By Jimut Bahan Chakrabarty & Abhradeep Maiti
Like any other entrance system in India, the MBA admission process also has its characteristic uncertain and chaotic features. The admission cycle for MBA programmes at India’s premier business schools for the academic year 2026-27 that had recently concluded, once again highlighted the complexity of the country’s management education admission ecosystem and the urgent need to reform the process.
Every year, nearly 2-3 lakh aspirants appear for the Common Admission Test (CAT), the flagship entrance examination conducted on a rotational basis by one of the six older Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) (Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Calcutta, Lucknow, Indore, and Kozhikode). CAT serves as the primary gateway to the IIMs and several other leading management institutions. Based on CAT scores, academic records, work experience, and other credentials, business schools prepare interview shortlists. The selection process rarely ends with the entrance test.
Candidates often receive interview calls from multiple institutions, each following its own admission process involving personal interviews, Written Ability Tests (WAT), Group Discussions (GD), or similar assessment tools. Consequently, a serious MBA aspirant may attend several interviews across multiple cities in India before receiving one or, quite often, multiple admission offers.
Against this backdrop, the Coordination Forum Meeting of the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), chaired by the Union Minister of Education, on May 14, 2026, assumed particular significance. Organised by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, in collaboration with IIM Ahmedabad, the meeting brought together the Chairpersons of the Boards of Governors and Directors of all the IIMs. Among the key issues discussed was the possibility of introducing a standard admission process across the IIMs, along with a framework for inter-IIM student migration and a more uniform fee refund policy. This proposal has the potential to transform the MBA admission process in India by reducing the costs for candidates as well as the IIMs, and improving the administrative efficiency.
Yet, implementing such a system is far from straightforward. Unlike engineering admissions, which are largely examination-driven, MBA admissions are based on institution-specific selection philosophies. Each IIM assigns different weights to CAT performance, academic consistency, work experience, diversity, personal interviews, and other evaluation parameters. These policies have evolved to reflect each institution’s vision, pedagogy, and strategic priorities, and they are often tied with an institute’s legacy. Business schools aim not only to admit academically strong students but also to create diverse classrooms and identify candidates who are most likely to thrive in the programme and succeed in an increasingly competitive job market. Placement dynamics make this even more complicated.Recruiter preferences, industry presence, programme positioning, and alumni networks differ across campuses. Consequently, every IIM designs its admission policy to attract candidates whose profiles best align with the recruitment patterns specific to its institution. The objective is therefore not simply to admit the candidates with highest CAT percentiles, but to build a cohort that is most likely to benefit from the programme and enrich the alumni base.
At the same time, the absence of a coordinated admission process creates its own set of challenges. Over the years, an implicit hierarchy has emerged among India’s premier B- schools, shaped by institutional legacy, brand value, alumni networks, faculty reputation, placement records, and industry connect. While individual preferences vary depending on specialization, location, fees, and personal circumstances, the broader pattern remains remarkably consistent: some institutions are generally preferred over others. This hierarchy, however, is not static. Although the broad pecking order changes little from year to year, subtle shifts in candidate preferences occur every admission cycle.
A strong placement season, improved recruiter participation, new academic offerings, or changing industry perceptions can slightly alter the relative attractiveness of institutions. These changes may be incremental rather than dramatic, but in a highly competitive admission environment they can significantly influence acceptance behaviour. The difficulty is that these shifts remain largely invisible to B-schools. Institutions have little objective information about how their position in the preference hierarchy may have changed in a given year and are therefore forced to make crucial admission decisions under considerable uncertainty, often based on past experience. This is particularly evident during the rollout of admission offers, where even a small miscalculation of candidate preferences can mean either oversubscription or a shortfall in enrolments, leading to repeated waitlist movement, last-minute offer releases, and increasingly complex seat management.
The admission cycles of the past few years illustrate the magnitude of this uncertainty. Several premier B-schools have resorted to deferred admission offers or optional deferral schemes to manage enrolment volatility, while a few have even had to revoke admission offers after they were issued. Multiple rounds of waitlist movement have likewise become a routine feature of the admission process and are witnessed across many leading B-schools almost every year. These measures should not be viewed as administrative shortcomings; rather, they reflect the inherent difficulty of forecasting candidate decisions in a fragmented admission ecosystem where institutions make offers independently, with little visibility into applicants’ competing offers and evolving preferences.
Candidates also contribute to this uncertainty, but largely as a consequence of the way the admission process is currently structured. Since offers from different B-schools are released at different times and usually come with short acceptance windows, many applicants accept multiple offers while continuing to evaluate their options. During this period, they consult alumni, interact with current students, compare placement outcomes, campus life, and career prospects before making a final choice. Others accept an offer simply to avoid the risk of being left without a seat while hoping to convert a more preferred institution later. This behaviour is perfectly rational from the candidate’s perspective, but it makes it significantly harder for institutions to predict final enrolments accurately. This also lowers the chance for waitlisted candidates to receive an offer as candidates generally hold on to multiple offers as late as possible, often till the day of beginning of classes.
Whether the IIMs will eventually adopt a common admission process remains to be seen. Given the diversity in their admission philosophies, a fully unified system may not be feasible in the near future. However, substantial improvements are possible without compromising institutional autonomy. One practical reform would be to align key admission milestones, particularly the dates of offer releases and programme commencement, across all the IIMs. A coordinated admission calendar would reduce uncertainty for both institutions and candidates. Going a step further, the IIMs could introduce a common offer management portal. If a candidate receives multiple IIM offers on the same day, they could be required to accept only one within a stipulated period, with all other offers automatically released to waitlisted candidates.
If a more preferred IIM extends an offer in a later round, the candidate could be given a limited window to either switch or retain the earlier admission. Such a system would preserve candidate choice while ensuring that seats are recycled quickly, reducing waitlist uncertainty and improving admission efficiency. This will also be beneficial for waitlisted candidates as the likelihood of timely conversion increases due to faster release of offers. Without altering the autonomy of individual IIMs in selecting candidates, a coordinated offer management framework could make the MBA admission process significantly more transparent, predictable, and efficient for institutions and aspirants alike.
The article is written by Jimut Bahan Chakrabarty, Assistant Professor, Operations Management & Decision Sciences Area and Abhradeep Maiti, Associate Professor Economics Area at Indian Institute of Management Kashipur.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
