TISS CUET PG 2026 Normalisation Row: Candidates Question New Formula, Institute Defends Process
Several candidates seeking postgraduate admission to the Tata Institute of Social Sciences have raised concerns over the institute’s new CUET PG score-normalisation method.
The issue relates to programmes that accept candidates from more than one CUET PG paper code. Applicants allege that the formula used by TISS has changed the relative ranking of students across different papers and may have affected admission outcomes.
TISS, however, has defended the method, stating that normalisation is needed because different CUET PG papers have different candidate pools, score ranges and performance patterns.
Why TISS Introduced Score Normalisation
Some TISS postgraduate programmes allow candidates to apply using different CUET PG subject papers.
Because the difficulty level, number of candidates and score distribution can vary from one paper to another, TISS says raw scores cannot always be compared directly.
To address this, the institute introduced a normalisation formula to place candidates from different eligible papers on a common scale before preparing programme-wise merit lists.
According to TISS, only candidates above the 25th percentile are considered in the qualifying pool.
The formula used is:
Normalised Score = (Candidate’s Score − Lowest Score in Qualifying Pool) ÷ (Highest Score in Qualifying Pool − Lowest Score in Qualifying Pool)
The result is then multiplied by 100 to create a score on a 0–100 scale.
TISS says this process preserves the order of candidates within the same paper while allowing comparison across different papers.
Why Candidates Are Objecting
Candidates argue that while normalisation itself may be necessary, the particular method used by TISS may not produce fair outcomes.
Some applicants claim that candidates with a lower relative rank in one CUET PG paper may secure admission, while candidates with a better rank in another paper may miss out.
They say this is especially concerning in programmes that accept both general papers and subject-specific papers.
Applicants have alleged that papers with narrower score distributions may benefit under the formula, while papers with wider score spreads may be disadvantaged.
Candidates Raise Transparency Concerns
A major concern raised by applicants is that the normalisation methodology was not clearly disclosed before the admission process began.
Some candidates say the formula was uploaded only after the merit lists had already been published.
They argue that knowing the method in advance could have influenced the programmes they selected during registration.
Applicants have also questioned why the published merit lists contain only application numbers and do not show detailed programme-wise cut-offs, paper codes or marks.
TISS Says Formula Ensures Fairness
TISS has rejected claims that the method unfairly benefits one group of candidates over another.
The institute says the purpose of normalisation is to reduce unfair advantage or disadvantage caused by different score distributions across CUET PG papers.
According to TISS, candidates with higher marks within the same paper continue to remain ahead after normalisation.
The institute also says that the method creates a common basis for comparison when a programme accepts candidates from more than one CUET PG paper.
NTA Does Not Normalise CUET PG Papers
Another point raised in the debate is that the National Testing Agency does not normalise scores across different CUET PG subject papers.
Participating universities are allowed to decide their own admission procedures and eligibility rules.
Candidates argue that since NTA does not carry out cross-paper normalisation, institutes using their own methods should clearly explain the mathematical basis and admission impact of such formulas.
Around 200 Candidates Reportedly Affected
According to applicants involved in the representations, nearly 200 candidates may have been affected by the normalisation process.
Some have submitted formal complaints, visited the TISS Mumbai campus, filed Right to Information applications and approached grievance portals.
A few candidates have also indicated that they may consider legal action if they do not receive a satisfactory explanation.
UGC Asked TISS to Look Into the Matter
One applicant also approached the University Grants Commission regarding the issue.
According to correspondence shared by the candidate, the UGC asked the TISS registrar to examine the matter and take necessary action.
Applicants say they are still waiting for a detailed response from the institute.
RTI Applications Seek Details of the Formula
Several RTI applications have reportedly been filed seeking more information about the normalisation process.
The requests include details such as:
Paper-wise raw score cut-offs
Mathematical reasoning behind the formula
Committee records and meeting minutes
Administrative approvals
Programme-wise cut-offs
Previous admission trends
Action taken after the UGC communication
Candidates say these details could help them understand whether the method was applied consistently and fairly.
Debate Over Percentile-Based Methods
Some applicants believe a percentile-based method may have been more suitable.
They argue that percentile scores could better reflect a candidate’s relative standing within a particular paper.
For example, exams such as JEE use percentile-based systems to compare candidates across different sessions.
However, TISS has maintained that its chosen method is intended to create a common scale while preserving merit within each paper.
What Happens Next
The issue is likely to remain under discussion as further merit lists are released.
Some candidates who have not yet secured admission are still waiting for later rounds.
Others say that even if they eventually receive a seat, they still want the normalisation methodology to be reviewed.
The debate has now become broader than individual admission outcomes, with candidates seeking greater transparency in how universities compare scores from different CUET PG papers.
Conclusion
The TISS CUET PG 2026 normalisation controversy highlights the challenges universities face when multiple entrance test papers are accepted for the same programme.
While TISS says the formula ensures a fair comparison across different papers, several candidates believe the method may have created new disparities.
With RTI applications, formal complaints and UGC involvement, the focus is now on whether the institute will provide a more detailed explanation of its methodology and address concerns raised by applicants.
