Scores are editorial
Every institute review publishes an overall score from 0 to 5 plus six dimension scores. Those numbers are editorial judgments by Anchal Katyal. She weighs trade-offs against primary sources and closes with a named verdict: recommend, shortlist, skip, or situational.
Use the overall to scan. Use the dimensions and verdict to decide. A campus that wins brand can still lose on fees for your situation.
How a review is scored
- Collect primary evidence for fees, placements, academics, peer intake, campus, and brand signal.
- Score each of the six dimensions on a 0-5 scale against the published sub-factors below.
- Run a weighted overall as a consistency check; the published overall remains an editorial call.
- Write Our verdict with who it is for and who should look elsewhere.
- Link the fee circulars, placement PDFs, and admissions pages used for the call.
Dimensions and weights
Placements and ROI carry the most weight because that is where aspirants get hurt by marketing screenshots. Brand still matters; it does not outvote fee and outcome evidence.
| Dimension | Weight | What it captures |
|---|---|---|
| Placements & Outcomes | 25% | Salary disclosure quality, sector mix, and batch consistency |
| Fees & ROI | 20% | Fee burden vs credible earnings, payback, and funding risk |
| Academics & Faculty | 20% | Curriculum depth, faculty signal, pedagogy, and programme design |
| Campus Life | 10% | Infrastructure, location, clubs, and day-to-day student life |
| Peer Quality | 15% | Batch profile, classroom intensity, and network longevity |
| Brand & Network | 10% | Public ranking signal, alumni reach, and recruiter pull |
What each dimension looks at
Sub-factors are prompts for judgment. They do not auto-sum into the score.
25% weight
Placements & Outcomes
- Median and average CTC transparency
- Sector diversity of recruiters
- Placement percentage / roles offered
- Consistency across recent batches
20% weight
Fees & ROI
- Total programme fees vs median CTC
- Estimated payback period
- Opportunity cost awareness
- Scholarship / loan accessibility signals
20% weight
Academics & Faculty
- Curriculum depth and electives
- Faculty research and teaching signal
- Case method and industry projects
- Accreditation and programme design
10% weight
Campus Life
- Hostels, sports, and student clubs
- Location and campus infrastructure
- Peer events and culture intensity
- Wellness and student support
15% weight
Peer Quality
- Incoming batch profile (work ex, diversity)
- Classroom competition intensity
- Club and student leadership quality
- Peer network longevity
10% weight
Brand & Network
- NIRF / public ranking signal
- Alumni visibility in industry
- Recruiter brand pull
- Long-run recognition among employers
How to read a score
Dimension scores use the same 0-5 scale. Labels below describe the band for that campus evidence set.
| Band | Tier | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| 4.7-5.0 | Exceptional | Top-tier on that dimension among IIMs we cover. |
| 4.3-4.6 | Strong | Clear strength; usually a reason to keep the campus on a serious shortlist. |
| 3.8-4.2 | Solid | Competitive, with trade-offs you should read in the verdict. |
| 3.3-3.7 | Adequate | Usable, but not a reason to choose the campus on its own. |
| Below 3.3 | Limited | A weak point relative to peers; weigh it against your priorities. |
Compare campuses on the dimension that matches your constraint. Debt-sensitive admits should start with Fees & ROI. Brand-first shortlists should start with Brand & Network, then check whether placements and fees still clear your bar.
Verdict labels
The overall number never replaces the verdict sentence. Labels mean:
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Recommend | Strong default for the named profile. Still verify current fees and the latest placement PDF. |
| Shortlist | Keep it in play if your constraints match; not automatic first choice. |
| Situational | Right for a specific goal, risk tolerance, or profile. Wrong as a default pick. |
| Skip | Better options exist for most aspirants given fees, outcomes, or fit. |
Evidence rules
- Prefer primary sources: institute fee circulars, admissions pages, audited placement reports, curriculum and campus pages from the institute itself.
- Prefer IPRS-style placement disclosures when available. Label MEP vs CTC vs fixed cash when institutes define them differently.
- Use NIRF and other government ranking disclosures as brand signal alongside the review judgment.
- Do not treat coaching aggregators or competitor rank tables as source material.
- Scores cannot be bought. Commercial relationships, if any, are disclosed separately on Disclosure.
What scores do not mean
- They do not guarantee admission, placements, or ROI for any applicant.
- They are not a substitute for the current institute fee circular and placement PDF before you accept an offer.
- A higher overall does not automatically win if the dimension you care about is weak.
Frequently asked questions
Is the overall score an average of the six dimensions?
The published weights are a consistency check. The overall on the page remains Anchal’s editorial call. If dimension math and the overall drift, trust the written verdict and the dimension you care about most.
Can a higher-scoring campus still be wrong for me?
Yes. A 4.6 with weak fee math can lose to a 4.3 with stronger ROI if you are debt-sensitive. Read Fees & ROI and Our verdict before sorting only by overall.
Do institutes pay for higher scores?
No. Scores, ranking order, and verdicts cannot be bought. Commercial policy lives on the disclosure page.
How often do scores change?
When primary evidence moves: new fee circulars, audited placement reports, curriculum changes, or clearer batch-profile data. Each review stamps when figures were last checked.
Next: reviews · disclosure · Compare IIMs · contact
Was this page helpful?
Tell us or send a correction.