The Maharashtra MBA CET 2016 result is out and as has been the case for at least the last couple of years, it didn’t fail to surprise us. While the top and the bottom few did pan out according to expectation, the median score showed a significant drop compared to that of last year.
First things first, you can check your result by entering either your registration number or your roll number in the box below. Also, DTE has come out with a PDF of the scores of all the candidates that can be accessed here: CET-2016-result.pdf
The real test of any entrance examination is how balanced the result looks like and if it can differentiate between two successive candidates. While the test, in terms of both content and interface, showed a significant improvement over last year (not that it could get any worse anyway!) the result does look a little off balance.
If we look at the level of difficulty, it was more in sync with that of CET 2011 and slightly difficult compared to CET 2014. So, the expectation from almost all the experts was that the distribution of scores would be on similar lines.
However, a simple percentile mapping shows some interesting information.
Now, if we look at it carefully, we see that there is not much difference with regard to absolute mapping. However, there are a few things that could be noticed here:
1. The rank for the corresponding percentile has shot up due to an increase in the number of test takers and so, the cut-offs will be higher, percentile-wise (as was expected before the test)
2. As was mentioned in the CET 2016 analysis by Sriram, in a tough paper, the margins become thinner and especially due to the fact that CET had no negative marking, it became a matter of luck between a 99.9%iler and a 99.5%iler (assuming that almost all the good candidates had genuinely attempted around 150 questions in the paper, 25% of the overall paper attributed to wild guesswork would mean an uncertainty of a higher magnitude than there ever was)
3. At a completely subjective level, the overall enthusiasm among candidates regarding preparation and outcome showed a drop this year compared to 2015. In spite of having more candidates appearing this year, there was not much discussion on public forums that was seen. This could probably be attributed of the fiasco that CET 2015 was and the extremely late clarification of JBIMS regarding their participation in the CAP rounds.
4. On a side note, many mock series providers came up with easier papers to simulate the CET 2015. This led to a false sense of complacency among test takers and many were stumped seeing the level of difficulty of the CET 2016 (which was ironical as CET has almost always dished out moderately difficult papers and CET 2015 was more of an unfortunate aberration).
It would then be understandable that quite a few students would feel hard done by the result. A simple plotting of the result shows that the median score was close to 54 marks out of 200 compared to 80 marks out of 200 in CET 2015.
Another look at the distribution vis-à-vis CET 2014:
It is obvious from this scatter that the graph for CET 2014 was flatter and so, the spread was better (flatter graph indicates that the number of students on a particular raw score are equally distributed)
With no GDPI for the MMS seats (almost certainly, unless DTE comes up with another rabbit out of its tattered hat), the cut-offs for the top institutes, accounting for dummy takers and opt-outs might look like this:
We at Learningroots celebrated our first birthday a few days back. As a thank you gesture, for those of you targeting CAT 2016, we have a huge discount on all our courses. Do check out the courseware here.