The competitive banking examination conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) attracts millions of candidates every year. While the IBPS has earned a reputation to conduct large -scale examinations such as PO, Clerk, SO, and RRB, and other banking and insurance exams, a particular aspect of its evaluation process continues to lighten confusion and anxiety: the generalization process. However, to ensure fairness in many innings, the lack of transparency makes many aspirations feel lost in a black box of unexplained results.
What is normalization and why is it used?
Normalization is a statistical process that is used to adjust the score based on the difficulty level of different examination innings. Since the IBPS examination is conducted in several sessions to accommodate a large number of applicants, the level of difficulty in these sessions may vary slightly. To ensure that no candidate is deprived of a difficult change, generalization balanced the score to reflect fairness.
Missing source: Lack of transparency of IBPS
Normalization results are an important part of the calculation, despite the IBPS do not use the real formula or method. Unlike examinations like SSC or CAT, which provide a basic understanding of their generalization logic, IBPS also does not release the session-wise raw score data. This lack of transparency has inspired candidates to question the fairness and continuity of their evaluated marks.
Why are the candidates losing confidence in IBPS?
Candidates often find a big difference between their expected and generalized marks without justification or clarification. Since raw scores and shift-wise cut-offs are not shared, candidates are surprised how their scores fall, or in some cases, without any clarity. The situation deteriorates when high -performing candidates fail to create a merit list due to unexpectedly unexplained generalized score.
Comparison with other competitive exams
Examinations like CAT (Common Admission Test) and SSC CGL also implement generalization. However, these agencies publish generalization formula/ logic, which helps candidates understand how Marx is adjusted. The decision to prevent the original logic of IBPS creates an unnecessary barrier between candidates and transparency, especially when the result of the examination directly affects their career.
Banking candidates demand more transparency
At stake career and futures, it is appropriate for aspirations to demand clarity from the body. IBPS can increase confidence and reduce anxiety by disclosing:
- Generalization formula.
- Session-wise raw score data.
- Shift-wise difficulty indicator or scoring trends.
Providing these insights will help candidates evaluate their performance and make better planning for future efforts.
Normalization in multi-shift examination is necessary, but it should be accompanied by openness and accountability. When candidates do not understand how their score is calculated, it reduces the reliability of the process. The IBPS should address this long -standing concern by making its generalization process transparent. After all, the candidates are not just looking for a score, they are looking for fairness and clarity how this score took place.
