CLAT 2018 – Decoding the Compensatory Formula

CLAT PG LLM NUALS Compensatory Formula Explained Mock Tests Sample Papers
CLAT PG 2019 Online Prep - 100 Mock Tests & 10 Previous Question Papers
  • Ten Solved CLAT PG LLM previous question papers with answers - 2009 to 2018
  • Fifty Full Length Mock tests of 150 questions each - drawn from a question bank of over 9500 CLAT PG specific MCQs
  • Fifty Mini Mock tests of 25 questions each - for quick practice sessions
  • Tests are timed and have Negative marking for realistic simulation
  • All tests can be taken unlimited number of times
  • Accessible via Smart-Phone browsers and Desktops
  • Immediate access - Login details will be sent via email immediately after purchase
Inclusive of all taxes

Pay through Credit-Debit cards, Net-Banking, UPI or Wallets
We use PayTM & Instamojo gateways for secure payments

We attempted to decode the compensatory formula submitted to the Supreme Court by NUALS; and used for adjusting the marks of candidates who claimed to have lost time in the recently conducted CLAT 2018 exam.

The formula seems to raise a few pertinent questions on the basic assumptions behind this approach.

1.‘ The Notional Time Loss’  seems to have been taken from the system report generated by the company which conducted the exam. If the report was generated from the central server, how was it ensured that it captured the actual situation at the terminal / PC that was being used by the candidates ? For example, the server may record that the exam was started and the timer was running; however, if the questions were not displayed due to local system issues in the terminal / PC, how could the server record the same ?

2. The ‘Answering Efficiency’ assumes that students would have taken the same amount of time to answer all questions across the exam. However, many students may prefer to answer easier questions first and then go back to the tougher questions. Candidate may take 10 seconds to answer a question that he / she is very familiar with; and take 60 seconds to carefully review and answer a tougher question – and the extra time may lead to higher accuracy.

3.  The  ‘Additional questions that the candidate could have answered ‘ assumes that the candidate would have attempted all the questions based on the answering efficiency; however, the candidate could have chosen to skip tougher questions, guess the answers for other questions and correctly answer some questions etc. So the number calculated in this column is very subjective.

4. For a few students, the calculations show that they would have actually lost 0.25 marks (due to negative marking) from the marks that they have already scored. What if the student had decided not to attempt any further questions ? Will the revised rank list actually reduce the marks for these students? or will NUALS ignore the negative calculations?

The cascading effect of these calculations may deviate the calculated scores significantly away from what could have been the reality.

The columns in the NUALS report, with our explanations :
Sl. No.(i)Serial number for reference – there are 4801 students who either registered a grievance or were automatically considered based on the system report or for other reasons.
Roll Number(ii)Roll number of the candidate for reference.
Course(iii)UG / UG-SAP / PG  – This column is required since the number of questions and the time allowed varies based on this
Total Exam Duration in seconds(iv)UG & PG candidates were supposed to get 7200 seconds (2 hours)  and UG-SAP; Specially-abled Candidates were allowed 9600 seconds (2 hours 40 minutes)
Notional Time Loss in seconds(v)This data might have been taken from the system reports provided by the company which conducted the exam. This is essentially the difference between the maximum time allowed and the time recorded in the system.

The  numbers in this column should factor-in some specific situations, such as where the timer was running, but the  questions were not displayed due to local issues – the server could still record it as normal time utilized, whereas in reality the candidate was not able to see anything on the screen.

Time availed in seconds(vi) = (iv) – (v)Maximum time allowed for the exam (Minus) Notional Time loss
Number of Questions attempted(vii)The actual number of questions that were attempted by the candidate
No of questions correctly answered(viii)For each correct answer, there was 1 mark awarded
No of questions wrongly answered(ix)For each wrong answer, there was -0.25 marks (Negative marking). There was no negative marking for unattempted questions.
Original Score(x)The actual original score of the candidate, calculated from (viii) and (ix)
Answering Efficiency (Seconds utilized per Question)(xi) =(vi) / (vii)The actual time availed by the candidate (divided by) the Number of questions attempted
Additional questions the candidate would have answered  had there been no time loss(xii) = (v) / (xi)The notional time lost by the candidate (divided by) Answering efficiency
Max No of Questions that could be attempted199 for UG and 147 for PG – since some wrong / ambiguous questions were deleted from the exam from the original 200 for UG and 150 for PG
Revised total number of questions answered(xiii) =(vii) + (xii)Actual number of questions answered (Plus) Additional questions that the candidate could have attempted if he / she had used the full amount of time
Revised total number of questions answered Limited to maximum availableFor a few candidates, who had a higher ‘Answering efficiency’, the number in (xiii) exceeds the actual number of questions in the exam. E.g. The calculation for a particular candidate who had already answered 190 questions, shows that he / she could have answered 29 more questions in the time he / she had lost. Which would mean that he / she could have answered 219 questions if the full 7200 seconds were utilized. However, the maximum number of questions is limited to 199
Revised total number of questions correctly answered(xiv) =((xiii) x (viii)) / (vii)This is the number of questions that the candidate ‘could’ have correctly answered, if he / she had got the full amount of time allowed and based on the actual number of correct answered among the questions actually attempted
Revised total number of questions wrongly answered(xv) =((xiii) *(ix)) / (vii)This is the number of questions that the candidate ‘could’ have correctly wrongly, if he / she had got the full amount of time allowed and based on the actual number of wrong answers among the questions actually attempted
Revised Score after applying the normalisation formula(xvi)Arrived at by calculating 1 mark for the number of questions in (xiv) and deducting 0.25 for the number of questions in (xv)
Difference in score after applying the normalization formula(xvii)Difference between original score (x) and the revised score (xvi)

 

CategoryCandidates Applied or ConsideredCandidates for whom Notional Time loss accepted % of candidates considered out of total Applied or ConsideredActual Number of candidates for whom marks were changed% of candidates considered (Out of Applied or Considered)% of candidates from Notional Loss accepted – for whom marks were changed
Total480160012.50 %52510.94 %87.50 %
UG446654012.09 %47910.73 %88.70 %
UG (Specially abled Persons)1119.09 %19.09 %100.00 %
PG3245918.21 %4513.89 %76.27 %
How the marks changed . . .
CategoryCandidates whose scores increasedCandidates whose scored decreased
Total51312
UG4718
UG (Specially-abled Persons)10
PG414
How many marks changed ? or How many students ?
Change in the Final MarksNumber of PG Candidates for whom the marks changed
-0.254
0.755
1.007
1.505
1.753
2.004
2.251
2.503
2.753
3.001
3.252
3.503
4.001
4.251
5.501
10.501

 

Change in the Final MarksNumber of UG Candidates for whom the marks changed
-0.257
0.251
0.5013
0.7581
1.0087
1.258
1.5024
1.7540
2.0016
2.2512
2.5024
2.7518
3.007
3.2514
3.5018
3.7516
4.007
4.257
4.5013
4.754
5.003
5.254
5.509
5.756
6.003
6.253
6.501
7.008
7.253
7.751
8.004
8.253
8.502
9.002
9.252
9.752
10.251
12.751
13.751
14.001
16.001
16.751

 

Change in the Final MarksNumber of UG – SAP Candidates for whom the marks changed
2.001

Disclaimer : This is a unofficial explanation based on our understanding of the partial and incomplete information available to us and is also based on our assumptions. The details in this article are not officially vetted or validated. Candidates should refer to official notifications and details published by the relevant authorities. LawMint and the authors of this article do not make any claims on on the usability, accuracy or validity of the contents of this article.

The source of the data for this analysis is the PDF file published by Bar&Bench.com at https://barandbench.com/breaking-revised-score-clat-2018-published/

CLAT PG 2019 Online Prep - 100 Mock Tests & 10 Previous Question Papers
  • Ten Solved CLAT PG LLM previous question papers with answers - 2009 to 2018
  • Fifty Full Length Mock tests of 150 questions each - drawn from a question bank of over 9500 CLAT PG specific MCQs
  • Fifty Mini Mock tests of 25 questions each - for quick practice sessions
  • Tests are timed and have Negative marking for realistic simulation
  • All tests can be taken unlimited number of times
  • Accessible via Smart-Phone browsers and Desktops
  • Immediate access - Login details will be sent via email immediately after purchase
Inclusive of all taxes

Pay through Credit-Debit cards, Net-Banking, UPI or Wallets
We use PayTM & Instamojo gateways for secure payments

CLAT 2018 – Decoding the Compensatory Formula
4.8 (95%) 8 votes

Leave a Reply