Campus Performace Report

Aspiring Minds' Campus Analysis Report

XYZ Institute of Technology

(B.Tech/B.E, 2009)

Aspiring Minds Assessment Pvt. Ltd.

Study of Students' Employability and their Performance in AMCAT

Aspiring Minds Assessment Pvt. Ltd323 Udyog Vihar, Phase II Gurgaon, Haryana 122015, India

Tel: (91) 124 4148777Email: [email protected]

www.princexml.com

Prince - Personal Edition

This document was created with Prince, a great way of getting web content onto paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Score Interpretation ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Percentile Interpretation ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Section 1 - Score Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 9I. Inferences ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

II. Performance Summary ............................................................................................................................... 12III. Training Suggestion ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Section 2 - Company Match ................................................................................................................................. 14I. Perspective on Company Shortlisting Criteria ........................................................................................ 14

II. Employability Prospects .............................................................................................................................. 15III. Bird's-eye-view of Employability ............................................................................................................... 16

Section 3 - Intra Campus Comparison ............................................................................................................. 19I. Degree Comparison ..................................................................................................................................... 19

II. Stream Comparison ..................................................................................................................................... 21

Section 4 - Perspective On Students ................................................................................................................ 24I. Star Performers ............................................................................................................................................ 24

II. High Potential Students .............................................................................................................................. 24

Aspiring Minds' Concluding Words ................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29I. Candidates Score Table ............................................................................................................................... 29

II. Statistical Significance (Confidence) .......................................................................................................... 32III. National Average (Norm) ............................................................................................................................ 33IV. Variance (Standard Deviation) .................................................................................................................... 33V. About Aspiring Minds................................................................................................................................... 34


2


Purpose of this Report

The Aspiring Minds Campus Analysis Report provides a detailed analysis of campus students'quality and their employability in the industry. Our aim is to produce a report which is useful to thecampus and includes a comprehensive comparison across different degrees, streams and batches.All such analysis will serve as an employability check up for students and accordingly, the campuscan prioritize efforts to increase the overall student employability.

The sections containing tables and charts in this report are those we constructed after an in-depthanalysis of AMCAT assessment data collected from your campus. Different sections of this reportgive a broad view on numerous aspects related to the performance of students. We evaluate yourstudents with the national average, which is calculated on a sample of entry-level job-aspirantsover 12 states in India. This comparison reveals the areas in which your students fare better (orotherwise) than the average student assessed by us, and determines the employability of studentsfor diverse industries. This report will give a clear picture of the status of students eligible for thelisted companies and also help the institute to work on the weak areas figured by Aspiring Minds'analysis.

We also provide an intra-campus analysis to give an overview of the characteristics of betterperforming students (so that they can be encouraged more) and others, such that proper rectifyingmeasures can be taken.

On the basis of the interpretation of the analysis, we suggest certain recommendations for yourcampus. We are certain that these recommendations will help XYZ Institute of Technology towardsits goal of providing excellent education to the students, which will result in better employability.Our recommendations, if properly implemented, will also help increase the standing of the campusamongst prospective students.

Data Snapshot

Campus XYZ Institute of Technology

Date of testing 06.08.2009

Degree tested B.Tech/B.E (157 students)

Number of students tested in each degree compared

B.Tech/B.E 157 students

MCA 62 students

Number of students compared in each stream

Computer Science 32 students

Information Technology 43 students

Electronics 50 students


3


Electrical 12 students

Mechanical 18 students

Others 20 students

Note: some students either did not enter their stream or entered it incorrectly. These students have not been included inany stream. Thus total students tested could be more than students in all reported streams.


4


Introduction

This report is written with reference to the AMCAT conducted in your campus on 06.08.2009 wherea total of 157 students were tested. The areas in which your students were assessed are:

AMCAT Modules

I. EnglishII. Quantitative Ability

III. Logical AbilityIV. Computer FundamentalsV. Computer Programming

VI. Electronics & SemiconductorVII. Aspiring Minds Personality Inventory (AMPI)

I. English

Familiarity with English Language in its various nuances is an essential skill, especially in thecurrent climate of global networking. Ideally, any recruitment should involve a test of skillsin handling the language in ways that promote the objectives of the company and establishdesired rapport. Needless to state, an appropriate test is necessary.

Our English test uses a variety of internationally standardized resources for framingquestions aimed at determining the candidate's ability to understand (a) the written text(b) the spoken word and (c) communicate effectively through written documents. The testbroadly covers the following areas:

a. A wide-ranging Vocabulary to cope with general and specific terminology.b. Syntax and sentence structure, the incorrect use of which distorts meaning and

becomes a communication hurdle.c. Comprehension exercises designed to test a candidate's ability to read fluently and

understand correctly.d. The ability to understand and use suitable phrases, which enrich the meaning of

what is conveyed.

Time management and accuracy in conformity with the examiner's criteria.

II. Quantitative Ability

The Quantitative Ability assesses the ability of the candidate in following two aspects:

a. Basic understanding of numbers and applicationsThis section tests whether the candidate has understanding of basic numbersystem, i.e., fractions, decimals, negative, positive, odd, even numbers, rationalnumbers, etc. The candidate should know how to do basic operations on thesenumbers, understand concepts of factors/divisibility and have good practice on


5


algebra. Apart from operations on numbers, the candidate should know how toconvert a real-world problem into equations, which is to be solved to find anunknown quantity. The candidate is tested on Word Problems representing variousscenarios to assess the same.

b. Analytical/Engineering MathsThese are aspects of mathematics needed for Engineering disciplines and analysisof data. This includes permutation-combination, probability and understanding oflogarithms.

III. Logical Ability

The Logical Ability section assesses capacity of an individual to interpret things objectively,to be able to perceive and interpret trends to make generalizations and be able to analyzeassumptions behind an argument/statement. These abilities are primary for success of acandidate in the industry. Specifically, these are divided into following sections:

a. Deductive Reasoning: Assesses the ability to synthesize information and deriveconclusions.

b. Inductive Reasoning: Assesses the ability to learn by example, imitation or hit-and-trial. This also provides an indication of how creative the individual is.

c. Subjective Reasoning: Assesses the critical thinking ability of an individual to seethrough loopholes in an argument or group of statements.

All these abilities are tested both using numerical and verbal stimuli. Coachable questionshave been identified and removed.

IV. Computer Fundamentals

In the current scenario, knowing how to use the computer is essential for all professions.This module specifically assesses the suitability of candidates for the ITeS sector, CustomerSupport positions, Data Entry positions, Content Writers, Journalists, Marketing/Sales, etc.

The basic thrust of the module is not to test theoretical computer concepts, but testwhether the candidate recognizes different parts of the computer and knows how to usethe computer for day-to-day tasks such as word processing, using the Internet, makingpresentations, etc. The test also assesses whether the candidate has experience indebugging problems in computer hardware/operations and whether he/she knows how tochange some basic settings. The test includes the following sections.

A. Hardware Usage and OrganizationB. Operating System Usage and ConceptsC. Basic Software and Internet


6


V. Computer Programming

The Computer Programming Principles and Algorithms Module evaluate the suitability ofthe candidate in the software industry. It not only tests the knowledge and application ofbasic constructs of programming, but also concepts of data structures, algorithm analysisand object-oriented-programming.

The test is language-independent and all programming questions use a pseudo-code.Significant effort has been made to exclude memory-based and rote-learning questions.The test contains questions on debugging programs, finding the output of programs,completing incomplete programs, finding complexity of algorithms, questions onimplementation and operations on different data structures, etc.

The test contains the following sections:

a. Structure and constructs of Computer Programsb. Data-structures and Basics Algorithmsc. Object Oriented Programming Concepts

VI. Electronics & Semiconductor

The Electronics and Semiconductor test assesses the suitability of the candidate for theSOC, Embedded Systems, VLSI design, etc. companies. This test together with that ofProgramming assesses suitability of candidate for EDA companies. The test has thefollowing sections:

a. Analog Electronics1. Basic Components, their operations and Circuit Analysis2. Active Components, Large, Small Signal and Circuit Analysis3. Frequency domain and time domain analysis of systems, Feedback and

Stability4. Opamp based circuits and analysis

b. Digital Electronics1. Boolean Algebra, Minimization of Boolean Functions2. Implementation and Analysis of logic gates3. Sequential blocks - flip-flops and latches4. Digital Circuits and Blocks5. State Machines and design of Complex sequential circuits

VII. AMPI: Aspiring Minds Personality Inventory

It is the first personality inventory designed for personality analysis of Indian collegegraduates for the purpose of inputs to corporate personnel selection. AMPI is based on thefive factor model, which is by far the only scientifically validated and reliable personalitymodel. Several scientific studies across the world have shown that different combinationsof the five factor personality traits strongly correlate to different job profiles and predictlong term job performance reliably. AMPI analysis will be a worthwhile objective input to


7


the corporate selection process and help find better matches to job profiles. The AMPIquestionnaire asks candidate reaction in scenarios, his/her beliefs, likes-dislikes toascertain their personality factors. Factors map to traits such as candidate motivation,self-discipline, sociability, persistence, confidence, emotional stability, etc. which bothintuitively and scientifically map to job requirements. AMPI builds in a strong proprietarymethodology to control distortions due to social desirability and answer-faking.

AMPI has been designed specifically keeping the fresh Indian graduates in mind. Contextis very important in design of items. AMPI items take into consideration the culturalsensibilities of Indians, the scenarios students face at college/home, also depending on thesocio-economic status of the target population. This brings AMPI into a unique position ascompared to generic/Western inventories, which do not suit our target population and failmiserably.

AMPI's scoring is based on statistical techniques of factor analysis, polytomous itemanalysis and structural modeling. Norms have been set on large candidate assessmentdone on final year graduates. Testforms are auto-generated such that each factor can bereliably predicted in feasible amount of time. Test-retest reliability and test validity arestatistically guaranteed.

AMPI traits are:

a. Extraversionb. Conscientiousnessc. Neuroticismd. Openness to Experiencee. Agreeableness

Score Interpretation

All scores lie between 100 and 900. The scores are normalized on a Gaussian curve using statisticaltechniques. The scores follow global standards of validity and reliability. They are valid for threeyears and remain consistent on repeat testing till the candidate's ability improves due to sustainedlong term efforts.

Percentile Interpretation

The percentile of the candidate is calculated over a National average group based on the percentileof all students tested by Aspiring Minds. Various studies conducted demonstrate clearly that thepercentiles are stable for a year and will not vary more than two percentile points. The percentileis a very important metric and provides an idea as to the rank of the candidate in comparison withall graduates nationwide.


8


Section 1 - Score Analysis

This section shows the overall performance of the campus students, along with their averageand standard deviation in each module. In Campus Aptitude and Skill Chart below, BLUE trianglesrepresent (average) score of your campus in each module. The RED triangle represents TotalAptitude score, which comprises of English, Quantitative Ability and Logical Reasoning scores.

The Campus Ability Table below shows the campus average and standard deviation along with theNational average, percentile of the average score of campus, difference between the campus andNorm average, and significance of the difference (indicated by confidence). Norm is the NationalAverage of all the candidates tested on AMCAT. Confidence refers to the likelihood (ranging from 0to 100%) that the results observed in the study are real, and not due to chance. In this analysis, ifconfidence is less than 90%, it indicates that the difference between the Campus Average and theNational Average is not significant and that both the scores are equivalent. For confidence greaterthan or equal to 90%, the difference between the campus and the National Average is consideredsignificant. If the difference is positive, campus students are better than the National Average andvice versa.


9


Campus Ability Table

ModulesAttempted

CampusAverage

Percentile

CampusAverage

(Std. Dev.)

NationalAverage

(Std. Dev.)

Difference(Campus -National)

ConfidenceIs

Significant?1

English 39% 472 (107) 501 (106) -29 100% Yes

QuantitativeAbility

61% 551 (109) 520 (115) 31 100% Yes

Logical Ability 41% 481 (97) 502 (95) -21 100% Yes

ComputerFundamentals

65% 588 (127) 545 (116) 43 100% Yes

ComputerProgramming

40% 417 (118) 449 (120) -32 99% Yes

Electronics &Semiconductor

50% 328 (73) 327 (91) 1 46% No

Total Aptitude 49% 505 (76) 508 (90) -3 100% Yes

1 if confidence is less than 90%, it indicates that the difference between Campus Average and National Average is notsignificant and that both the scores are equivalent.

I. Inferences

1. EnglishCommunication is the key to building relationships and trust that leads to success inbusiness. English is a corporate language and hence, the ability to read and comprehendthis language effectively is essential to qualify for all types of job profiles, whether it istechnical or non-technical. Although the difference is not large, it is not very pleasing tofind that the students of your institute have scored lower than the National Average inEnglish module. We sincerely believe that students can improve their English with a littlemore effort and dedication towards the language. By making English communication andreading a habit, students can improve their score to go beyond the National Average. Thecampus and the faculty also need to create a conducive environment, where students areencouraged to communicate in English.

2. Quantitative AbilityQuantitative Ability measures a person's ability to deal with numbers and real-worldproblems quantitatively and mathematically. It is the ability to convert a real worldproblem into equations which can then be solved to find the result. This module isdesigned to measure a candidate's basic math and algebraic skills, his/her understanding ofbasic quantitative concepts and his/her ability to reason quantitatively, solve quantitativeproblems and interpret graphical data. Your campus has shown good performance inQuantitative Ability module, scoring higher than the National Average; but note that the


10


difference is not substantial. Your students should practice different kinds of problems ondifferent topics like numbers, decimals, probability, logarithms, etc. This will help them toget a good hold of this area, which in turn will increase their scores.

3. Logical AbilityThe purpose of Logical Reasoning module is to test students' logical skills and check theirintuitive ability, decision making capability, problem solving approach and other areaswhich are important from a company's perspective. People with strong Logical Reasoningare quicker to perceive and interpret things objectively. Therefore, proficiency in logicalreasoning is desired for all job profiles. Students of your institute have scored equivalentto the National Average in Logical Reasoning module. Proper guidance from the facultyand focused efforts from students are required to succeed the National Average. Studentsshould solve various kinds of logical puzzles and play logical games regularly. This willsharpen their skills tremendously, thereby increasing the employability of your students.

4. Computer FundamentalsThe Computer Fundamentals module tests for the basic knowledge of a candidate aboutthe working on Computer and its associated technology. The module tests student'sproficiency in using Windows, browsing the Internet, etc. As satisfactory computerknowledge is expected of all in corporate world, good performance in this module isa must for all job profiles. The students of your institute have performed well in thismodule, scoring slightly higher than the National Average. Their performance can befurther elevated by focused effort by the institute and students together by enhancingtheir knowledge on computers and different types of software. This can be achieved byregularly reading computer magazines and journals and by gathering information on theInternet.

5. Computer ProgrammingComputer Programming module assesses a candidate's programming skills. The sub-categories of this module are basics of programming, data structures, object orientedprogramming and theoretical computer science (complexity, data types, etc.). A high scorein this module is an indicator of proficiency in the role of software engineer or developer. Inthis module, your campus has scored lower than the National Average, but the differenceis less. To overcome this gap, proper corrective measures are required before it is too late.Students should practice a variety of simple coding problems from all the sub areas of thismodule, increasing the difficulty level while attaining the excellence.

6. Electronics & SemiconductorThe Electronics and Semiconductor Module tests the student's understanding of analogand digital electronics. Students need expertise in this area to pursue a career in fieldssuch as VLSI design, Embedded Systems, Computer-Aided-Circuit Design - in general, theSemiconductor and SOC industry. The topics included in this module are taught to studentspursuing Electronics/Electrical engineering. In many cases, it is also taught to studentspursuing engineering in Computer Science, Instrumentation, etc. It is good that the campusis equivalent to the National average, but there is lot of room for improvement. It seemsthat students first require a brush up of basic concepts followed by lot of question solving.Giving weekly or bi-weekly assignments to students and making them solve back problemsis a great way to further improve the conceptual understanding of students and developproficiency in applying the concept in various ways and situations.


11


II. Performance Summary

From the above analysis, it is clearly visible that the performance of the students at your campusis good in Quantitative Ability and Computer Fundamentals, which is appreciable. They haveperformed satisfactory in Logical Ability and Electronics & Semiconductor, whereas extra effortscan make a tremendous difference in performance. However, the students' performance is notsatisfactory in English and Computer Programming, therefore additional training sessions andcorrective measures are required by the campus authorities. Methodologies such as mock tests,assignments and extra classes can become a valuable strategy for the benefit of students. Thecampus can also include proactive mentoring sessions for weak students and review their skills inthe given area(s). Another approach can be to hold training sessions focusing on comprehensiveguidance for the students to excel in their weak areas. The gain resulting from these trainingsessions and your continuous support will allow overall development of the student and furtherenhancement in their abilities.

III. Training Suggestions

This section lists areas where your students need to improve on the basis of their performance inthe AMCAT. For each module, according to the degree of the improvement needed, suggestionsare provided so that the performance of students can be improved.

Campus Training Requirement Table

Area toImprove Upon

Degree ofImprovement

Suggestion

English Strong

Conduct a number of mock tests and make sure that thestudents always appear for it, without missing any of the tests.This will help them to know where they actually stand.Encourage playing games like Scrabble, Crossword, etc. thatare based on English vocabulary. You can try placing suchgames in campus library. Conduct tests and quizzes under timeconstraints which would help students judge theirperformance and further improve it.

QuantitativeAbility

Very LessExamples on a variety of questions should be made and thenextensively discussed to equip the students with differentconcepts.

Logical Ability Moderate

Include explicit training for reasoning skills to make thestudents practice different types of questions such assyllogism, blood relations, direction sense, pattern recognition,etc. Encourage students to solve different types of puzzles andsolve questions which need logical thinking. Have them lay theproblem clearly in their minds and then only start solving it.


12


Area toImprove Upon

Degree ofImprovement

Suggestion


Very LessGive them assignments which entail usage of different parts ofcomputer system.

ComputerProgramming

Strong

Sharpen your students' skills by making them design programsfor complex problems. Try giving them more challengingassignments. One of the best ways to improve fundamentalskills in this module is by reading technical literature and goodbooks with lot of examples. You could subscribe to technicaljournals and more books on computer programming in yourlibrary. Choose a high-level language like C/C++/Java and letthe students try implementing many different programs(pattern/series generation, arithmetic operations, decision-making, use of functions, etc.) in the chosen language. Or,in other words, practical exposure to programming should beencouraged.


Moderate

The right way of teaching Electronics and Semiconductor is tomake students do a lot of weekly or bi-weekly assignments.Teachers should prepare solutions for back-problems of theaforesaid texts and then give these problems to students tosolve. Electronics is a math like subject. One cannot read it tolearn it, it is application based and is learnt by doing. Goodunderstanding of combinational logic, circuit analysis anddesign is required to excel in this module. We suggest that thestudents should keep practicing a few questions in these areasto keep their knowledge refreshed. Make sure they go throughvarious examples, understand and practice them. Then, makethem solve multiple choice questions under time constraint.


13


Section 2 - Company Match

This section gives you an approximate idea about the kind of companies your students arecompetent for. This section also provides an insight into the criteria used by different companiesfor the process of hiring. Additionally, an estimate of the employability of your campus studentsin different sectors is mentioned. To improve employability prospects, domains in which yourstudents need to concentrate their efforts are also listed.

I. Perspective on Company Shortlisting Criteria

Different companies use custom benchmarks on AMCAT to shortlist the types of candidates theyrequire. As per past usage of Aspiring Minds' pool by companies, following are few examples ofcompanies where the students can aspire to get in to kick-start their successful careers.

• Large Services Companies

These types of service companies have large training setups of their own. They providesystem integration solutions, software application development, testing solutions andmany other services. For large services companies, Computer Programming score is notan important criterion. They look for candidates with acceptable English and LogicalReasoning along with strong Quantitative Ability skills. A good score in computerprogramming module is an advantage. HCL, TCS, Wipro, Satyam, Polaris etc are some ofthe major large scale service based companies.

• Small or Core Technology Companies

These types of product based companies analyze the future requirements of market andcome up with exact solutions and product enhancements. That is, they develop theirown products/applications based on the market requirements. These companies primarilylook for good programming skills and quantitative ability. Since the job does not includeinteraction with clients, they do not focus on good scores in English. Yahoo, Microsoft,Texas Instruments, etc. are some of the product based technology companies.

• Hardware and Networking Companies

These companies specialize in Hardware and Network Support and basically provideintegrated solutions for business enterprise applications, networking equipment andnetwork management. That is they help manage organization's computing resources upand running. These companies primarily look for average quantitative and logical ability.Since the job does not include a lot of interaction with clients, they do not necessarilyrequire good scores in English Comprehension. Cisco, Hewlett Packard, Nortel, NEC, Citrixand Netgear are some of the Hardware/Networking companies.

• Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) Companies


14


Knowledge Processing Outsourcing (popularly known as KPO) calls for the application ofspecialized domain pertinent knowledge. KPO business entities provide typical domain-based processes, advanced analytical skills and business expertise, rather than just processexpertise. These companies look for an impressive command in English and soundknowledge in both Quantitative and Logical Reasoning. Evalueserve, Ugam Solutions, 24/7Customer, ICICI OneSource, etc. are some of the leading KPOs in India.

• Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Companies

Business process outsourcing companies can be aptly defined as those that act to utilizethe services of a third party in order to perform its back office operations. The BPO marketis forecast to hit $450 billion by 2012. These companies look at moderate to outstanding/exceptionally good English, depending on whether they have national or internationalclients. The other parameters they use for short listing are acceptable Logical Reasoningand Computer skills. GE Capital, Convergys, Wipro Spectramind and Dell are some of theprominent BPO entities.

II. Employability Prospects

This section analyzes the students on the benchmarks of diverse companies and then indicatesthe percentage of students from your campus eligible for a particular type of company. It also laysemphasis on the number of students needing training and grooming sessions.

Campus Job Match Table

Type of CompanyPercentage of Students

EligiblePercentage of Students Need

Training

Large IT companies 22% 78%

Small/Core Technologycompanies

3% 97%

KPO 9% 91%

BPO 49% 51%

Hardware & Networkingcompanies

38% 62%

It is clearly visible from the above table that the percentage of students eligible for both Large ITcompanies and Small/Core Technology companies is very low. Also for Hardware & Networkingcompanies a moderate percentage of students meet the eligibility criteria. Since technicalstudents mostly aspire to go for product or service based technology companies, it is a matter ofdeep concern that most of the students do not meet the companies' criteria. If the institute desires


15


a good placement record for these types of job profiles, it should provide regular assignmentsof varying difficulty levels and conduct periodic tests with special stress on weak areas of thestudents. This can go a long way in improving the quality of knowledge imparted to students,thereby increasing their understanding as well.

Less number of students are eligible for KPOs whereas fair number of students are eligible forBPOs. Extra effort by the campus and student self motivation can elevate the performance of thestudents. To increase the employability in KPOs and BPOs, concentrated efforts are required inEnglish communication skills.

III. Bird's-eye-view of Employability

The following chart displays an overview of the employability of students in your institute. Thecircles represent different company types and parts of circle indicate the percentage of studentseligible for the respective company. For example, an overlapping region between KPO and Large ITcompanies circle represents percentage of students eligible for both the companies.

Note: the arrow in the figure above points to the number of students eligible for a particular company. BPO sector is notshown in the figure.

It is evident that 51% students of your campus need training to become employable in theindustry. These are the students who are not eligible for any of the above mentioned companies.Please also note that if we include students who are just eligible for BPO sector, the total percentof students in need of training becomes 62%.


16


The following table suggests the methods to be implemented in order to improve employabilityof your students for each type of company. These recommendations are provided on the basis ofweak modules for each company, which the faculty should work on to help their students. Campusis requested to go through these suggestions and implement them to elevate the chances of gettingplaced in that particular company.


17


Campus Employability Enhancement Table

Type ofCompany

CampusEmployability

Prospect

Areas in Need of Training for Improving EmployabilityChances

Large ITcompanies

Low

These companies are basically looking for good Englishand Logical skills with average Quantitative ability. Toincrease the employability prospects for this industry,extra efforts are required by the campus authority onEnglish, Quantitative Ability and Logical Ability.

Small/CoreTechnologycompanies

Low

These companies are basically looking for goodProgramming, Logical and Quantitative abilities. Toincrease the employability prospects for this industry,extra efforts are required by the campus authority onEnglish, Quantitative Ability, Logical Ability andComputer Programming.

KPO Low

These companies look for candidates having basicknowledge of English and good Quantitative andReasoning abilities. If employability prospects is to beincreased for this industry, campus faculty will need tofocus on English and Logical Ability.

BPO Medium

These companies look for candidates having basicknowledge of English and average Reasoning abilities. Toincrease the employability prospects for this industry,extra efforts are required by the campus authority onEnglish.

Hardware &Networkingcompanies

Medium

These companies are basically looking for candidateshaving basic knowledge of English and good Quantitativeand Reasoning abilities. If employability prospects is tobe increased for this industry, campus faculty will needto focus on English and Logical Ability.

According to our analysis, 49% and 38% of your students are eligible to work in BPO and Hardware& Networking companies respectively which is good and 22%, 3% and 9% of your students areeligible to work in Large IT companies, Small/Core Technology companies and KPO respectivelywhich is relatively low. It should be noted that 51% of the students do not meet the companycriteria at all and need training to be eligible for these companies.


18


Section 3 - Intra Campus Comparison

In this section, we will compare assessment scores to create a comprehensive comparative analysisbetween different degrees and different branches of a degree and different branches of a degreeof your college. This section shall explain the competitiveness of students of each degree, branchand batch with others in the respective group.

I. Degree Comparison

In the Campus Degree Comparison Chart, performance of different degrees at your campus canbe visualized. Average percentiles in modules which are common between the two degrees arecompared below.

The table below provides the average score of the two degrees in their common AMCAT modules.The difference between degree scores is also calculated, which will provide a perspective of whichdegree has performed better in different areas. The confidence calculated alongside shows if thedifference in the scores is statistically significant or not.


19


Campus Degree Comparison Table

Modules

B.Tech/B.E

Percentile(Average

Score)

MCAPercentile(Average

Score)

PercentileDifference(B.Tech/

B.E -MCA)

ScoreDifference(B.Tech/

B.E -MCA)

IsSignificant?

Confidence

English 39% (472) 22% (419) 17% 53 Yes 100%

QuantitativeAbility

61% (551) 41% (494) 20% 57 Yes 100%

Logical Ability 41% (481) 33% (460) 8% 21 Yes 94%


65% (588) 62% (581) 3% 7 No 69%

ComputerProgramming

40% (417) 48% (444) -8% -27 Yes 96%


50% (328) 36% (294) 14% 34 No 64%

1. EnglishFrom the graph and table, we can easily infer that B.Tech/B.E students have goodcommand over English in comparison to the MCA students with a significant differenceof 17 percentile points. However, both degrees have scored below the National Average. Itis one area where high improvement is needed by students of both the fields.

2. Quantitative AbilityIt should be of no surprise that MCA students have scores less in this section as comparedto those in B.Tech as this is a general pattern observed by Aspiring Minds.

3. Logical AbilityIn the Logical Reasoning section, B.Tech/B.E students have outdone the MCA studentsof your campus. Steady efforts by both the students and the campus authorities arerequired to maintain this performance and better it. But, the scores attained by studentsof both the degrees are below the National Average. Your campus must channelize itsefforts in improving the level of students of both degrees, in order to upgrade their overallperformance.

4. Computer FundamentalsThe performance of the students of both the degrees is equivalent in ComputerFundamentals section. Students of both the degrees have scored above the NationalAverage, which is a good indication. Students should not lose their focus and continuouslyput in the desired efforts to enhance their performance.

5. Computer Programming


20


MCA students, with a strong background in Computer Programming are known to havegood programming skills in comparison to B.Tech students. The comparison above provesthis point as it is evident that MCA students have given a remarkable performance inComputer Programming. As both the degrees have scored below the National Average, itis one area where high improvement is needed by students of both the fields

6. Electronics & SemiconductorThe performance of the students of both the degrees in Electronics and Semiconductor isequivalent.

Our analysis shows that B.Tech/B.E students have performed well in English, Quantitative Abilityand Logical Ability modules, while they have not performed well in Computer Programmingmodule. Also, in Computer Fundamentals and Electronics & Semiconductor modules they haveperformed equivalent to MCA students.

II. Stream Comparison

Different streams in your campus have been tested on the Aspiring Minds' benchmark to discoverthe pattern of your students' performance in each stream. The streams that are compared in thisstudy are:

1. Computer Science2. Information Technology3. Electronics4. Electrical5. Mechanical6. Others

The chart below shows the module-wise average scores comparison for each stream. To interpretthe chart, refer to the above illustration. Each horizontal bar represents the average score alongwith the standard deviation of a particular branch in that module. The vertical line at the center ofeach bar represents the average score. The length of bar represents the range of scores obtainedby students of that stream.


21


Note: color bands are in order.

For each module, the following table lists the top scoring streams. Only the modules which arecommon for all the streams have been considered in the table.

Top Scoring Streams For Each Module

Rank EnglishQuantitative

AbilityLogicalAbility


ComputerProgramming


1 Electrical Electrical ElectricalInformationTechnology

Others Electronics

2ComputerScience

Others OthersComputerScience

InformationTechnology

Electrical

Note: streams with less than 5 students have not been considered for the analysis.

On the basis of AMCAT scores obtained by different streams in your campus, we make followinginferences -

1. EnglishCandidates having Electrical as specialization have scored highest in English among otherspecializations. Computer Science students scored slightly lower than Electrical studentswith a difference of 3.94 percentile whereas Mechanical students have scored significantlylower with difference of 22.33 percentile from Electrical. Also, note that Computer Science,Electronics, Information Technology, Mechanical and Others students have scored poorlyin comparison to the National Average whereas Electrical students have performed wellwith respect to the National Average.


22


2. Quantitative AbilityIn Quantitative Ability Electrical students are the top scorers, succeeding Others witha difference of 3.66 percentile while Information Technology students are the lowestscorers. When compared with the National Average, Computer Science, Electrical,Electronics, Mechanical and Others students have done better in this section. TheInformation Technology students need to pay more attention to these areas as they haveunderperformed.

3. Logical AbilityElectrical students have shown that they are the best when it comes to Logical Reasoning.Others students follow them with a difference of 5.05 percentile while Computer Sciencestudents are the last in the order with a difference of 22.68 percentile. Computer Science,Electronics, Information Technology, Mechanical and Others students have not performedup to the mark when compared with the National Average. On the brighter side, Electricalstudents have done well with respect to the National Average.

4. Computer FundamentalsComputer Fundamentals section is well attempted by Information Technology studentsin comparison to the Computer Science students with a difference of 28.33 percentile.Mechanical students' performance is comparatively lower with respect to the otherstreams, scoring 41 percentile in this section. If nationwide comparison is made, thenMechanical students have performed lower than the National Average, and ComputerScience, Electrical, Electronics, Information Technology and Others had done fairly wellwith respect to the calculated National Average.

5. Computer ProgrammingWhen it comes to Computer Programming, Others students have grabbed the top positionamong all streams. Mechanical are the last rankers with a 36.92 percentile difference.Also, Consider that all the streams have scored low in comparison to the National Average.

6. Electronics & SemiconductorWhen it comes to Electronics and Semiconductors, students of Electronics are the bestperformers in comparison to the Electrical with a 20.44 percentile difference. We haveobserved that Electrical students have scored low in comparison to the National Averagewhereas Electronics are better performers with respect to the National Average.

In your campus, Electrical stream performed outstandingly well in maximum number of modules.Also, Mechanical stream performed poorly in maximum number of modules in comparison to otherstreams, and therefore need special attention.


23


Section 4 - Perspective On Students

I. Star Performers

In this section we analyze the performance of a few exceptional students and provide perspectiveon them. This section will be helpful in identifying the most brilliant students in your campus andthe students who need a lot of improvement.

Campus Star Performers

EnglishQuantitative

AbilityLogicalAbility


ComputerProgramming

TotalAptitude

ManavBhardwaj

(785)

PiyushFarsaiya

(765)

AbhishekVerma(655)

Santosh Yadav(833)

SurajRaghuvanshi

(665)

ManavBhardwaj

(655)

Neha Jaiswal(745)

RameshChandra

(735)

SandeepKumar(635)

Manav Bhardwaj(833)

Kaushal Kumar(635)

RameshChandra

(648)

PeeyushPandey(725)

DipakAgarwal

(725)

VikasAsthana

(635)

SurajRaghuvanshi

(800)

Jayant Shah(595)

ApoorvMoghey

(638)

ObaidullahSiddiqui

(725)

AbhinavShrivastwa

(705)

YogendraBharti(625)

Rahul Gupta(800)

Apoorv Moghey(585)

PiyushFarsaiya

(635)

RameshChandra

(715)

Rajnesh Patel(685)

RajneshPatel(625)

Junaida Khan(766)

Manav Bhardwaj(575)

JyotsnaKhanduja

(622)

We suggest the campus to provide due recognition to these students with awards, prizes etc. tobuild a culture of excellence.

II. High Potential Students

There are certain students who we believe have great potential and some guidance andencouragement by the campus authorities can go a long way in making a non-trivial difference intheir job prospects.

1. Manav Bhardwaj2. Apoorv Moghey3. Yogendra Bharti4. Ambrish Kumar

8. Kaushal Kumar9. Piyush Farsaiya

10. Vishal Chaudhary11. Naveen Kumar


24


5. Yatendra Goswami6. Jyotsna Khanduja7. Abhinav Pratik

12. Nitya Gupta13. Charu Sharma14. Sanobar Riaz

These students of your campus have shown exceptional performance in all the modulesattempted in AMCAT. They have the potential to be placed in the companies of their choice.Aspiring Minds recommends sustaining this positive attitude so that they strive to achieve moreand improve their current performance. To achieve this, persistent drilling and focused endeavor isrequired.

1. Usha Singh2. Ashish Jain3. Virendra Harit4. Shilpi Gupta5. Krishna Gupta6. Amit Kumar7. Abhishek Dwivedi

8. Mamta Kumari9. Suman Singh

These students have shown exceptionally good performance in English. However, as theirperformance is not that great in other modules, we recommend that they work hard on theirQuantitative and Logical Reasoning and the subject of their domain to realize their potential to thefullest.

1. Shitanshu Bhanot2. Abhishek Verma3. Abhishek Chandra4. Gajendra Singh5. Satendra Sharma6. Akhilgulsia

These students have good English and aptitude skills, but they need to work hard on their majorsubject if they want to do well in the job market. We suggest that they should be given specialattention so that they utilize their ability to the fullest.

1. SandeepRam

2. Puneet Goel3. Swati

Gandhi4. Arjit Mittal5. Sushil

Verma6. Gaurav

Tripathi7. Praveen

Sharma

8. SandeepKumar

9. TanujaKumari

10. Rahul Singh11. Suraj

Raghuvanshi12. Rohitkumar13. Atul

Dhemaan14. Pankaj

Mehra

15. RahulVerma

16. Nitin Kumar17. Manikant

Sirohi18. Akash -19. Tejendra

Kashyap20. Chandresh

Singh21. Pradeep

Patanwar

22. KamranAhmad

These students have shown the most disturbing results. They have not performed well in mostof the modules. These candidates need special encouragement and attention from the campusto work harder before it is too late. To build their future, they need to act now! Special training


25


sessions should be of great help.


26


Aspiring Minds' Concluding Words

To summarize the overall analysis of your campus done by Aspiring Minds, key-points from allsections are highlighted below:

• The performance of the B.Tech/B.E students in your campus is good in Quantitative Abilityand Computer Fundamentals, which is appreciable. They have performed satisfactoryin Logical Ability and Electronics & Semiconductor, whereas extra efforts can make atremendous difference in performance. However, the students' performance is notsatisfactory in English and Computer Programming, therefore additional training sessionsand corrective measures are required by the campus authorities.

• According to our analysis, 49% and 38% of your students are eligible to work in BPOand Hardware & Networking companies respectively which is good and 22%, 3% and9% of your students are eligible to work in Large IT companies, Small/Core Technologycompanies and KPO respectively which is relatively low. It should be noted that 51% ofthe students do not meet the company criteria at all and need training to be eligible forthese companies.

• Our analysis shows that B.Tech/B.E students have performed well in English, QuantitativeAbility and Logical Ability modules, while they have not performed well in ComputerProgramming module. Also, in Computer Fundamentals and Electronics & Semiconductormodules they have performed equivalent to MCA students.

• In your campus, Electrical stream performed outstandingly well in maximum number ofmodules. Also, Mechanical stream performed poorly in maximum number of modules incomparison to other streams, and therefore need special attention.

The strongest recommendation Aspiring Minds will like to give is initiation of classes to improve theweak areas of candidates. Apart from classes, regular quizzes and special training session shouldalso be initiated, where students answer questions under time constraints. The classes should bestudent oriented so that the students are open to questions and are free to ask their doubts. Peerteaching can be another way to increase the learning of students in the class

Along with increasing the employability of the institute, this will help your students compete withother candidates in a more effective and efficient way. With regard to areas where your studentsscored well, a sustained effort is needed. Regular assignments of problems should be given so thatthe students can accelerate their performance.

We strongly request the campus authorities to direct all students to follow the feedback givenby Aspiring Minds to each one of them. The campus authorities can go a long way in remindingstudents about their strengths and weaknesses, thus encouraging them to uphold their strengthsand improve on their weaknesses. Consider special classes, better teaching processes and focusedcourses so that students get a good platform to improve and perform. We also strongly suggestconducting AMCAT again at campus after 4 months of dedicated hard work by students and campusauthorities. This shall give students a benchmark to improve themselves, and help us understand


27


if the initiated training program was useful. Of course, it would help students as well, with betterscores leading to better job opportunities.

We thank XYZ Institute of Technology for giving us an opportunity to conduct AMCAT in theircampus. For any clarification or further analysis, we can be contacted at [email protected] (91) 124 4148777.


28


mailto:[email protected]

Appendix

I. Candidates Score Table

The Candidates score table below shows the scores and percentile of all the students of yourcampus tested on AMCAT. All scores lie between 100 and 900.

AMCAT Score, PercentileAMCAT ID Name

EnglishQuantitative

AbilityLogical Ability


ComputerProgramming


1047291287 Abhay Singh - - - - - - - - - - 333 9 %

1047609058 Abhinav Diwedi 315 7 % 575 73 % 565 70 % 633 86 % - - 333 9 %

1047154346 Abhinav Pratik 585 75 % 625 84 % 535 61 % 666 91 % 545 64 % - -

1047852991AbhinavShrivastwa

515 55 % 705 95 % 435 30 % 733 97 % - - - -

1047678895 Abhishek Verma 505 52 % 665 91 % 655 89 % 666 91 % - - 233 2 %

1047925355 Abhishek Dwivedi 545 64 % 394 20 % 485 45 % 600 79 % - - - -

1047283631 Abhishek Chandra 625 84 % 565 70 % 615 82 % 500 50 % 305 6 % 366 14 %

1047972798 Abhishek Kamal 435 30 % 565 70 % 485 45 % - - - - - -

1047465807 Akash 365 14 % 445 33 % 435 30 % 366 14 % 335 9 % - -

1047589264 Akhil Gulsia - - - - - - - - 355 12 % 400 21 %

1047987095 Akhilgulsia 515 55 % 635 86 % 505 52 % 500 50 % - - - -

1047739327 Ambrish Kumar 665 91 % 635 86 % 525 58 % 700 95 % 505 52 % - -

1047507743 Amit Das 385 18 % 625 84 % 415 25 % 600 79 % 415 25 % - -

1047228315 Amit Kumar 545 64 % 464 39 % 425 27 % 533 60 % 325 8 % 166 0 %

1047867799 Amit Kumar 535 61 % 645 88 % 464 39 % 533 60 % 565 70 % - -

1047491515 Anil Verma 505 52 % 585 75 % 405 22 % 666 91 % - - 400 21 %

1047940922 Anil Jha 425 27 % 615 82 % - - - - - - - -

1047604794 Ankit Ranjan 525 58 % 485 45 % 585 75 % 700 95 % 365 14 % - -

1047821006 Ankit Singh 395 20 % 655 89 % 505 52 % 700 95 % 445 33 % - -

1047112059 Anoop Jain 405 22 % 655 89 % 525 58 % 400 21 % - - 200 1 %

1047525245 Anshul Yadav 385 18 % 615 82 % 605 80 % 633 86 % - - 266 3 %

1047186707 Anuj Yadav 455 36 % 585 75 % 605 80 % 633 86 % 335 9 % - -

1047111581 Anurag Srivastava 395 20 % 565 70 % 575 73 % 733 97 % 325 8 % 233 2 %

1047962527 Apoorv Moghey 695 94 % 625 84 % 595 78 % 700 95 % 585 75 % - -

1047246591 Arjit Mittal 415 25 % - - - - - - - - - -

1047399358 Arun Yadava 435 30 % 534 61 % 455 36 % 500 50 % 335 9 % - -

1047797439 Ashish Jain 565 70 % 465 39 % 475 42 % 633 86 % 425 27 % 266 3 %

1047566219 Ashish Kumar - - - - - - 433 30 % 545 64 % - -

1047305853 Ashish Kumar 324 8 % 575 73 % 415 25 % - - - - - -

1047842588 Ashutosh Singh 554 67 % 545 64 % - - - - - - - -

1047737182 Atul Dhemaan 405 22 % 495 48 % - - - - - - - -

1047167819 Avkash Kumar 544 64 % 585 75 % - - - - - - - -

1047221055 Brij Singh 365 14 % 645 88 % 515 55 % 500 50 % 335 9 % - -

1047346111 Chandra Prakash 545 64 % 585 75 % 475 42 % 500 50 % - - 233 2 %

1047385919 Chandra Singh 365 14 % 585 75 % 505 52 % 433 30 % - - 466 39 %


29



EnglishQuantitative



ComputerProgramming


1047818907 Chandresh Singh 324 8 % 355 12 % 405 22 % 533 60 % 405 22 % - -

1047851803 Charu Sharma 515 55 % 525 58 % 585 75 % 566 70 % - - 400 21 %

1047603134 Chetanya Sharma 435 30 % 405 22 % 465 39 % 333 9 % 555 67 % 233 2 %

1047368316 Deepak Kushwaha 445 33 % 625 84 % 605 80 % 633 86 % 245 2 % 400 21 %

1047367485 Deepak Singh 404 22 % 625 84 % 465 39 % 433 30 % 375 16 % - -

1047526207 Devendra Kumar 455 36 % 334 9 % 385 18 % 600 79 % - - 266 3 %

1047582138 Dipak Agarwal 425 27 % 725 96 % - - - - - - - -

1047504798 Gajendra Singh 554 67 % 645 88 % 545 64 % 700 95 % 425 27 % - -

1047964563 Gajwant Singh 485 45 % 655 89 % 595 78 % 700 95 % - - 266 3 %

1047416751 Gaurav Singh - - 315 7 % 305 6 % 566 70 % 295 5 % - -

1047484151 Gaurav Tripathi 485 45 % - - - - - - - - - -

1047202090 Gaurav Gupta 455 36 % 535 61 % - - - - - - - -

1047824303 Gaurav Sharma 395 20 % 605 80 % 485 45 % 466 39 % 455 36 % - -

1047180711 Hari Gupta 385 18 % 645 88 % 545 64 % 666 91 % 545 64 % 333 9 %

1047993237 Harish Kumar 435 30 % 405 22 % 545 64 % 366 14 % 155 0 % 400 21 %

1047582591 Hasan Raza 355 12 % 565 70 % - - - - - - - -

1047980847 Himanshu Agrahri 385 18 % 625 84 % 435 30 % 500 50 % 365 14 % - -

1047661927 Hriday Gupta 495 48 % 595 78 % 405 22 % 600 79 % 445 33 % - -

1047715487 Jayant Shah 365 14 % 645 88 % 515 55 % 666 91 % 595 78 % - -

1047273353 Jitendra Kumar 625 84 % 515 55 % 555 67 % 733 97 % 405 22 % - -

1047786395 Junaida Khan 375 16 % 495 48 % 425 27 % 766 98 % 495 48 % - -

1047863999 Jyotsna Khanduja 625 84 % 625 84 % 615 82 % 633 86 % 465 39 % - -

1047340955 Kamiesh Yadav 365 14 % 545 64 % 415 25 % 500 50 % - - 300 5 %

1047709247 Kamran Ahmad 365 14 % 425 27 % 375 16 % 400 21 % 395 20 % 233 2 %

1047567612 Kaushal Kumar 515 55 % 615 82 % 615 82 % 566 70 % 635 86 % - -

1047931830 Krishna Gupta 555 67 % 505 52 % 485 45 % 533 60 % - - - -

1047522213 Kumar Singh 425 27 % 625 84 % - - - - - - - -

1047991477 Kundan Pandey 395 20 % 585 75 % 395 20 % 533 60 % 315 7 % 400 21 %

1047132543 Mamta Kumari 535 61 % 505 52 % - - - - - - - -

1047537343 Manav Bhardwaj 785 99 % 635 86 % 545 64 % 833 100 % 575 73 % - -

1047822271 Mandeep Singh 455 36 % 625 84 % 455 36 % 433 30 % - - 300 5 %

1047671711 Manikant Sirohi 385 18 % 475 42 % 455 36 % - - 325 8 % - -

1047328607 Md.amim 464 39 % 405 22 % 345 11 % 666 91 % 435 30 % - -

1047675839 Mohit Jain 475 42 % 545 64 % 465 39 % 700 95 % 295 5 % 433 30 %

1047231295 Naveen Kumar 565 70 % 585 75 % 505 52 % 666 91 % 535 61 % - -

1047867107 Naveen Kumar 625 84 % - - - - - - - - - -

1047340601 Neeraj Bharti 485 45 % 395 20 % 425 27 % 600 79 % 435 30 % - -

1047247230 Neha Jaiswal 745 98 % 605 80 % - - - - - - - -

1047326399 Nitin Singh 525 58 % - - 545 64 % 533 60 % 405 22 % - -

1047972543 Nitin Kumar - - 645 88 % - - - - - - - -

1047282487 Nitin Kumar 375 16 % 404 22 % 405 22 % - - 365 14 % - -

1047162647 Nitya Gupta 555 67 % 625 84 % 525 58 % 666 91 % 455 36 % - -

1047961199ObaidullahSiddiqui

725 96 % 565 70 % 455 36 % 433 30 % 505 52 % - -

1047354269 Pallavi Katiyar 505 52 % 555 67 % 495 48 % 600 79 % - - 366 14 %

1047429754 Pallavi Verma 445 33 % 675 92 % 535 61 % 700 95 % - - 300 5 %


30



EnglishQuantitative



ComputerProgramming


1047372671 Pankaj Mehra 225 1 % 145 0 % 145 0 % 200 1 % 100 0 % 200 1 %

1047120573 Pankaj Mishra 365 14 % 565 70 % 445 33 % 400 21 % - - 366 14 %

1047658431 Paritosh Kumar 495 48 % 575 73 % 595 78 % 500 50 % - - 333 9 %

1047400334 Peeyush Pandey 725 96 % 585 75 % 455 36 % 533 60 % 475 42 % - -

1047995149 Piyush Farsaiya 535 61 % 765 98 % 605 80 % 700 95 % - - 333 9 %

1047439229 Pradeep Patanwar 375 16 % 475 42 % 455 36 % 466 39 % 335 9 % - -

1047732799 Prashant Singh 505 52 % 555 67 % 435 30 % 666 91 % 415 25 % - -

1047924411 Prateek Singh 455 36 % 595 78 % 535 61 % 500 50 % - - 266 3 %

1047922618 Praveen Sharma 494 48 % - - - - - - - - - -

1047421597 Preeti Gupta 465 39 % 554 67 % 495 48 % 566 70 % 475 42 % - -

1047114671 Puneet Goel 355 12 % - - - - - - - - - -

1047154607 Puneet Goyal 545 64 % 635 86 % - - - - - - - -

1047911149 Rahul Singh 485 45 % 585 75 % 495 48 % 600 79 % - - 266 3 %

1047670398 Rahul Gupta 395 20 % 585 75 % 565 70 % 800 99 % 465 39 % 266 3 %

1047736873 Rahul Singh 475 42 % 565 70 % 525 58 % 766 98 % - - 400 21 %

1047427935 Rahul Verma 475 42 % 435 30 % 415 25 % - - - - - -

1047554975 Rahul Singh 355 12 % - - 195 1 % 133 0 % 100 0 % - -

1047592829 Rajiv Kumar 445 33 % 565 70 % 495 48 % 466 39 % 455 36 % - -

1047301471 Rajneesh Kumar 425 27 % 475 42 % 355 12 % 400 21 % - - 366 14 %

1047412157 Rajnesh Patel 465 39 % 685 93 % 625 84 % 666 91 % 345 11 % - -

1047671543 Ramesh Chandra 715 96 % 735 97 % 495 48 % 466 39 % - - 266 3 %

1047966583 Ramji Yadav 385 18 % 545 64 % 525 58 % 666 91 % 545 64 % - -

1047436159 Ravindra Singh 415 25 % 565 70 % 435 30 % 700 95 % 385 18 % 366 14 %

1047760603 Ravindra Yadav 295 5 % 565 70 % 465 39 % 533 60 % 215 1 % 300 5 %

1047157695 Rohit Kumar 475 42 % 475 42 % 465 39 % 733 97 % - - - -

1047731113 Rohitkumar 395 20 % 265 3 % 185 1 % - - - - - -

1047559335 Rupendra Singh 385 18 % 595 78 % 465 39 % 566 70 % - - 400 21 %

1047845517 Sandeep Kumar 455 36 % 545 64 % 635 86 % 633 86 % - - 300 5 %

1047993279 Sandeep Ram - - - - - - - - 295 5 % - -

1047625659 Sandeep Kumar 464 39 % 185 1 % - - - - - - - -

1047483321 Sanjay Saxena 355 12 % 595 78 % 485 45 % 566 70 % 455 36 % - -

1047977815 Sanobar Riaz 675 92 % 655 89 % 525 58 % 633 86 % - - - -

1047139263 Santosh Yadav 415 25 % 485 45 % 425 27 % 833 100 % 465 39 % - -

1047726015 Sarita Jaiswal 425 27 % 645 88 % 455 36 % - - - - - -

1047183002 Satendra Sharma 534 61 % 625 84 % 565 70 % 466 39 % 405 22 % - -

1047762495 Satish Chand 335 9 % 375 16 % 415 25 % 400 21 % - - 333 9 %

1047724731 Satish Mishra 495 48 % 635 86 % 585 75 % 600 79 % - - 300 5 %

1047152055SatyendraSrivastav

355 12 % 555 67 % 475 42 % 700 95 % 385 18 % 400 21 %

1047373679 Saurabh Singh 315 7 % - - 245 2 % - - - - 400 21 %

1047462577 Saurabh Anand 355 12 % 635 86 % 595 78 % 666 91 % - - 366 14 %

1047345083 Saurabh Singhy - - - - - - 666 91 % - - 400 21 %

1047202749 Saurabh Singh 485 45 % 625 84 % - - - - - - - -

1047251855 Saurbh Singh - - - - 515 55 % - - - - - -

1047771031 Shekhar Singh 475 42 % 535 61 % 555 67 % 600 79 % - - 433 30 %

1047413375 Shilpi Gupta 565 70 % 455 36 % - - - - - - - -


31



EnglishQuantitative



ComputerProgramming


1047252877 Shitanshu Bhanot 615 82 % 635 86 % 605 80 % 666 91 % - - 300 5 %

1047971612 Shobhit Bareliya 495 48 % 645 88 % 475 42 % 433 30 % - - 433 30 %

1047382963SomendraChaudhary

445 33 % 465 39 % 485 45 % 666 91 % 375 16 % - -

1047429503 Suman Singh 535 61 % 435 30 % 475 42 % - - - - - -

1047864127 Suraj Raghuvanshi - - - - - - 800 99 % 665 91 % - -

1047538493 Suraj Kataria 565 70 % 645 88 % - - - - - - - -

1047861183 Suraj Raghuvanshi 395 20 % 405 22 % - - - - - - - -

1047129023 Surendra Yadav 395 20 % 535 61 % 455 36 % 433 30 % 165 0 % 333 9 %

1047157183 Sushil Sharma 435 30 % 595 78 % 425 27 % 666 91 % - - 433 30 %

1047865788 Sushil Verma 195 1 % - - 105 0 % - - 165 0 % - -

1047376255 Swati Gandhi - - - - 415 25 % - - - - - -

1047407998 Syed Hasan 575 73 % 615 82 % 475 42 % 600 79 % 405 22 % - -

1047217785 Tanuja Kumari 365 14 % 395 20 % - - - - - - - -

1047391031 Tejendra Kashyap 415 25 % 345 11 % 455 36 % 533 60 % - - 200 1 %

1047128671 Usha Singh 565 70 % 435 30 % 425 27 % 700 95 % 485 45 % - -

1329231039 Usha Singh 334 9 % 295 5 % 325 8 % - - 555 67 % - -

1047469428 Vandana Shahi 335 9 % 415 25 % 495 48 % 633 86 % 425 27 % - -

1047872378 Vikas Asthana 295 5 % 475 42 % 635 86 % 700 95 % - - 300 5 %

1047304998 Vikash Yadav 415 25 % 665 91 % 355 12 % 633 86 % 495 48 % - -

1047310399 Vikrant Sachan 655 89 % 655 89 % 385 18 % 733 97 % 545 64 % - -

1047939370 Vipin Mishra 525 58 % 635 86 % 415 25 % 533 60 % 475 42 % - -

1047149230 Vipin Kumar 375 16 % 515 55 % 515 55 % 333 9 % 345 11 % 300 5 %

1047389463 Virat Vats 505 52 % 635 86 % 475 42 % 733 97 % 515 55 % - -

1047245723 Virendra Harit 565 70 % 295 5 % 385 18 % - - - - - -

1047973750 Vishal Kumar 445 33 % 515 55 % 545 64 % 666 91 % - - 366 14 %

1047209919 Vishal Chaudhary 515 55 % 585 75 % 585 75 % 700 95 % 515 55 % - -

1047119803 Yash Singh - - - - 615 82 % 600 79 % - - 433 30 %

1047889855 Yash Lal 655 89 % 675 92 % 485 45 % 733 97 % 535 61 % - -

1047764917 Yash Singh 535 61 % 635 86 % 455 36 % - - - - - -

1047994295 Yatendra Goswami 655 89 % - - - - - - - - - -

1047695163 Yatendra Goswami 695 94 % 625 84 % 535 61 % 633 86 % 475 42 % - -

1047103411 Yogendra Bharti 585 75 % 655 89 % 625 84 % 733 97 % 555 67 % - -

II. Statistical Significance (Confidence)

All score distributions generally follow a pattern called the National Average (alternatively,Gaussian) distribution. National Average distribution is by far the most common assumption withregard to score distribution. For the purpose of comparison, we express AMCAT scores as NationalAverage distribution. The most characteristic feature of National Average distribution is that thescores for maximum number of students fall in a very narrow range around the average value.

The percentage of scores lying in the range falls exponentially as we move away from the averagevalue. The confidence percentage, which ranges from 0% to 100%, can be indicates the chances ofthe difference in scores arising by chance. A high confidence percent indicates that it is very likely


32


that the difference observed is real and not by chance. In this analysis, we classify differences, withconfidence 90% and high, as significantly different (that is, not by chance).

III. National Average (Norm)

To construct the norms (National Average), balanced sampling was used to select more than5000 students tested by Aspiring Minds nationwide. Balanced sampling technique ensures thatthe selected candidates are representative of entry-level job-aspirants over 12 states in India. It isensured that the sample contains different degrees, specialization, gender, regions, etc. in the samecomposition as the National distribution.

To summarize score distribution of the norms and XYZ Institute of Technology students, two values(statistics) were used: average of the scores and standard deviation of the scores. While the formervalue indicates what, on average, candidates score in the test, the latter value tells how muchdo scores deviate from the average. High value of standard deviation means that the scores aredissimilar and spread across the scale. In contrast, a low value of standard deviation means thatcandidates score similar to each other and the average.

IV. Variance (Standard Deviation)

The variance (or standard deviation) is a measure of how spread out a distribution is. In otherwords, it is the measure of variability. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tendto be very close to the same value (the average), while high standard deviation indicates that thedata are spread out over a large range of values.


33


V. About Aspiring Minds

Aspiring Minds was founded in 2007 by alumni of IIT and MIT (USA) with a vision to introducescientific assessment methodology to bring together job-seekers and campuses across India on acommon standardized platform that is recognized by multiple companies on a national level. Theaim of Aspiring Minds is to highlight the pool of talented students and progressive campuses tocorporates nationally, provide an insight on how they can improve their employability and helpthem acquire jobs on the basis of their potential. In a short span of time, Aspiring Minds has earnedcredibility and is working with multiple corporations such as Microsoft Research, HCL Technologies,MPhasiS EDS, iTrust, Evalueserve, Godrej Agrovet, ICICI Prudential and SKS Microfinance.

Aspiring Minds' flagship test, AMCAT, has helped more than 35,000 students across 250 campusesin 12 states in India. Today, AMCAT is India's largest Employability Test.

Board of Advisors

Prof. Tarun Khanna, HBS, USADr. Una-May O'Reilly, MIT, USADr. Vijay Bhushan, PhD., UIUC, USA


34


Documents

Campus Performace Report