Paper Analysis of JMET 2008

MET retains its charm as the most predictable of the major exams and JMET2008 was no different. However, in no way was this among the easy exams of this season. In fact, JMET2008 was a monster in the league of the IIFT and CAT papers, with no respite for the students. The most common reaction among the student community after the exam was that the “QA cutoff would very low – tending towards 0 (!)”.

Section 1: Verbal Communication
No. of Questions: 40

The Verbal Communication section had questions from Reading Comprehension, Grammar, Vocabulary, Analogies and Fill in the blanks. The section had a good mix of both easy and difficult questions and a student who picked up the right questions will have no problems in clearing the. The RC passages were short and readable (as opposed to CAT) but like CAT, had two very close options in most cases, which made them a nightmare to negotiate. The vocabulary questions were not commonly used words which made them very difficult to answer. The Fill in the blanks and the questions based on semantics were doable and would have given opportunities to score.

Section 2: Logical Reasoning
No. of Questions: 40

This section was dominated by the Logical Reasoning kind of questions, i.e., questions on Arguments, Strengthen & Weaken Statements and Logical Flaws. Unlike the previous years, very few questions were based on puzzles. This section was ambiguous and confusing and in several cases, one was better off working out the answers by the process of eliminating choices. There were two sets on Analytical Reasoning – one on blocks and the one based on tasks taken up by four persons, both of which were doable. Overall, this section can be classified as Easy-Moderate and was a section where marks could have been scored in this paper.

Section 3: Quantitative Aptitude
No. of Questions: 40

This section of the JMET has always managed to retain its reputation of being one of the toughest QA sections of all the management entrance exams. Traditionally there used to be a mix of questions on arithmetic as well as higher mathematics (from 10+2 level and sometimes graduation level mathematics). However, this year, the paper setters completely left out the ordinary arithmetic type of questions, involving the familiar topics of geometry, numbers and quadratic equations etc. Further, the questions on higher maths used to be mostly individual questions based on standard concepts. This year, there was a shift of focus from such type of questions to entirely application oriented questions. With the exception of a few individual questions that appeared in isolation, almost all the questions appeared in twelve sets of what can best be termed as “business caselets”, with a heavy emphasis on not only the conceptual understanding across various topics but also on the practical application of those concepts in a real-time problem/decision making situation. To this extent, most of the questions involved dealing with situations which were not perfectly structured as one would find in the usual objective type questions. An uncanny sense of discomfort would have plagued anyone and everyone trying to make sense of this section The concepts involved were as varied as probability distributions, present value of investments/cash flows, linear programming, matrices, differential calculus, curve fitting etc. In fact, the cut-off in this section is expected to be as low as 3 marks.

Section 4: Data Interpretation
No. of Questions: 30

This section, though having only 30 Qs was a nightmare for most students. This was very unlike the easy DI section of the past. Being different from what one was used to, the sets demanded intensive calculations which made this section moderately difficult. The easy sets here were the ones pertaining to Production & Sales and the one on newspapers, which could have been solved with a little bit of effort. 

SECTIONAL BREAK - UP

Verbal Communication: 

This section was moderately difficult and saw question patterns repeating from the previous years. RCs were short and the questions, mostly direct. The difficulty level is the same as that of last year.

Comment: A score of 14+ is possible in this section, while a score of 18+ would be considered good.
Cut-off for this section would be around 10-12 marks.

Logical Reasoning:

As in last year, in this section, more weightage was given to CR and LR. Overall, the difficulty level is also the same as that of last year’s JMET. There were some new question types added- like deducing facts from the given facts, assumptions, monologues etc. This was the easiest section among all the four sections.

Comment: A score of 14+ is possible in this section, while a score of 20+ would be considered good.
Cut-off for this section would be around 10-12 marks.

Quantitative Ability: 

The difficulty level of this section is the same as that of last year. In Higher Maths, the questions were from Linear Programming and there were a couple of questions on matrices. All questions were in the form of caselets drawn from real life situations and were given specific titles. These could be solved using graphs and functions.

Comment: A score of 8+ is possible in this section, while a score of 10+ would be considered good.
Cut-off for this section would be around 5-6 marks.

Data Interpretation: 

This section was more calculation intensive. This section had caselets based on real life situations. As compared to last year, the number of caselets was lower, but the number of questions per caselets increased, thus making it tougher than last year’s paper.

Comment: A score of 12+ is possible in this section, while a score of 15+ would be considered good.
Cut-off for this section would be around 9-10 marks. 

The cut-offs and corresponding ranks are given based on actual data.

Calls from IITD depend on how many people ranked between 1 and 350 apply to IITD. Generally, IITD gives 350 - 400 calls. So if the first 350 rankers do not apply to IITD, then calls may come to ranks up to 800 also.

Expected Cut Offs by Time :