IIT-JEE Distortions: Why CBSE, Rich & Urban Students Fare Better

For very long the venerated and coveted IITs and their entrance exams have been considered as the great leveller in India, a country where inequality and diversity are two sides of the coin. Students from villages, from uneducated backgrounds and low economic strata have qualified for these exams. But now this notion seems to be turned on its head.

A statistical analysis of the results of 2012 admission tests by scientists at Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) in Kolkata shows that certain Boards, students from high income families, and urban areas bag most of the IIT seats. In fact, among those who had registered, students from higher income group have four times higher success rate than those from lower income group.

As for the Boards, IITs picked over 57% of their selected students in 2012 from CBSE, a board that represents that 6% of their target group.

Isn’t that shrinking the supply base of these institutions to a disastrously narrow band? And if you’ve followed the rather messy process of “improving” the supply base of IITs — not to get just factory-produced students whose primary (and secondary) aim in life becomes to ‘crack’ the admission test and then lose steam when the actual learning starts at IITs — then you’d see below how even the new system that was adopted in 2013 beats the entire purpose of admissions revamp downright hollow. Predictably, the preliminary analysis of 2013 JEE-Advanced results shows that CBSE predominance continues.

The table below from ISI  shows IITS hardly select an inclusive group. As far as board affiliation is concerned, CBSE and ICSE accounted for less than 7% of all students appearing for Class XII Board examinations in 2012 in India.

 

Composition by parents’ income Composition by place of dwelling Composition by Class XII Board affiliation
More than Rs. 4.5 lakh

14.1%

City

51.1%

CBSE

44.3%

Between Rs. 1 lakh and 4.5 lakh

49.3%

Town

29.5%

ICSE

3.9%

Less than Rs. 1 lakh

36.6%

Village

19.4%

Other boards

51.9%

All three groups

100.0%

All three groups

100.0%

All three groups

100.0%

 

The success rates of different sections of candidates (number of qualified candidates divided by the number of registered candidates) tell a similar story:

 

Success rate by parents’ income Success rate by place of dwelling Success rate by Class XII Board
More than Rs. 4.5 lakh

10.3%

City

5.8%

CBSE

6.1%

Between Rs. 1 lakh and 4.5 lakh

4.8%

Town

4.2%

ICSE

4.7%

Less than Rs. 1 lakh

2.6%

Village

2.7%

Other boards

3.6%

All three groups

4.8%

All three groups

4.8%

All three groups

4.8%

 

While no reliable data on the effect of coaching is available, the unusually high success rates of candidates from the higher income group and city-dwellers suggest that access to coaching substantially increases the success rate, says ISI.

The cat-and-mouse game of ‘normalisation’

In an exemplary act of transparency (and in the interest of the people), ISI has made public the entire minutes of meetings and deliberations that took place over the last two years leading to the 2013 IIT revamped entrance test. A humongous task for a government agency, it explains “why there was a lag between the last meeting and the publication last week,” says Debasis Sengupta of ISI. “We just wanted to put forth everything before the public.” Beyond that he’d not say anything except lament that all good intention behind the revamp remains just that: an intention. IITs are still not selecting the brightest students; if anything, the reality distortion field for the Boards, other than the CBSE, looks more unfriendly.

Because there are dozens of Class XII Boards, a long-drawn process was adopted to arrive at a new admission process that gave weight to entrance exam scores and normalised class scores.

“When performances from multiple exams are to be combined, it is usually apples and oranges. So extensive simulations on past data has to be conducted to make sure the outcomes are fair. I very much doubt if any of this was done. More thought and simulation has gone into the Duckworth-Lewis system in cricket,” says V Vinay, chairman of LimberLink Technologies and President of the Indian Association for Research in Computing Science.

Debasis Sengupta says a lot of work went into the statistical inputs that ISI gave for the normalization process. But as the documents show, none of the suggestions was adhered to.

In short, the cut-off scores for IITs are too “weak” and not the best way to select really good students, especially students with analytical and problem solving skills.

However, it’s the NIT’s where the normalization formula takes the cake. It’s as bizarre as it can get in the world of statistics. You can see the full description in the link above but to summarise it in plain English: One group of experts (from ISI) believes that all Boards, whether central or State, have meritorious students and proposes a normalisation formula. Let’s call it A. The second group (from the Chair of CBSE) assumes that some Boards (read CBSE) students “are more able” than other boards and proposes another formula. Let’s call it B. The two groups don’t agree, the latter apparently don’t provide scientific answers and the logjam continues. The issue is resolved by taking the mean of both the formulae:  Add A and B and divide by 2.

“This is true scientific black comedy,” remarks a mathematician from Chennai.

To simplify it further, as one parent explained it to me in utter frustration: “See, this is a case where suppose you have five children with different shoe sizes. To find the common size, you find the average but at size 6¼ this shoe fits no one.”

Hopefully the anomaly will be corrected sooner rather than later. As one person close to the developments said, “Things are moving fast and a lot will happen before 2014 exams.”

Still, a few facts in this bunch of documents made public need attention: There was a huge effort to make sure the CBSE students did not suffer; there has been a serious conflict of interest with CBSE, which was supposed to be an implementing agency but turned out to be a decision-making body, even recruiting people for the decision-making committee; none of the other Boards were represented or even called for consultation; please read points 11 and 12 in this ISI letter to the Govt

A fortnight ago, the NIT admission test row reached the Supreme Court. Whatever the verdict of the apex court, the case is far from settled, in more ways than one.

“As a non-IITian my view has been that the current IIT students barring may be the top 1000 JEE-rankers  are simply one-track horses, having spent about four years preparing just for the JEE at the cost of everything else. No amount of tinkering with the selection process is going to fix the core issue that very high career rewards are dependent on one or two numbers (in the current case, JEE advanced and Board normalised score),” says Swami Manohar, managing director of LimberLink Technologies, a start-up that is attempting to re-engineer education in professional engineering colleges.

Unfortunately, after the two-year ‘pilgrimage’ of IIT admission tests revamp, perhaps everyone is still standing in purgatory.

33 comments to “IIT-JEE Distortions: Why CBSE, Rich & Urban Students Fare Better”

You can leave a reply or Trackback this post.
  1. A Well Wisher says: -#1

    Politicians should not have interfered with Engineering and Medical branches of Eduation. Instead of percentile score in the board, a min. first class (60% or equivalent) in all subjects (languages inclusive) as a criterion for the board exams could be a better choice. The board exam then serves as a minimum requirement and the best should be picked up from entrance score. IIT JEE (Advanced) should be conducted on a descriptive basis instead of a purely objective question paper.

  2. himanshu sharma says: -#1

    i think competitions are to be given on oneself’s preparation and not throug any coaching…….

  3. himanshu sharma says: -#1

    students prepare for about 4 years for a single exam and lose their intelligence and become dumb.loses initiative and creativity.and practical knowledge.they just focus to “crack” the exam.Present system is wrong………………and after 4 years of preparation and then even after selection, most of ’em change the stream………..

  4. sued by normalization says: -#1

    What an Irony! Students who scored above 95% in there respective boards and even 150 marks in jee mains got admissions in the most reputed engineering colleges of the country against those who scored 250 and 90% so are the former more talented than the latter .the answer to this question is know board toppers just mug up the entire syllabus over the year solving a limited sets of question and mugging up the derivation but when it comes to answer in the class or to apply their brains they sit like dumb assess unlike those who actually have a good knowledge of concepts and who shouted good in mains and advance those bastar who have ruined the country now want to ruin the education system of india

  5. The IITJEE entrance persisting before these mad, politically driven changes were brought in , had produced top class engineers and world- beaters. All students who made it to IIT’s through the JEE were exceptionally talented science students. All of them got over 60% in their respective board exams. So where was the question of neglecting school education ?? It was one ministers personal view , not reflecting reality!! Even the Kota students who were selected for IIT’s did not achieve less than 60% in board exams. So does Mr. Kapil Sibal want to say that only if you score 90% you can prove that you haven’t neglected school ?? And why this mad criterion only for engineering aspirants ? What about medicine or architecture students ?? Hasty political decisions in deciding IIT entrance exams will lead only to chaos, confusion and gradual dilution of quality in Indias only high quality education brand name. Once IIT’s too become a victim of politics , the Indian system will have come full circle. We shall have condemned everyone to mediocrity in line with our political system. So, please do not interfere with IIT’s. Let them have their own specially designed entrance exam , tailored specifically to choose brilliant students with exceptional analytical and logical skills which no school exam is designed to test.

    • Request you Arnab to add more requirements for choosing brilliant students at time of IIT entrance test,

      Very good Holistic thinking skills which can be in future help those technological Leaders in any sector with aim to contribute to society at national or global level.

      • Holistic thinking skills are , to a limited extent, a function of the education that students have already recieved upto class ten, when all subjects including history , languages, geography etc are taught in some detail. Holistic management skills are to be taught and acquired in management schools. Technical institutes like IIT by definition focus on engineering and technical skills, the primary task for which they were set up. They cannot be expected to be a one-stop-shop for all kinds of leadership skills. That said , there are many natural leaders in our IIT’s , by default rather than by design. Good thinking by Atul Patel. Appreciate it.

        • Sir , thanking you for appreciating me. Please note i have not suggested to keep some more syllabus during engineering in IIT on holistic thinking development. Rather keep some questions based on it during the entrance test of IIT only, so that we can have holy thinkers in technology field which is Hugh necessary requirement of market. Thanking you Mr. Arnab Deka.

    • Sanghi, I personally feel that even the pesernt IIT/JEE system is far from being perfect.1. “I am saying that a person with x percentile rank (not percent marks) in CBSE is better academically prepared than a person with same percentile rank in a typical state board.”I think the goal of JEE should be to select best brains with academic tenacity and interest for the program, instead of just academic preparation in JEE syllabus(P-C-M).There are students who were exceptional in physics/math/cs but couldn’t clear chemistry cut-off. For CSE students why do we need chemistry cut-off? I did not feel too much academic preparation in physics/chemistry was needed for a CS B.Tech.Similarly, I know a student really exceptional in chemistry/bio and comparatively average in math/physics. He was really passionate about biotech but missed it by few ranks because of his total. JEE doesnot take students aptitude for that particular program into consideration.That is why I think department allocation should be done at the end of 1st year when students get a feel about the engineering subjects and programs.2. I joined KGP CS from a state board, vernacular medium school. I found most of the students were from CBSE/ISC, majority were from citiesand had coaching at Hyd/Kota/Delhi/Chandigarh. No doubt they were well-prepared for JEE, but were all of them the best bet for research/top technical jobs? NO!There were arrogant students who were burnt out after JEE and still used to think they were superior than any non-IITians.When I joined my PhD program in a top-tier US university I found many students from Jadavpur University/Anna University/BITS Pilani/NITswere more bright and diligent than many IITians. These students were not able to clear JEE because of the syllabus-difference(with the state board),medium problem(IIT question papers were in english and many of these students studied in vernacular medium) and weren’t fortunate enough to get goodcoaching or live in big cities. However they had raw talent and perseverance which finally helped them to do better. Whereas many IITians faded away after one exam.3. Apart from top students in IIT, I have seen, in general, a correlation between boards results and GPA. I dont know whether doing good in boards has something to do with tenacity or not. It is completely a personal observation, may be you could support this with your experience in IITK. 4.”After I posted it, I have been told of better numbers. CBSE Science is less than 10 percent of all india science students. So, if we want to make sure that 10,000 CBSE students make it to the next round, then the total students selected would have to be more than 1L. And if you further consider that at least some of those CBSE students are interested in alternate careers like medicine, law, economics, or go abroad, etc., then the numbers will have to be even larger, may be around 2L.”This is not logical as you are assuming only CBSE science students go for medicine,econ etc. and not the state boards students. 🙂

  6. The study misses out some aspects: (i) many students from rural areas go to urban centres like Kota, Bhillai, Hyderabad to prepare from IITJEE by attending coaching classes. These studnets tpycially enroll for CBSE board. So actual study would have been better if it had checked % of students who studied from 1st to 10th standard in CBSE. (ii) from strong anecdotal evidence, it is myth to say that only well off students attend coaching classes. I have personally visited Kota several times and found many students from lower middle class. Coaching certainly needs fees, but even on this score compare the cost of putting a child in a good private school right from 1st to 12th, versus someone from smaller centres who has to spend more mainly for the 11th and 12th. For most of those kids from smaller places, good schools are simply not available. (iii) Your own statistics say that over 36% of students come from families with less than 1 lakh yearly income and another 45% come from those between 1 lakh and 4.5 lakh. This statistic cannot be undermined by then taking these as success rate % (it is not very clear if it is % of population or % of students who appear). It is still a healthy %. The problem for poorer sections lie in extremely poor schooling. This is brought our by several studies on basic education (e.g. Pratham, Azim Premji Foundation etc).(iv) the technical deficiencies claimed – like low cut off marks which do not test analytical or problem solving skills appear to be made with very little understanding of how students work for qualify for the test. It is a competitive test and those who score higher get better choices of place and branch. The last few thousand qualifiers may even not get anything they want – you can check with recent students and parents. So the last few students who qualify at cut off level – do not define the normal qualifiers level.

    This is not to say that the JEE is perfect. But in a public domain scenraio where we do not tolerate any subjectivity, there is little alternative.

    By the way, the 2013 process included a need to be in top 20% of each board. This has created its own set of complications.

    • Paresh: There are many questions regarding this study. Some even asked if a time-series analysis can be or has been done on the admissions data to find out how the new system or the coaching phenomena have positively or negatively impacted the IIT system- be it in terms of quality or geographic distribution of students. ISI says they did this study from secondary data which IIT Kanpur has put in public domain. Clearly, it’s the IITs themselves which can put such a project on a priority and come out with some findings. I think this study is better understood if seen in the current context, the 2013 test, which raised more questions than addressing previous issues.

      • Seema, appreciate your frank reply, which is more with a standpoint as a reporting journalist rather than as a judge of what is right or wrong. In other countries, particularly in US, the admission process does allow subjectivity, as the university assess the student on aspects like social involvement or projects etc. They can do so because students are not bent on entering only one set of universities. In India, our institutions are not allowed any degree of subjectivity. So the test (or combination of test plus board exam) has to be very specific and only from these test marks, they can admit students. Then some people question whether the test measure raw intelligence of students. But this can also be countered by asking if only raw intelligence is important? Is the student’s determination to work hard for the admission also not equally important? After all for success in life and work, dedicated and focused work in particular domain or company is also equally important. I think while there can be studies like this and more, and IITs should listen to them, we need to also respect the freedom of IITs to ultimately evaluate and take best decision. Government interference will not do any good and can potentially spoil the system. The only real solution for having less disappointment among deserving students is to improve standards of other institutions so that they come closer to standards at IIT.

        • Seema Singh says: -#4

          Yes Paresh, This post is just a reportage work. I haven’t put my journalistic energy to this issue and I don’t think I have studied it enough to say what is the best way forward. Ideally, each IIT should have more autonomy and more freedom to shape themselves in the way they want. The benchmark should be they be counted among the best in the world, on most parameters. What will it take for each of them? Let them figure it out. But I do have a point of view on the govt interference — it should be next to nothing. I closely followed the HRD ministry’s Aakash tablet project and I think it’s worse than a mess. I am surprised why govts have to get into such things. Keynes said it aptly: ‘The imp thing for Govt is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all.”

          • Seema, you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the Government interference. Of course the Government heads are hard enough to ignore any and many such nails. You would be doing a great service if you write to highlight about need for autonomy at all levels in our education system. I also entirely agree with you that each IIT should have freedom to pursue their own development.

            Unfortunately, our traditional universities, many of which had very good reputation at the time of independence, have been hurt badly by (i) Government interference from top and (ii) bureaucratic structures within killing internal autonomy for their own departments and for their affiliated colleges.

            Every reported problem is used to actually make more rules and regulations in the strange belief that more rules and regulations will be used by those at top to bring more transparency and will protect students from arbitrary decisions. But this merely (i) makes students subject to arbitrary decisions from top which may be good for some situation but not for all (ii) destroys creativity and innovation at grass roots and (iii) destroys accountability of teachers and colleges for improvement since they have very little autonomy.

            We are diverse country and creativity can only be fostered if actual educationists – i.e. teachers at grass root levels in institutions are allowed reasonable freedom to take initiatives and try new methods, new programs, new syllabus etc. and develop different ways to succeed in different conditions. There is certainly chances of some failures, but the current alternative of rule based system decided from top by a few “experts” has clearly failed.

            The regulatory authority should concentrate efforts in creating transparency of offerings etc., and promote autonomy. Transparency will allow students, parents and employers to be a far better judge of education institutions than what Government or education mandarins can ever be.

    • Prof Sanghi,The question I am aksnig here may have already been answered by you in some other posts/comments so please pardon me for my ignorance.Since they decided to change the JEE, there must be some reasons for doing the same. One reason can be to fix something that is wrong with the current one and the other reason can be to make it even better. In the first case (to fix a wrong), one needs to tell what was that wrong which is being fixed. Did they list the shortcomings in the current JEE and then suggested the new JEE with explanations on how the new JEE fixes those shortcomings one by one. In the second case (to improve), again the items that are being improved need to be listed and the explanations on how the provisions in the new JEE will improve the specific provisions of the old JEE. If this information is available then I would like to have a look.If the purpose is to genuinely discourage the coaching culture and therefore to choose students who are actually brilliant and not those who are trained to be brilliant (actually trained to score in a test of a particular format), then an exam that tests the intelligence of a student along with his understanding of some subjects needs to be designed (and then improved over the years). There is no need to reinvent the wheel, current JEE must be trying to achieve this to some extent; additionally, we can learn from the other successful systems in the world. I don’t agree with the common argument that by giving weightage to the board exams marks, student will be forced to take the board exams seriously. JEE’s primary objective is to choose the best students from among those who are taking the test and not to fix the secondary education as provided by various boards. Moreover, board exams are not becoming irrelevant just because of the JEE aspirants. Even if there are few lakhs of JEE aspirants every years, there are still many more who do not take JEE and therefore the objective of making students to take boards exams seriously cannot be achieved by the JEE in any case.If the purpose is to somehow make IITs more inclusive (in addition to reservations, representation from more state boards) then that objective should be stated clearly. The debate then will be different because in that case the objective is not to choose the best candidates by considering the entire nation as one pool but to make that selection state/board wise. Not a good analogy but something similar to Indian Idol auditions where even if a city has 30 signers that are better than all others in the country, they still will not select all of them and will have auditions around the country to pick few from each area to complete the 30 selections. Many will not agree with it but those debates will be different one about the merit vs social engineering and the other on whether the percentile based system is good enough to achieve the stated goal why not just reserve seats for different boards to make the representation certain.-Atul

  7. Aparajita Poorvi Mansingh says: -#1

    Seems, interesting article but your description of your blog is so pretentious and pompous. Perched in Bangalore you give too much credit to yourself to the quality of your observations!

    • Seema Singh says: -#2

      Aparajita: Amused to see your comment. While you haven’t made up your mind about this post (you say “seems like an …”) but you certainly made up your mind about the quality of the observations I put here. I never intended to give that impression of pomposity and I don’t take any credit for anything. What I mean by that little note is that we, journalists included, look for final outcomes of any sci-tech activity but reading/writing the back story is not glamorous. Not that I do enough here, but at least I try occasionally. And thanks for your comment, it pushed me to update my bio, lest some people think I am just a passerby.

  8. Nikhil Vaidya says: -#1

    Very well written article with backing statistics. I hope this issue becomes loud. I have some useful information on JEE Main and JEE Advanced http://www.jeemathstudy.com

  9. Thank you for putting this wonderful article with a clear agenda of taking the height of IIT institutes to new level in global world.

    Seema,i have many queries on this, do we have to take height of IIT to new level or produces more young fresh– engineers from the worlds better other institutes, Gandhiji himself has done same thing at times of Independence. He has sent our best kids for learning engineering to MIT’s ….and after that we created our IITs but we have stop sending our Best talent i.e. Poor Villagers to MITs with scholarship to get best engineering knowledge? We think we are Best , really are we ???? And we have spents abundance of Money in creating IIT and its students , why they have forgetted this tradition ????

    Why Media has stopped to talk about this from last 50 years ? Why as a nation we are accepting the IIT engineers as best engieers for our own system reforms??? As a nation we knows IIT is small institutes compare to Oxford, cambridge, MIT ,why we are accepting our level at low ????

    thanking you

  10. Totally Agree

  11. One of The reason behind this is that rich people send their students to coaching institutes which prepare the students in iit level right from class 9 – 10 onwards , thus for better results parents flow the money like water and in the last those people comes out to be successful which is always nt possible for us by just self study

  12. Nobody ever seems to consider that when a village kid spends his childhood playing on the open grounds breathing fresh air, a city kid is kept busy attending tuitions on summer afternoons and studying late nights. I guess that a simple word count in an average CBSE text book is ten fold than that for most state boards.
    Someone having an opportunity for a better future does not mean that they did not work hard or deserve better.
    Don’t ruin good educational institutes just because we fail to take good education to the masses.

  13. Indra R Sharma says: -#1

    I doubt the categorisation based on dwelling, particularly, the village is right. As I know, most of the students who wish to appear for the entrance examination even from the villages come and stay in the nearby town or go to cities. I was born in a village of Bihar but even in 1957, I studied in a small industrial town in West Bengal and succeeded to join IIT, Kharagpur. It was the only but about 40,000 appeared for the examination.

  14. Those who are serious to study in IIT work hard through their genius brain or hard work through coaching institute to get a seat. Let us respect the hard work and intelligence. There is no room for reservation of any kind. If so, why not we have reservation for olympics? Merit comes through hard work and anyone working hard only should get into IIT. Else it will soon become like thousands of private colleges advertised in TV in Tamilnadu. The selection must be only by written test – could be subjective and objective. Not the board marks and normalisation – brought by people with political motive.

  15. Being a non iitian the author must not comment on the will and worth of iitans.

    • Anurag: There’s nothing personal here. I certainly haven’t commented on the ‘worth” of IITians. From where did you pick up that? What I have said here is mostly reportage and the opinion I’ve gathered from people I meet during my work. And I’ve been a journalist for 17 years, which is a long span you’d agree. So please don’t get personal with your comments. If you have personal comments to make, please email me, the id is on this page.

  16. While I agree that this year’s process has been an absolute mess (what with the conflicts of interest of the CBSE board among other things), I find something with the point of view put forward by this article wrong.

    The premise that richer/urban/CBSE/ICSE students are one-track ponies simply because of the greater exposure they’ve had to formalized training is a strange chicken-and-egg situation.

    There are plenty of poor students from across India who need to be brought up to speed with the demographic being attacked (quite viciously, if I may add) in this article, but that can be made possible by better education policies from the grassroots level, rather than bringing in more artificial quotas to cut off the students who are perceived to be ‘privileged’ zombies by the likes of Mr. Manohar.

    • Seema Singh says: -#2

      Suhan: I’d like to clarify Manohar’s quote. There’s a reason why I have quoted him. He is trying to get the same students, albeit in non-IIT colleges, to get back to doing some real engineering, through his startup’s JED-i program. And trust me, they are working hard at it. The dig here is not at the students but at the system which has reinforced the coaching culture year after year. Many IIT profs, the most recent being an Infosys Prize winner, have confided that when students come, they hardly exhibit any desire to learn. And by that all these people mean that the selection process has become such a rat race, that by design (using multiple choice questions) it forced student to skip analytical questions. If anything, the coaching system has ensured that students with really modest backgrounds, who cannot afford camping in this centres for a year or more, hardly get in.

      • Thanks for putting that into context, I agree with that. The Indian education system has gone seriously wrong at some level, leading to a strange dichotomy where there’s a student demographic that has access to the numerous coaching centers that have sprung up in every corner of the country, but tend to be burnt out (as your article points out rightly), and another group that lacks the resources to cope up in a rat race that shouldn’t be there to begin with.

      • While I agree that there is a major distortion so far as the Indian education and the entrance exam is concerned. Now, even though there are state boards all over the country, there is a choice to give your board examinations from CBSE/ICSE.
        But apart from that, the main issue, that I feel that IIT’s are trying to address is the fact that you have mentioned, that even though the JEE is the toughest to crack, there are students who after Class X, only study to get into an IIT, and then just barely pass.
        The reason behind this I feel is the parental and the societal pressures that a student faces, through out his life in School.
        Whereas, one needs to look at the amendments at the grass root levels so far as education system is concerned, one must not forget that the parents and the society at large needs to encourage students to pursue their talent rather than make them a part of the rat race. It is due to this, that no innovation that the IIT’s look for has gone down the drain.

        Getting into IIT has become like owning a status symbol. We should go back to Amir Khan’s 3 idiots and put forth the funds of “Excelling at what you so, and success shall follow”.

  17. Wow. Great report with backing of statistics. I too have felt and observed the same trend for quite a while but couldn’t find some proper statistics. Kudos!

  18. Dr.A.Jagadeesh says: -#1

    Good post.

    For the last 5 years the students who received Coaching from TWO Coaching Institutes in AP for IIT entrance test bagged majority of the seats.

    Students from Andhra Pradesh once again stole the thunder at the JEEin 2012. Nineteen of the first 50 All India Ranks went to students from that state, including the first three from the IIT-Madras Zone (which comprises all southern states). Only around 40 students from Tamil Nadu could make it to the top 1,000, which is not unusual considering the results of the past couple of years.

    In the last 60 years, it was just once — in 2001 — that Chennai produced a JEE topper, while Delhi and Mumbai have done it more than thrice. This year, the Madras zone has nearly 40 students in first 100 ranks and 27 more between 100 and 200.

    But most of them are from Hyderabad and other places in Andhra Pradesh. Compared to over 193 students from Hyderabad who have made to the first 1,000, only 41 have made it from Tamil Nadu.

    Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published.