The insane toughness of Indian competitive exminations

[aneeshm]

Inspired by a thread over at CFC.

Here are the links to the papers of this year's competitive examination (and this if after it has been made much easier - the papers till 2005 were much, much tougher). You are expected to take this test immediately after you have finished your school education. You cannot drop one year to study to make a better score - you have to take it as soon as your 12th is over, in the same year. You also get only one chance.

Here are the links to the papers, with solutions:

Narayan Solutions to the JEE, Paper 1
Narayan Solutions to the JEE, Paper 1

FIITJEE solutions, Paper 1
FIITJEE solutions, Paper 2

A link to the AIEEE solutions for this year. The AIEEE can be taken multiple times, but usually, nobody can afford to drop more than one year.

How does this compare against whatever is your country's test?

[BlackCat]

Looks much like what was expected some 30 years back when I had similar tests.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Looks much like what was expected some 30 years back when I had similar tests.

The problem is not just the test, but also the competition - around 8,50,000 people take the AIEEE, for example, and only the top 15,000 get a good place, and the next 15,000 get a decent place. That only about 3.53% of those who appear.

[BlackCat]

And ?

Isn't what you should be complaining over is that the system isn't capable to handle those who do this test ?

[Lonestar]

Sucks to be (dot)Indian then.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know. Seems pretty simple.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


The problem is not just the test, but also the competition - around 8,50,000 people take the AIEEE, for example, and only the top 15,000 get a good place, and the next 15,000 get a decent place. That only about 3.53% of those who appear.

As this is an English forum, it would be appropriate for you to group numbers in the English/American style.

[Pekka]

Insane education system. THis doesn't cater to the nation at all.

The exam itself, well ehm... but there's so many people so if you want to weed out a lot of them, which seems to be the point, well, a country that as big as India, tests like these WILL drop out a lot of people with potential.

I know tons of people, including myself, who weren't interested in the lower levels of education at all. We didn't score top points, except in our own fields. So it seemed like I was a total average, except top math scores. I could not compete with the top at that stage where the weeding out is done.

However, it wasn't because I didn't get it, it's because most of the stuff is boring crap. It's not challenging, it's very difficult to make interesting to yourself. So I'd rather focus on what I like and just surf the rest.

But I'm scoring top points now, at a much higher level. We have to apply for Unis in here and the entrance exams. Everyone is eligble to take the test who have graduated. No one gets in unless they make it to the top of that exam situation. I think it's better, because then people are going for their specialized fields, so basically they have to study that field themselves in order to pass. In my case it meant being able to program and do math. Who cares if you had high scores in some fields that are not relevant in here.

SO basically we get a lot of overachievers who can't hack it anymore. They already peaked. Their potential was at the maximum at the age of 16. They stayed home and studied like madmen, while the rest of us didn't have to, didn't care for top scores. Because it didn't matter to us.

All I'm saying is, this kind of a model wastes lots of potential, benefits overachievers at the wrong stage, plus puts down a lot of people who went to bad schools or whatever and haven't peaked yet.

And that is just a waste of talent.

[DAVOUT]

In our country the competition is not at 12 but later at 18 or 19; around 1500 are selected which is 0.0025% of the total population.

[Pekka]

DAVOUT, I think he meant 12th year in school, not by the age of 12. That would make even less sense.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Pekka
DAVOUT, I think he meant 12th year in school, not by the age of 12. That would make even less sense.

I knew that I would not have passed the test

[Barnabas]

Pekka speaks the truth.

But then, the large population of India makes eveything very particular.

[Dry]

Removed: Pekka already said it.

[Pekka]

Well, I would consider education to be a thing that the society should support and as such offer the possiblility for EVERYONE to do it as well as possible. To me this means equality.

We can't give equality to people on a platter, but if everyone has at least a chance for a good education, then it's up to the individual after that. If he becomes a total loser, hey, not my fault. You had every chance.

I think the focus should be on giving quality teaching for as many as possible up to this point. Have strong average results. A good goal is that everyone can read for example. That's a start.

For gifted students, there should be always a possibility to cater special teaching for them, if they really have potential and have some prodigy skills.

Other than that? Just focus on teaching everyone with quality. Prodigies will stand out and when they do, give them the teaching they find challenging and productive. Just keep people interested in things and don't kill the passion. A lot of people could do things like math, but teachers and their ways killed it for them at a young age. This seems a terrible waste to me, a terrible waste that we can't afford. Let's not kill potential, let's not waste talent, and let's bring everyone aboard with the general education. Then let's see who gets to do what.

Forget this "I have to get an A" when you're 8 years old BS. Who CARES? Kids should be having fun and play and who cares about the other stuff. They can have pressure much later on if they really want it, there's no reason to give them pressure at a young age for no good reason like this. I'm not against competition though. But it should be reasonable and not kill passion and/or talent. Because that's the point with the competion anyway, to get the talented and passionate folks standing out. DOesn't mean we have to abuse the rest either. We don't need to divide kids into winners and losers at a young age, a) it's not really true anyway b) this will just teach them division, social classes, corruption, not questioning authorities and BS like that and c) affect a big part of young kids when it wasn't necessary, and they could be happier if adults didn't **** up this bad.

[Barnabas]

With a population of over 1000 millions, I wouldnt be surprised if India has right now over 5 millions geniuses just growing rice