(Photo credit: Kristian Bjornard)

A lot of expectations rest on a smooth conduct of this year’s Common Admission Test (CAT), after it suffered a major credibility-hit in 2009. The major change in CAT 2010 over CAT 2009 is that of the duration of the test — from 10 days to 20 days and only in good quality centers — in a bid to reduce the stress on the testing infrastructure. But in the rest of the aspects of the exam, little looks changed. The registration process, voucher payment, testing drills, the long wait for the result — are all the same as last year.

The actual improvement in the quality of service during the test will be known in due course of time. However for now, here are five areas where we wish Prometric and the IIMs had made improvements for better candidate experience.

1. Early results – in the second year of the exam in its computer-based avatar, we had expected that the CAT results would be declared a lot earlier than January 12. The more than one-and-a-half-month wait seems neither sufficient as a stop-gap arrangement for a re-test in case there are glitches, nor is it explicable why a computer-aided test should take as long to evaluate as an Optical Mark Reader test. Declaring the result earlier will reduce a lot of the additional stress and expenditure that applicants take over the remaining entrance exams of the season.
2. No explicit provision for re-tests – Even if Prometric has made an internal provision for a large-scale re-test in case things go as wrong as they did last year, it has not made it public. For scattered cases, it will have to grant re-tests to affected candidates very quickly within the Oct 27 – Nov 24 period. But if the test goes wrong for a large number of people, it will have to be very nimble in granting re-tests within that duration to a lot of people. If it has to hold a separate retest after Nov 24, it would yet again mean postponement of the CAT results and admissions of dependent b-schools. Even if it is not as delayed as last year, it will still translate to unmet expectations, media scrutiny, court litigations and loss of credibility.
3. CAT Voucher payment by Credit card/Netbanking/Cash card – The online travel booking industry in the country has sufficiently prepared the ground for Indians to transact online for high-trust items such as train and flight tickets or convenience bills. Allowing voucher payments through the Internet would have reduced the long queues in sweltering heats or relentless rains (depending on where you are) outside Axis Bank branches, at least in the urban areas. Other computer-based exams such as the Management Aptitude Test allow online payments.
4. Test-centers could have been more evenly distributed in large cities – Three of the five centers in Mumbai are located in the north-west suburb of Kandivali, while the other two are not too far in Andheri and Vikhroli. It might help Prometric to coordinate better if the centers are located nearby, but for those living in Mumbai proper will have to travel a lot to take the test. The test centers were better spread out last year, when Byculla and Bandra too had test centers.

   Similarly in New Delhi, four of the eight centers are located on and around Mathura Road, with absolutely no center for Central or East Delhi. Those in some parts of East Delhi might find it convenient to choose a center in Noida, but the bulk of the test-takers in the Delhi University north campus will have to either try their luck at a slot in Punjabi Bagh or Rohini, or travel all the way to some center in South Delhi.

5. A more effective question-leakage disclaimer – last year, questions from each slot of the CAT were leaked within private circles at many coaching institutes, something that Prometric has played down. With no action being taken against anyone for leaking questions in CAT 2009, the disclaimer appears weak and completely statutory in nature. Further, Prometric’s stand on question-leakage (on the lines of “knowing questions from an earlier slot provides no real advantage”) is paradoxical to the disclaimer. If knowing questions indeed does not help, why have the disclaimer? It could either be that the IIMs want to retain the legal privilege of copyright violation in cases where the damage is really large-scale but remain ambivalent in most cases, or if they really mean it, they should explain the disclaimer and its repercussions in a language which would be understood by the intended audience, most of which is young and does not understand legalese.

   The Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC), which administers the GMAT exam has in the past shown that it means what it says in its non-disclosure agreement by cracking down on websites and students that have shared real GMAT questions online. Without such stern action, the disclaimer will continue to be taken lightly and will dent the credibility of the CAT.

We hope that the creators of CAT will mitigate these issues this year itself, or in subsequent years.

What do you think? What part of CAT 2010, from the registration process to the results could be improved? Do comment!