|
IIFT – 2011 Analysis Click here for IIFT 2011 Score Calculator Exam Snapshot
Yet
another management entrance exam this season following the trend set by the
leader of the pack – CAT – in terms of pattern changes. CAT, NMAT, IRMA and now
IIFT all have, this year, changed patterns. IIFT had a 6 section avatar this
year compared to the 4 section one it had for the last 2 years. True to its
reputation, the paper was tough over all with the cut offs in the high
thirties. With
6 sections, and no clarity on sectional cut-offs, what was imperative upfront
was for the students to quickly redo their sectional time allocations, if they
had come to the exam with any. As much time as possible should have been
allocated for Quant, DI and RC sections, while quickly pushing through the GA,
LA and VA sections. The trick here is what we keep telling students time and
again – do not get stuck in questions. There were some mighty tough/lengthy
questions like the letter series question in LA, the DI set on GDP etc. Those
who realised early enough that questions like these should be dumped in favour
of other, possibly easier, questions would be the ones who would see the light
at the end of the tunnel, i.e. a call from IIFT for the 2nd phase. Those
who curbed the urge of marking an option to get a move on, considering that
there were 120 questions for 120 minutes, would stand a better chance than
those who let the urge over take their sanity. With 1/3rd of the
marks per question as penalty, wrong answers are going to cost dearly in IIFT. A
good time allocation strategy would be to give GK around 10-12 minutes, and
apportion the remaining time between the other sections depending on their
relative difficulty and individual comfort levels. The
overall cut off could be in the high thirties 39-40. Let
us now look at the individual sections of IIFT 2011 Quantitative Ability
No. of Qs: 24 (1.0 marks per Q à
Total Marks – 24.0 Marks) The
Quantitative section, unlike last year was of moderate difficulty.While some questions needed in depth calculations,
there were quite a few sitters. Those who spotted and attempted these sitters
would stand a better chance if they had also spent enough time overall in the
section and had attempted around 14-15 questions. While
the some questionsseemed lengthy, one
found after getting down to solve them that they were quite simple to solve.
The question on Time & Work in Bilaspur village is a good example of this. This
section, while being kind on the students with such sitters was also, unlike
last year, was free from errors. The
possible cut off in this section would be at around 10-12.A good time allocation strategy for this
section would be around 30-35
minutes. Attempts in the range of 18-20 should be considered to be very good. Let
us look at the topic wise breakup of the section
Data Interpretation No. of Qs: 16 (1.0 marks per Q à
Total Marks – 16.0 Marks) The
Data Interpretation section continued to be tedious in terms of time consuming
calculations, which forced the students to calculate up to the 3rd
decimal. What made things worse for the students was the fact that while the
answers were given in 2 decimals, the 3rd decimal was rounded off,
trapping the students into marking the wrong option – the first question in the
set on GDP being the case in point. This set was, in fact, the toughest of the
3 sets that were there in the DI section this year. The
first set on FDI figures was the set to do in this section, with the difficulty
level ranging from easy to moderate. Students should have attempted this for a
decent score. What would have helped the students cause here was the fact that
this was the first set in the section and therefore most students wold have
attempted this set, unless they had a strong aversion to bar-graphs. The
last set on global shares seemed to be very difficult with the huge amount of
data that was staring at the students. In fact, the data and questions being
present on either sides of the paper added to the tediousness of this set.
However, there were some moderate level questions in this set, once the
students get past interpreting the statements, like the first and last
questions in this set. The
possible cut off in this section would be around 4.A good time allocation strategy for this
section would be around 15-20 minutes. Attempts in the range of 10-12 should be
considered to be very good.
Logical Ability No. of Qs: 21 (1.0 marks per Q à
Total Marks – 21.0 Marks) Almost
all possible formats of questions on Logic were present in this year's LA
section. This was a surprise departure from last year when the focus was mostly
on puzzles and input-output questions. This year, with LA being a separate
section unlike last year when it was combined with DI, the variety of questions
and the difficulty level of some of them really stumped the students. The
questions on Courses of Action and one of those on Letter series would have
really taken a chunk off the students' allocated time for this section, with no
conclusive answer. The presence of 'none of these' as an option did not make
things any easier. However,
there was help at hand for the students in the form of OBQs which were easy and
also the sets on distributions which were also solvable. A
good time allocation strategy for this section would be around 15-20
minutes. Possible cut off will be around 6-8. Attempts in the range of 14-17 should be considered to be very
good.
Reading Comprehension
No. of Qs: 15 (0.75 marks per Q à
Total Marks – 11.25 Marks) RC
was a stand alone section this time around, unlike the 2 part section that
English over all was, last year. There
were 4 passages in this section, which were fairly long – 3 of them were around
2 pages long and the fourth was 1.5 pages long. The word limit would vary
between 950-1200 The
weightages of RC and Verbal Ability came close last year to 0.7 and 0.5
respectively, from 1 and 0.6 respectively the year before. This year, they came
even closer – they are equal this year, at 0.5. The
passages themselves were not easy to read and length was not primary factor
contributing to this. While it was the main factor, the fact that some articles
were fairly new for the students, like the one on Financial inclusion, also
played a role. While
length and familiarity were deterrents, those who had broken through them and
have eventually managed to read the passage would have found out that the
questions were fairly straight forward. Hence,
all it took for students to get a good score in this section if patience, enough
time allocation, around 20-25 minutes. Average
attempts would be around6-8, while
10-11 would be excellent in this section. The cut off could be around 6 here.
Verbal Ability
No. of Qs: 23 (0.75 marks per Q à Total Marks – 17.25 Marks) The
verbal ability section, similar to the LA section, had questions of multiple
types. Sentence jumbles, Direct-Indirect speech translation, Forming meaningful
words based on number codes and Latin Phrases were new question types
introduced this year. While these would have caused a fair bot of surprise
amongst the students, the difficulty level was not very high, but for the
Direct-Indirect speech questions. The questions could be attempted by the
normally well read and prepared students with a fair bit of confidence. In
fact, it could eventually turn out that this section would hold the key for the
over all cut off to be higher of lower. This is due to the shock and awe effect
it might have had on some students while maintaining a fair difficulty level
which is not unsurmountable. A
good time allocation strategy for this section would be around 20-25 minutes.
Attempts in the range of 16-18 should be considered to be very good, while the
cut off could be around 10.
General Knowledge No. of Qs: 21 (0.5 marks per Q à
Total Marks – 10.5 Marks) The
GA section had questions from familiar areas like FDI, Cities/Capitals, Books
& Authors etc. In fact, questions like the one of a statement on upper
classes was a straight lift from Pratiyogita Darpan, a book that we always
suggest to the IIFT aspirants. There
were many questions which needed the students to get the right combination of
options (Matching) and these could have easily been solved by elimination, if
one had the basic knowledge about these areas. A
good time allocation for this section would be around 10-12 minutes. Attempts in the range of 12-14 should be considered to be very good.
IIFT Fact file
|