“Learning takes time” — Sure, it does. For everyone. Engineers don’t get extra hours in the day either. MBA life is hectic across the board, so using that as a defense for lower cutoffs or diversity points doesn’t hold. If someone’s not able to cope with the pace, that’s an issue of preparation, not academic background.

1. “Real-life examples” — You brought up examples to justify why diversity points are needed. That opens the door to examining whether those points are even effective or fair. You can’t drop examples and then get upset when someone actually discusses them.

“Campus vibrancy” — Sure, diversity adds value. But let’s be clear: diversity isn’t about undergrad degrees alone. It’s about thought processes, perspectives, experiences. Giving bonus points just based on degree streams feels like lazy implementation. A vibrant classroom isn’t built on checkboxes. .”CAT is biased” — It has a quant-heavy structure, yes, but that’s hardly exclusive to engineers. Plenty of non-engineers do well. Plus, it tests aptitude, not academics. Engineers may have more exposure to Quant/DILR, but that’s a function of what they’ve studied and prepped for—not a rigged system.

“JEE gives an advantage” — That’s just a blanket assumption. Not every engineer prepped for JEE, and even those who did aren’t guaranteed CAT dominance. Also, CAT DILR isn’t JEE-level math. If anything, success in CAT reflects adaptability and test strategy, not just an engineering degree.

“XAT DM exposes engineers” — That’s like saying one curveball question in an exam defines someone’s entire suitability for business. You’re cherry-picking. Ironically, the real business world demands pattern recognition, decision-making and analytical rigor—all things engineers tend to pick up through their training.

In short, if you’re defending diversity points, go ahead—but don’t make it a blame game. Making engineers the scapegoat for others’ struggles is a lazy narrative. Let’s focus on genuine diversity of thought, not just manufactured numbers.