BEWARE: This is an immensely long post 
Was tied up in some other work (those know know me also would know what that "work" was :wink
so could not post as much I wanted to on this thread.
2005 marked the last year that I took the paper for fun. I seriously think that this paper was an exercise in sheer monotony. Another year where the likes of pendayals, tdubeys will rule the roost. Another year that the "great divide" between the quant-haves and quant-have-nots increases. Another year when no more punterbaazi (cracking questions by sheer common sense and presence of mind) not will work. Another year the IIM tag will seem all the more elusive.
I am sorry if this seems as poetic nonsense to most of you. But I was seriously disappointed by the fact that CAT no longer has the same charm it carried a few years ago. When even the guy-next-door had a chance of cracking it with little more than parts A and B of IMS. Now, let the objective PsychoD take over
Here is why:
(a) The usefullness of CAT has long been debated over. While I do agree it is necessary to cull out the best, the parameters on which you decide the "best" is agruable. Look at the Quant and DI that came this year. A person wanting to make a career in HR needs to figure out the number of messages that 3 English and 3 French spies send among themselves.
(b) 2.66 penalized if you check the wrong choice. 2 near misses would cost you about 5.5 marks and a seat in the IIMs. Isn't that crazy ? Think about it. This is a pretty crude and harsh way to remove the chaff from the grain. The guy who scored in the higher 40's might be no better than the guy scoring in the lower 40's. It is incredible to have such a stringent mechanism to choose the managers for tommorow.
(c) The quant and DI sections were definitely favouring the quant heavy. Though undoubtedly, good quantitative skills are required of anyone pursuing an MBA (which consquently would hold good for the industry) not at this level. Where you are attempting barely 8 questions out of 30 to get a call. I took GMAT hardly 2 days after CAT ended up with a 90+%ile and thats what the BSchools everywhere else want. Why should you want to be any different here ?
This are the points that come to the top of my mind right now.
Coming to the analysis part, I can see Pooza doing some job here. Awesome ! I hope I can contribute my $0.02 on this
(1) QA - 92%ile+ = 12
Realize that there are a lot of quant-heavyweights out there. Not just the IITians but even the otherwise "normal" bunch of NSITians, VJTIians, etc.
(2) DI - 92%ile+ = 10
I seriously think the guys who cracked the tennis seeding waal problem. Plus spent some time on the agriculture harvesting problem had an easy 10-12 marks for the taking. Add to it that even the most diabolic looking set had an easy one tucked in. I would say around 16 marks were definitely doable. Allowing for the hyperventilation of the exam atmosphere and the fact that "sitters" are always never catch your eye. I would say a safe 10, nothing less than that.
(3) VA - 92%ile+ =18
Okay my initial estimate was slightly off-mark. After going through the paper again and reviewing the answers on various sites I think 18 definitely should be there for a 92+%ile. Remember that last year a 99%ile was around 26 but was a huge drop as barely 8 marks less it was a 90%ile. I would say anyone with good verbal skills and an ability to take risks should have attempted 40+ with a raw score of atleast 30 to get a 99%ile+.
(4) Overall:
Though adding it up all it comes to a 40, I definitely think that is NOT going to work in your favour. I would say ATLEAST a 45 (99%ile) to ensure calls. A 55+, needless to say is looking at a definite BLACKI. Anything between should be anywhere from 1 to all 6 calls.
Now, here are some caveats:
(A) At the end of the day there are no stringent "cut-off" percentiles. My experiences of detailed analysis of the CAT results in each of the year that they have been giving percentiles has proved it. There have been instances where people with low percentile (Praveen IIM-B batch of 2007 got 96.xx%ile got only 1 call and converted it) have got calls whereas high percentiles (Akshay IIM-L batch of 2006 got a 99.8x%ile and yet didnot get an IIM-A interview call). This is a big gray areas and no use speculating on it. That is why I have started disliking the word "cutoff" it sounds too abrupt and discrete
(B) This is a bellshaped curve. Remember that there are going to be a lot more people who are clinging to the mid-ranges (15-25) than between any other range. But the 25-35 is as densely populated. Anyone below 35 has no chance in my reckoning. A uniform distribution of scores between 35-40 WITH great acads AND workexp MIGHT....just MIGHT land you an out-of-the-blue call. But that would be a rare exception.
(C) 40-45 should be the border line cases. With arbit calls from 1-2 institutes with no apparent logic or method to the madness.
(D) 45+ as I mentioned above, this should be the 99%ile+ category.
(E) 55+ would mean this guy cracked a 25+ in Verbal and possibly 15+ each in Quant and DI. A rock-star. A 99.8%ile + for sure. A BLACKI for all reasons. However there might be surprises as at times very high percentiles have not been given interview calls.
(F)
ALL OF THE ABOVE HOLDS TRUE ONLY FOR UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS :MG:
Having said all this, I want to clarify that I have a great deal of respect for people like Pendayal, TDubey, Vikuboss etc. as I admire their prowess at quant. They are what I am not. I was being generic so please don't allude my remarks as offensive
Arun
Help
Once more after a week or so
Linear Mode
