scheduling process.
Prospective students will be required to buy the application material that will include the official application form and a unique voucher code. Various payment options available for the candidates may include:

•   Payment by cash – students can pay at various branches of the specified Nationalised Bank or at an Authorized distribution outlet.
  
•   Payment by demand draft (DD) – students may send the DD along with a self-addressed envelope of a specific size to a designated postal address or to a regional office. Upon receipt of the request, Bulletin (including the application form and the voucher code) will be sent through courier/registered post.
  
•   Payment by credit card – Candidates may visit the website, and would be redirected to an e- commerce site that will feature an option to make the payment using a credit card. Once they fill in the card details and submit the same, a prompt will appear stating that the payment has been authorized. The bulletin, including the voucher, would then be sent to their mailing address.
  Call centre support will be provided for answering questions in support of the programme.