PGP Admission Process for IIMB Batch of 20071

This document details the process that was adopted for selecting candidates for
admission to the Post Graduate Program in Management (PGP) at the Indian Institute of
Management Bangalore (IIMB) for the batch of 2007. The process that would be used for
admissions in 2008 by IIMB will be made available on the IIMB website before CAT 2007.
It is expected that the process followed will be roughly similar.
IIMB has internally developed an admission process that seeks to identify the most
promising candidates for its prestigious PGP program. This process has been progressively
refined over the years based on its cumulative data on CAT applicants and on the academic
performance of the candidates that were admitted at IIMB. The process arrived at is based
on the relationship of academic performance in IIMB to past academic performance, CAT
score, performance in group discussion, interview and prior work experience. The selection
criteria and weights given to various parameters are based on data from previous cycles as
well as on inputs from the IIMB faculty body and other relevant stakeholders and are usually
revised every year. The admission committee fixes these criteria and weights at the beginning
of each admission cycle before looking at information pertaining to candidates applying in
that cycle so as to avoid any bias.
IIMB has found over the years that students who perform well in the academic
program are typically those who have a consistently good academic record during their
school, high school and graduation level, besides exhibiting sufficiently high aptitude as
measured by the CAT. Therefore IIMB uses multiple parameters, namely academic
performance in school, high school and graduation programs as well as candidates’ scores in
Common Admission Test (CAT) to judge the suitability of candidates for the PGP program.
Relevant work experience, if any, is also given weight in the selection. Evaluation by multiple
criteria is also consistent with empirical research on recruitment and selection that shows
greater efficacy of recruitment processes that use multiple criteria. The CAT score, over and
above being a selection criterion, is also used to establish the minimum level of proficiency
that is expected from the candidate in respective faculties as indicated by section wise
minimum scores in the CAT. Multiple criteria are used to arrive at a composite score for
every candidate, which is used to select candidates for the subsequent stage. The remaining
part of the document explains this process in detail.
IIMB adopted a two-phase selection process and accordingly these selection criteria
were applied in two phases. The first phase process was applied to all eligible candidates who
appeared for the Common Admission Test (CAT) to determine those candidates who would
be called for group discussion and personal interview (GDPI). During the GDPI process,
two faculty members evaluated each qualifying candidate on his/her performance in the
group discussion, his/her summary of the group discussion and his/her performance during
the personal interview. In addition, for candidates having work experience, each interviewing
faculty evaluated the quality and relevance of the candidate’s work experience. These scores,

1 This information, released for the first time this year, is pertinent to the admissions cycle (2007)
alone and therefore, no inference can be made from this document about the admissions process
used at IIMB in the past nor does it imply that the same or similar process will be adopted for future
admission cycles at IIMB. IIMB reserves the right to change, modify or adopt any new admissions
process that it deems necessary and which best suits its purpose for a given admissions cycle.
in combination with the pre-GDPI selection parameters were used cumulatively in the
second and final phase of selection to identify the candidates who merit selection from
among those candidates who appear for the GDPI.
The selection process, parameters and weights used are uniform for all categories of
applicants. Sufficient candidates were short-listed at each stage in each category to meet the
reservation requirement for each group, as applicable at that time.

Phase 1
1) The first short list of candidates was based on candidates securing minimum section-wise
and aggregates percentile scores in the CAT as shown in Table 1. All the subsequent
processing, standardization and selection was limited to candidates belonging to this first
short list. This means that the CAT score alone was used as the basis for arriving at the
first short list. However, these section-wise and aggregate level cut-offs were not decided
in advance – they were based on the overall performance of all candidates in that year’s
CAT and was adjusted to ensure that a sufficiently large pool of applicants were available
in each category for subsequent processing by applying other selection criteria on these
candidates.

Table 1. First Shortlist

Minimum Percentile Requirement for First Shortlist
(2007)
Category Sec 1 Sec 2 Sec 3
Aggregate
(Logic & Data) (Verbal) (Quantitative)
ST 50% 55% 50% 65%
PWD 50% 55% 50% 75%
SC 50% 55% 50% 75%
OBC2 75% 75% 75% 85%
General 85% 85% 85% 90%

2) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in Table 1, the candidates’ percentage
scores in the 10th and 12th board exams are standardized by dividing each score by the
90th percentile score obtained in that board. The database of 10th and 12th scores of all
CAT applicants of the past two years was used for identifying the 90th percentile score
for each 10th and 12th board for this purpose.

3) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in (1), final scores obtained by the
candidate were used for the bachelor’s degree and professional degrees (if any).
Incomplete or intermediate scores were considered only if the candidate’s final score was
pending. Thus, for final year bachelor’s degree candidates, their incomplete graduation
score would be taken in lieu of final graduation score. Graduation scores were

2 This is as per reservation act applicable at the time of creating the shortlist for GDPI. At the time

of making admission offers, as per the Honorable Supreme Court judgment, OBC reservation was
withheld and consequently all OBC candidates called for GDPI were considered in the General
category.
 standardized within their respective categories. This provided the standardized score for
the bachelor’s degree for all candidates in the first shortlist.

4) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in (1), candidates with Chartered
Accountancy Professional course were eligible for weight under professional course. No
other professional course was eligible for weight under professional course. The
professional course score was also standardized for all candidates in the first shortlist.

5) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in (1), the score/weight for work
experience was given by:

 5x
 if 0 < x ≤ 36
36

 5( x − 36)
= 5 − if 36 < x < 144 ,
 108
 0 otherwise



where x is the months of work experience up to December 2006, as captured in CAT

application Form (and substantiated in the application to IIMB). This implies that
the score peaks at 36 months and falls to zero at 144 months experience - thus
providing higher scores to candidates with work experience of moderate duration.

6) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in (1), the maximum of the work
experience score and the professional course score was considered for selection under a
common weight of 10 for work experience or professional course – since both provide
professional work experience relevant to a management program.

7) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in Table 1, other than work experience or
professional course, the weights for the remaining four components (each of them being
standardized) were fixed as:

CAT = 20, 10th board=15, 12th board=10, Bachelors= 15.

8) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in Table 1, the weighted total of the five
components namely (a) work experience or professional course, (b) CAT, (c) 10th board,
(d) 12th board, (e) bachelor’s as stated above was used to prepare a pre-GDPI rank list
for calling candidates for the GDPI. Sufficient candidates were invited for GDPI to
enable selection based on the additional GDPI evaluation components (a) GD, (b) GD
summary, (c) Personal interview, (d) review of work experience (if any).

9) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in (1), the top 10 candidates in each
sectional and total score in CAT, adjusted SSC, HSC, Bachelors and professional (CA)
(from the first shortlist, as created in Table 1) automatically qualified for GDPI. These
candidates were given a chance to appear for GDPI due to their exceptional
performance on one parameter. However, at the end of Phase 2, all such candidates had
 to merit selection at an identical level of composite aggregate score like any other
candidate.

10) For all candidates in the first shortlist as stated in (1), standardization in any component
stated above was carried out as per the following formula. As mentioned in Table 1, all
standardization was done with reference to the qualifying first shortlist or its
subdivisions; Standardized score (truncated between 0 and weight (wt)) was computed
from the raw score (val) as:

 wt val − mean wt 
max 0, min  wt , + × 
 2 sd 6 

Phase 2

11) For each of the three elements of evaluation during the GDPI process – Group
Discussion, Group Discussion Summary, Personal Interview - the average of the scores
given by the two interviewing faculty was considered. The overall performance of each
candidate in the Group Discussion was scored by each faculty individually. Similarly the
quality of the Group Discussion Summary was scored by each faculty individually. Each
faculty used the Personal Interview to comprehensively evaluate the candidate’s
motivation and ability to fit in and benefit from the PGP program. All candidates were
required to provide three confidential reference letters from their employers or faculty
and this was also used in the personal interview evaluation.

12) The work experience score was multiplied by the quality of experience score, as
evaluated by the interviewing panel as an assessment of the relevance of the work
experience to the program. The quality of work experience score was evaluated on a 5
point scale (0 – 0.5 – 1 – 1.5 – 2) by each member of the panel during the interviews.
The average quality of work experience score was multiplied by the pre-GDPI work
experience score and accordingly the work/professional experience component score
used in Phase 1 was revised in Phase 2. The scores in all past academics were also
updated, if required, on the basis of actual mark sheet submitted based on the principle
of considering all subjects (except where mentioned explicitly in the mark sheet).

13) The Group Discussion score (weight=7.5), Group Discussion Summary score
(weight=7.5), the Personal Interview score (weight=20), after standardization within
interview panels, were added to the pre-GDPI total, to arrive at the final aggregate score.

14) The final offers of admission to candidates were made on the basis of ranks in each
category on the final aggregate score as mentioned in (13).

Since IIMB follows a comprehensive multi-criteria process at the pre-GDPI stage, it

is able to identify many candidates for the GDPI who have an excellent academic record and
work experience but who, while doing well enough in the CAT to be in the first shortlist,
may have narrowly missed the high score that would have been required if CAT alone was
the basis for the GDPI short list. Such candidates effectively replace candidates who have
only a high CAT score but score poorly in terms of their past academic record and work
experience. IIMB emphasizes consistent and high performance in past academics.

Admission into the Post Graduate Program through GMAT

A separate process was used for processing applications from candidates who
applied through the GMAT route. To be eligible to apply through the GMAT route, a
candidate must have resided abroad for at least 18 months in the preceding three years and
should not have been in a position to appear for CAT2006.
The first short list among such applicants was created by applying the same
percentile cut-offs, as used for the general category taking the CAT.
For each applicant in this shortlist, each member of the evaluating committee (6
faculty members were involved in 2007) went through the applications in detail and in
particular, evaluated the academic background and the international experience of the
candidates. The evaluating faculty also assessed whether the candidate was likely to gain
admission through CAT. Finally each member recommended strongly or weakly in favor of
the candidate or recommended rejection.
The final decision for each candidate was taken on the basis of detailed discussion on
these recommendations and assessments of strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.
There was no quota or fixed number of seats for such candidates. There were also no wait-
lists for the same reason. In most years, the number of such candidates joining the program
has not been higher than three or four.

***