The story of the NITs

The way it started

18 November 2011: The Council of the NITs accepts the recommendation of the Ramasami Committee, and records the consensus view that a judicious mix of school and national level test performance will ensure that the multiplicity of tests today and dependency on coaching would get reduced largely (see minutes, page 6).

28 May 2012: The Council of NITs, in a joint meeting with the Councils of IITs and IIITs, reach unanimity on the consensus opinion of the Council of IITs, that the NITs would prepare merit list for 2013 admissions by using Board percentiles, JEE-Main and JEE-Advanced with 40%, 30% and 30% weights, respectively (see minutes, page 3-4; see advantage of using percentiles rather than percentages). The consensus view is that a Joint Admissions Board (JAB) with representatives from IITs, NITs, other CFTIs and State Governments should conduct JEE-Main. A Joint Interface Group (JIG), appointed each year by the JAB should implement the normalization of Board scores, while administrative support should be provided by CBSE.

4 July 2012: The Council of the NITs decides to exclude JEE-Advanced from its admission criterion for 2013. Instead, it decides to put 40% weight on Board scores "normalized on percentile basis", and remaining 60% weight on performance in JEE-Main, and to set up a committee to look into issues relating to normalization of the Class XII Board marks on percentile basis (see minutes, page 2).

13 August 2012: As per the decision taken by the Council of NITs, MHRD forms a committee chaired by S.K. Joshi, Chairman BoG VNIT Nagpur, which includes directors of several NIT's, Chairman-CBSE and some other experts. The Joshi Committee is asked to validate the normalization formula using actual results of various boards and refine it based on its validation. It is authorized to "co-opt outside experts for dealing with the issues of normalization of class XII board marks on percentile basis across various boards". The committee does not have any representation from any board other than CBSE. The CBSE, which has been administering the AIEEE examination till 2012 (continued from 2013 as JEE-Main), is identified as the nodal agency for implementation of the normalization procedure for all boards.

The way it developed

September 2012: Before S.K. Joshi Committee holds its first meeting, Vineet Joshi (Chairman-CBSE) takes the initiative in formulating a normalization procedure. He engages Jim Tognolini and John Twing of Indian Centre for Assessment Evaluation and Research (CAER), who prepares a report containing suggestions on how to normalize board scores. The report starts with the premise that some boards have more "able" students than other boards, and suggests that the performance of students of different boards in the AIEEE/JEE-Main be used to differentially adjust the scores of these boards. Since CBSE students perform better than students of other boards in AIEEE/JEE-Main, this suggestion would benefit a CBSE student at the expense of a student with the same percentile at Class XII examination of another board.

September/October 2012: Chairman-CBSE uses a write-up based on this report to shore up support for the principle of using AIEEE/JEE-Main scores to make differential normalization of scores/percentiles of different boards. He forms a Core Committee consisting mostly of statisticians, and circulates this write-up as a background note to be used as the suggested basis for arriving at a justifiable normalization procedure. He also receives some preliminary advice to this effect from Glenn Rowley of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), and some supporting data analysis from Neeraj Mishra and Amit Mitra of IIT Kanpur.

30 October 2012: S.K. Joshi Committee holds its first meeting. Jim Tognolini of CAER, appearing as special invitee, briefs the Committee on the merits of using AIEEE/JEE-Main scores for "tracking" Board scores/percentiles are pointed out. Joshi Committee, which does not include a statistician, decides to include the Core Committee (formed by Chairman-CBSE) in all its subsequent meetings.

31 October 2012: The Core Committee, however does not support the approach promoted by the Chairman-CBSE. In its input to the Chairman-CBSE, the flaws in the principle of using AIEEE/JEE-Main scores for "tracking" Board scores/percentiles are pointed out. It is argued that this approach entails the strong and unverifiable assumption that the presumed difference between the "ability" distributions of two boards is adequately captured by the performance patterns of the students of those two boards in AIEEE/JEE-Main. If this approach is used, a student may be penalized for weak performance of other students of the same board in AIEEE/JEE-Main. Neither the Council of IITs nor the Council of NITs had expressed sufficient faith in the JEE-Main score as a measure of relevant "ability" so as to use it solely for engineering admissions. Further, use of AIEEE/JEE-Main for tracking board scores effectively gives it more importance than the 60% weightage decided by the Council of NITs. Based on these arguments, the Core Committee recommends direct use of the board percentiles.

30 November 2012: Joshi Committee holds second meeting jointly with the Core Committee. Members have an open discussion on the pro's and con's of Chairman-CBSE's argument of using AIEEE/JEE-Main scores for "tracking" Board scores/percentiles and the Core Committee's recommendation of using Board percentiles directly. It is decided that JEE-Main scores would not be changed, and that the board percentiles would be converted to this scale for comparability. Chairman-CBSE suggests that the transformation of the board percentiles be done differently for different boards, by using the JEE-Main score distribution of students of each board for "tracking". Thus, a procedure based directly on board percentiles transformed to JEE-Main score scale (Procedure 1) and another based on different board percentiles transformed to board-specific JEE-Main score scale (Procedure 2) are short-listed. It is decided that data of 2012 Board and AIEEE examinations be analysed for studying the two procedures.

December 2012: CBSE sends JEE-Main 2012 scores as well as Class XII exam scores for six boards (including CBSE) to various members for analysis. The same data are also sent to Jim Tognolini of CAER.

28 December 2012: Joshi Committee meets. Members from ISI present results of detailed analysis which shows that the "tracking" approach (Procedure 2) results in gross distortion of the percentiles of different boards. In particular, a student at the 80^th percentile of Maharashtra Board receives a smaller normalized score than a student at the 50^th percentile of CBSE. Other problems of this method are also pointed out. The Committee unanimously decides to adopt the method based on direct percentile (Procedure 1), and draws up a structure for the final report. It decides to hold the final meeting by the end of January 2013, and to check the analysis one more time in the mean while. Chairman-CBSE skips the meeting, which is held at his office.

29 January 2013: Joshi Committee deliberates over draft report that incorporates all the analyses carried out till that point of time. It is decided that finalization of the report will take place over next few days, and an informal meeting may be called for this purpose. Chairman-CBSE suggests that the logic behind the chosen method of normalization (Procedure 1) be brought out more clearly in the report.

The way it did not end

2 February 2013: Sandeep Sancheti (Convener, Joshi Committee) meets Chairman-CBSE at the latter's office to discuss clarifications in the final report. They are joined by Debasis Sengupta of ISI Kolkata by teleconference. Chairman-CBSE requests another round of face to face discussion in the presence of Jim Tognolini of CAER.

The way it almost ended

11 February 2013: Convener and Chairman of Joshi Committee, together with Abhay Bhat and Debasis Sengupta of ISI meet Jim Tognolini and John Twing of CAER in the presence of Chairman-CBSE at the latter's office. The problems with the use of AIEEE/JEE scores for tracking of Board scores (Procedure 2) are discussed in detail, and the arguments in favour of adopting the simple percentile based approach (Procedure 1) are sharpened. Specifically, it is shown on the basis of simulations that Procedure 2 is expected to increase dramatically the dominance of CBSE students at the top of the merit list, in comparison with the earlier scenario (with merit list based on AIEEE scores alone).

18 February 2013: Joshi Committee circulates its report among members (with copy to Additional Secretary, Technical Education, MHRD, who had formed the Committee), with plan to finalize and submit it the next day.

19 February 2013: Joshi Committee finalizes its report. In the evening, it is asked by Amita Sharma (Additional Secretary, Technical Education) to make a presentation to the Education Secretary before finalizing the report.

20 February 2013: Convener and Chairman of Joshi Committee present the findings of the Committee before the Education Secretary and the Additional Secretary – Technical Education. Chairman-CBSE is also present. The presentation is not completed for paucity of time.

4 March 2013: Convener and Chairman of Joshi Committee once again present the findings of the Committee before the Education Secretary and the Additional Secretary – Technical Education. Chairman-CBSE and Debasis Sengupta of ISI are also present. Subsequently the report of the Joshi Committee is officially submitted.

The way it started again

9 April 2013: Council of NITs meets to discuss Joshi Committee report. Members of the Joshi Committee, together with some members of the Core Committee, are invited to attend. The meeting is chaired by Hon"ble Minister Pallam Raju (Ministry of Human Resources), who is the Chairman, Council of NITs. The Hon"ble Minister is assisted by Amita Sharma (Assistant Secretary, Technical Education and Member-Secretary, Council of NITs). The Convener of the Joshi Committee makes a presentation based on the report of the Committee. Chairman-CBSE is allowed to present some new material, previously not shared with the members of the Joshi Committee, and to make a fresh case for the differential adjustment of percentile ranks of students of different boards based on their JEE-Main scores, which can be used for "tracking". This is indeed the proposal that had been considered carefully and rejected by the Joshi Committee before the Committee arrived at its clear and unanimous recommendation. The surprise proposal produces utter confusion. Chairman-CBSE asks NIT Council members to ask themselves what decision they would take if the students concerned had been their own children. The meeting ends with a decision to expand the Joshi Committee to review the "new material" flashed by the Chairman-CBSE, together with the report of the Joshi Committee.

10 April 2013: Joshi Committee is expanded, with a mandate to advise the Chairman of the Council of NITs on "either options" (the procedure recommended by the Joshi Committee and that promoted by the Chairman-CBSE) "based on least departure, equity and transparency". The newly introduced criterion of "least departure" (presumably from status quo) is in direct contradiction of the decision of the Council of the NITs to depart from the earlier practice of putting 100% weight on AIEEE/JEE-Main and 0% weight on Board scores.

The way it developed again

15 April 2013: MHRD circulates a presentation prepared by Chairman-CBSE (in support of his proposal) based on additional analysis of the Board scores and AIEEE scores, along with another presentation prepared by Debasis Sengupta of ISI (containing detailed rebuttal of the arguments of Chairman-CBSE; summarized here), and invites comments from the members of the expanded Joshi Committee.

16-26 April 2013: Members of the expanded Joshi Committee deliberate over email on the "options" and the presentations circulated. Sunil K. Sarangi (Director, NIT Rourkela) sends two messages providing detailed reasons why the Joshi Committee's recommendation should be accepted. Debasis Sengupta of ISI sends some clarifications to help the committee understand the issue. Anil Kakodkar (Chairman, BoG, NIT Jalandhar) opines that in order not to deviate from the 60-40 weightage decided by the Council of the NITs, the Joshi Committee recommendations should be accepted. The procedure favoured by Chairman-CBSE receives support from Rajat Moona (Director General, C-DAC, Pune), the evident fallacy of whose arguments are immediately pointed out by Debasis Sengupta. Samir K. Brahmachari (Director General, CSIR, New Delhi) endorses the views expressed by Anil Kakodkar in favour of accepting Joshi Committee recommendations. Prem Kalra (Director, IIT Jalandhar) sends an opaque message in favour of the procedure promoted by Chairman-CBSE, but his misquote of Anil Kakodkar draws a swift contradiction from the latter. Meanwhile, Chairman-CBSE remains silent, choosing not to refute any of the counter-arguments that exposed the flaws in his analysis that had precipitated the deliberations of the expanded Joshi Committee in the first place. Thus, the acceptance of the Joshi Committee recommendations appears to become inevitable. Finally a meeting is called in order to "discuss the observations / inputs received from the Committee members". Ashok Misra (Chairman, Joint Admission Board of JEE-Main) expresses his inability to attend. Anil Kakodkar also expresses his inability to attend, while reiterating his views and saying that it is important that a decision is reached without further delay. Debasis Sengupta asks that in order to avoid delay, members be given advance copy of any new material to be perused in the meeting.

29 April 2013: A handful of members of the expanded Joshi Committee meet in the office of Amita Sharma, (Additional Secretary, Technical Education), who chairs the meeting in the absence of S.K. Joshi. The Chair begins the meeting by asking everyone to be flexible and strive for a consensus, without realizing that when the scientific merit of one procedure over another is beyond doubt, advocacy of flexibility amounts to interference in reaching a scientific decision. She also reminds everyone that it is the fate of "our children" that they are dealing with, as if the thought of a certain group of children could alter their objective choice. She makes no attempt to build consensus on the only logical option left to the Committee, namely acceptance of the Joshi Committee recommendation. She deviates from the terms of reference of the committee by permitting S.S. Mantha (Chairman AICTE), a special invitee, to float a completely new proposal for normalization that had never been circulated among the members. This proposal, which also unfairly favours CBSE students, is readily accepted by the Chairman-CBSE. The meeting ends without consensus. The members are asked to provide their comments on the fresh proposal before 30 April, with a promise that a written version of the proposal would be circulated by email before the deadline.

30 April 2013: The promised circulation of the new proposal does not take place. Debasis Sengupta of ISI prepares a description of the proposal (as far as it could be understood from the deliberations in the meeting of 29 April 2013) and circulates it, while pointing out its obvious flaws, including the fact that it does not even conform to the NIT Council decision on this matter. He also points out the series of maneuvers on the part of the Education Department (and specifically the Additional Secretary, Technical Education) to subvert the process of reaching a scientific decision based on objective analysis.

1 May 2013: Additional Secretary (TE) admonishes Debasis Sengupta of ISI for getting into a personalised discourse and making groundless allegations. She reminds Sengupta that she is in the "ISI Board" (possibly meaning ISI Council). When asked, she does not clarify which part of the message is not a professional view, or why the fact of her being in the "ISI Board" is relevant for arriving at a decision on the normalization issue.

The way it eventually ended

6 May 2013: The JEE Interface Group (JIG) set up, by the Joint Admission Board of JEE-Main, for the implementation of the normalization of Board scores (a committee having no connection with the Indian Statistical Institute) decides to use a simple average of the normalized score recommended by the Joshi Committee (Procedure 1) and the normalized score promoted by the Chairman-CBSE (Procedure 2) for the 2013-14 admission to NITs. ISI learns about the final normalization formula from press reports.

Epilogue

The procedure adopted by JIG has expectedly created much confusion, and has been alleged to unduly favour CBSE students. An opportunity to make judicious use of board scores for engineering admissions has been missed. The misconceived procedure is even fueling demands for a complete rollback of the new admission system. A reversion to the earlier system is likely to perpetuate dependency on coaching, which the Council of the NITs had wanted to change.