CAT Exam Still Favours Engineers Despite IIM Diversity Push
Share
Indeed, as the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) consolidate efforts to diversify their MBA classrooms, the Common Admission Test (CAT) continues to be dominated by negotiating graduates. Despite the preface of academic and gender diversity points during admissions, the structure and design of the CAT test still appear to favor campaigners with strong fine and logical training. As a result, engineering scholars remain disproportionately represented among top songwriters, raising questions about whether the test format aligns with the diversity pretensions of India’s premier operation institutions.
The dominance was formerly again apparent in the 2024 CAT results, where engineering scholars filled most of the top percentile spaces, with only one non-engineering seeker achieving a perfect 100 percentile. While IIMs have succeeded in attracting scholars from commerce, humanities, law, medicine, and other disciplines through policy interventions, experts believe the core nature of the CAT test continues to produce systemic disadvantages for non-engineering applicants, particularly those without advanced mathematics exposure.
Elaboration of the CAT test structure
Over time, CAT has experienced significant changes in format, duration, and testing gospel. According to Ram Kumar PN, professor at IIM Kozhikode and CAT convener 2025, one of the most critical metamorphoses was the shift from a paper-grounded test to a computer-grounded test in 2009. This transition was followed by a major structural overhaul in 2015, which introduced the now-familiar three-section format comprising Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension (VARC), Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning (DILR), and Quantitative Aptitude (QA), each with strict sectional time limits.
Another major change came in 2020, when the test duration was reduced from 180 twinkles to 120 twinkles. This move significantly altered seeker strategy, as applicants were needed to break down smaller but more complex questions under tighter time constraints. According to Prof. Ram Kumar, this shift prioritized abstract clarity, perfection, and strategic thinking over speed, inadvertently serving campaigners oriented to fine rigor, a particularity more common among engineering graduates.
Quantitative and Logical Bias
The quantitative nature of CAT remains a central concern for non-engineering campaigners. The QA section continues to draw heavily from computation, algebra, and number proposition, areas where engineering scholars generally have a stronger foundation. For campaigners who haven’t studied mathematics beyond Class X or XII, this creates a steep literacy wind. The DILR section has also evolved into a mystification-heavy member taking multi-step logical logic and structured problem-solving chops nearly aligned with engineering classes.
While VARC is theoretically sluice-neutral, experts point out that it has become decreasingly conclusion-driven, fastening on thick reading appreciation passages rather than vocabulary or alphabet. This shift poses challenges for scholars educated in indigenous mediums, who may struggle with advanced English appreciation despite strong logical capacities.
Diversity programs Versus Test Design
To fight the slanted representation, several IIMs have introduced Academic Diversity Points for non-engineering graduates and Gender Diversity Points for womanish campaigners during shortlisting and final selection. Prof. Ram Kumar notes that these measures have led to visibly further different classrooms across premises. Still, he also acknowledges that while admissions programs have diversified inputs, the CAT test itself still presents an advanced hedge for non-engineering applicants.
The result is an incongruity where diversity is achieved at the selection stage, but the examination process remains heavily tilted towards a particular academic background. This dissociation continues to fuel debate about whether CAT truly assesses directorial aptitude or simply prices numerical proficiency.
Changing Nature of Competition
Gautam Puri, co-founder and managing director of Career Launcher, believes CAT has steadily moved towards assessing how campaigners suppose rather than how presto they calculate. He explains that earlier performances of the test allowed campaigners to calculate on formulae and lanes, whereas the current CAT demands rigidity, logical depth, and comfort with strange problem types. Despite this shift, Puri admits that strong fine chops still offer a clear advantage.
At the same time, the diversity among CAT test-takers has improved. There has been a conspicuous rise in participation from Commerce, Humanities, Law, Medicine, and professional courses similar to Chartered Accountancy. Further women and scholars from League II and League III metropolises are also appearing for the test, driven by the growing appeal of operation careers and access to online medication platforms.
Is Engineering Bias Reducing?
Some experts argue that CAT is gradationally moving towards a more balanced assessment. Puri points out that the increased focus on reading appreciation, logical logic, and contextual analysis doesn’t innately favor any single academic background. He also notes that QA has become more conception-grounded rather than calculation-heavy, which theoretically levels the playing field.
Still, others remain skeptical. Anubhav Mishra, professor of marketing at Jaipuria Institute of Management, Lucknow, highlights that strict sectional time limits have further constrained non-engineering campaigners. Before, applicants could compensate for weaker sections by outstripping in QA, but the current format restricts similar inflexibility. As a result, engineering graduates, who are more unevenly balanced across sections, continue to dominate the 99-plus percentile type.
Language and Real-World Applicability
Prof. Mishra also raises concerns about the position of English tested in CAT. He argues that the test should concentrate on introductory appreciation applicable to business communication rather than advanced English, especially when AI tools can now handle grammatical delicacy in professional settings. What matters, he says, is the capability to understand and interpret business surroundings, not verbal complexity.
As IIMs push harder for inclusive classrooms, the debate around CAT’s essential bias is doubtful to fade. While policy interventions have bettered representation, experts agree that a deeper reevaluation of the test design may be necessary to ensure that directorial eventuality, rather than academic background, determines success.
