Reality Check India

Analysis of Tamilnadu MBBS 2016-17 admissions

Posted in Uncategorized by realitycheck on June 20, 2016

Here is a quick analysis of TN 2016-17 MBBS Admissions. With a few findings at the end.

How MBBS capacity is  partitioned

Total seats in Govt Medical Colleges 2172 100%
OPEN COMPETITION 673 31%
OBC 576 26.5%
BC-MUSLIMS 76 3.5%
MOST BACKWARD (MBC) 434 20%
SC 391 15%
SC-ARUNTHATHIYAAR 65 3%
ST 21 1%

Seats obtained by each group using Vertical Quota method

The quota device used in India is called Vertical Quota. Also known as the over and above scheme (thanks to Marc Galanter for this word)

Community Seats obtained Percent 2016-17 Percent 2015-16
Total seats in Govt Medical Colleges 2172 100%
OPEN COMPETITION 48 2.2% 2.3%
OBC 1036 47.7% 48.8%
BC-MUSLIMS 97 4.5% 4.5%
MOST BACKWARD (MBC) 557 25.6% 25.3%
SC 410 18.9% 15.9%
SC-ARUNTHATHIYAAR 67 3% 3%
ST 21 1% 1%

If there were no quota at all

Assuming there was no quota system at all in Tamilnadu. Here is how the seats would be allocated

(blue indicates a gain over the vertical quota system)

Community Seats obtained Percent 2016-17 Percent 2015-16
Total seats in Govt Medical Colleges 2172 100%
OPEN COMPETITION 156 7.2% 6.5%
OBC 1439 66.3% 73.3%
BC-MUSLIMS 73 3.4% 2.5%
MOST BACKWARD (MBC) 414 19.1% 15.2%
SC 83 3.8% 2.3%
SC-ARUNTHATHIYAAR 7 <1% 3%
ST 0 0% 0%

 

If a hypothetical Horizontal quota method were used

As explained in “The real difference between horiontal and vertical quotas in India” Each group would  be allowed to scale up to the ‘minimum guarantee mark’ after the 1st round of allocations is done pretending there is no quota at all.  The following groups have shortfall ( MBC 20,  SC 308, SC-A 60, BC-Muslim 3, ST 21 = Total = 412 ) after the first round. The OBC and the General category seats will be knocked from the end until the minimum numbers are met for each group.  Based on rough calculations from the merit list – we estimate that Unreserved (OC or Upper Caste) loses about 20 seats  and the OBC loses 392 seats.

 

(blue indicates a gain over the vertical quota system)

Community Seats obtained Percent 2016-17 Gain % vs Vertical Quota*
Total seats in Govt Medical Colleges 2172 100%
OPEN COMPETITION 136 6.3% 183%
OBC 1047 47.8% 0.4%
BC-MUSLIMS 76 3.5% -22%
MOST BACKWARD (MBC) 434 20% -22%
SC 391 15% -0.8%
SC-ARUNTHATHIYAAR 65 3% 0%
ST 21 1% 0%

  • % Gain over Vertical Quota calculated as  : ( HQuotaSeats – VQuotaSeats)/HQuotaSeats %)

Source of data :  MBBS Provisional Merit List published at tnhealth.org (click on the scrolling list of documents).

 

Key Findings

  1. It is a pure miracle in India that such a data source is available that throws light on the actual utilization of the various categories.
  2. The Central Govt using the cover of RTI go to great extent to hide, that is correct, hide from the people, these key statistics. You have no idea how the vertical quota system is working in AIIMS, IIT, IIMs etc.
  3. In Tamilnadu, the trends are remarkably stable since I started analyzing these statistics 5 years ago.
  4. The OBC group in Tamilnadu are showing absolutely no evidence of disability. In fact the quota system leads to a loss of about 400 seats for them.
  5. Of the top 20 Ranks : 16 are BC, 2 are BC-Muslim, and only 2 are from Unreserved.
  6. The open category in Tamilnadu is only about 4.5%. It is a matter of amazement that such an over inclusion does not generate any comment from the $400M thinktanks in India.
  7. Any analysis of the Jat, Kapu, Patidar protests from inclusion in the Central Govt OBC list must take into account these national imbalance in classification.
  8. The reason for such poor performance of Open Category in Tamilnadu could be a combination of participation disincentives or just lack of competence.
  9. Clearly the Vertical Quota system mechanics need a ground up debate. Do we have the intellectual ecosystem to enter into such a nuanced but ultimately decisive debate?

 

Advertisements

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Karthik Krishnan said, on June 20, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Why and how 625 extra seats in ‘Horizontal quota method’ ?

    • realitycheck said, on June 22, 2016 at 2:47 am

      Check my post again.

      Total number of open category seats = 653
      Seats obtained by Unreserved Candidates (Upper / Forward Caste) = 28
      Seats obtained by candidates from castes currently included in quota groups = 625

      Next check my post on Horiz vs Vert Quota https://realitycheck.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/the-real-difference-between-horizontal-and-vertical-quotas-in-india/

      In VQ method these 625 seats are over-and-above
      In HQ method these will be adjusted within the reserved seats and thus filled up either by merit (REMEMBER Merit doesnt mean given to upper castes !!!)

      • arockia edwin said, on August 10, 2017 at 8:23 am

        Hi, thanks for the data and analyis. i woudl like to get hold of analysis on the rural beneficiaries of TN. ex: if there 2900 seats available through Govt colleges, how many seats have gone to rural students vs urban. I have never seen majority for rural kids getting these…pls help. my number 9841567700

  2. Sundara Rajan (@sundarmail) said, on June 20, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    There is a difference of 331 seats in the horizontal quota method and so are the % over 100.- pl. check the aritmetics

    • realitycheck said, on June 20, 2016 at 2:34 pm

      Thanks there was an error with the data for Horizontal Quota. Fixed now.

  3. sandeep gupta (@sandeepblore) said, on June 21, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Horizontal quota will create more problems than solving one. In few categories, seats in a particular college will not be there then how can a student of that category get seat in that college. Invariably he has to bite into open category which is not possible in horizontal quota.So one problem solved 10 problems created.If a category students rank is high enough to get into a college in open category then how can you deny him a college he wants saying seats not there in his category & you cannot take general category seat.

    • realitycheck said, on June 22, 2016 at 2:42 am

      You are confusing the issues.

      HQ and VQ are two ways to fill a given quantity in a quota pattern when there is significant crossover effects due to compromised “social justice classification”

      What you are talking about is known as the meritorious reserved candidates issue. Given that within each discipline and college the capacity is partitioned (either by HQ or VQ) – what happens when a crossover candidate from reserved group wants to get a more lucrative reserved seat than he would get as open candidate. That is topic for another post and a most vexing issue. I think currently WRONGLY DECIDED by the Supreme Court in a case called “Ramesh Ram & Ors vs Union of India”. A complete mistake.

  4. Ram said, on June 25, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    Statistics is like a bikini. One thing I could see clearly is that had there been no reservation MBC, SC, ST would not have obtained representation in such studies in proportion to their population. We can conclude that reservation is only tool helpful to uplift such social groups. Socio-cultural changes and demand-supply of various economic indicators play a major role in opting for each and every course. Non-representation of general candidates at least in proportion to their population may be due to very many reasons. Such as, central institutions following favourable climate of admission would have diverted them rather than coming into fray in TNMA; selection of engineering courses might have been thought as advantageous in the State without much risk rather than going in for UG, PG, Post PG for better employment in medicine; opting of professional courses like CA, CS, MBA, CWA, CFA, etc. even at the entry stage of +2 is also a reason; highly meritorious may be orthodox enough to not to opt for courses like medicine, veterinary science, etc. From this year Tamil Nadu Agricultural University has also disclosed such data in web. We can analyse that also. Why only medicine other fields are also rewarding…? Object of reservation:- “Enable Social Justice, Ensure Inclusive Growth”. One thing is certain, none of the groups should encroach upon other groups. Proportional reservation to all social groups with preferential treatment for economically weaker will solve any heart burns from any quarters. Every individual should feel proud to be part of the governance of the nation.

    • rc2 said, on June 26, 2016 at 6:04 am

      it doesnt just sound convoluted and circular logic. it is.

  5. […] In 2014, in Tamilnadu medical admissions there were 132 students tied at 100%.  At each 0.125% typically there will be about 200-300 students tied. For example: there will be 132 tied at 100%, 292 at 99.875%, 218 at 99.75% … and so forth.  This happens every year, even in 2016. […]

  6. Manick said, on August 8, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    First time coming across a different analysis! Well done.

    I would also like to bring to your attention another anamoly in admission to TN MBBS seats. In the last three years, NO candidate from CBSE was given admission to any govt. medical college in TN (this is revealed by an RTI raised to the selection committee). Again, I am wondering why no one raises this issue seriously. This is a grave injustice to non-state board students. Clearly, normalization procedure does not work and ineffective. If you are interested, you can read the details here: http://www.justgetmbbs.com/2016/07/cbse-students-incompetent-Tamil-Nadu-MBBS.html

    This is a clear reason why TN objects to NEET exam.

  7. Harish said, on March 30, 2017 at 9:58 pm

    The reason for less open category performance in MBBS admissions is because the percentage of OC in TN is very low. Also i shall give some stats
    5% Brahmins – obviously they prefer engineering over medical
    People of Telugu/Kannada origin – 15%
    Most are rich and are traditional landowners and businessmen.
    No other OC according to my knowledge.

  8. sagar said, on August 2, 2017 at 9:49 pm

    if there is hq there will be loss to sc snd st . so politicians wont allow it .

  9. […] arockia edwin on Analysis of Tamilnadu MBBS 2016-17 admissions […]

  10. murali.n said, on August 25, 2017 at 9:11 am

    THE BRAHMINS DO NOT CONSTITUTE 5%. THEY ARE PROBABLY LESS THAN 2% WITH MOST OF THEM ABROAD. MOREOVER SINCE BIOLOGY IS CUMPULSORY BRAHMINS AND FORWARD CASTE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN BIOLOGY IN 2015 KNOWING THEY DONT STAND A CHANCE TO GET INTO THE MEDICAL COLLEGE IN THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM. NOW THAT NEET IS IN PLACE THE FEW BRAHMINS/FC MAY OPT FOR BIOLOGY FROM NOW ONWARDS, SO ONE CAN FORESEE THEIR PERFORMANCE GOING UP FROM SAY 2019 ONWARDS.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: