Hyderabad University IMA

I want to take admission in the I.M.A. (5-year Integrated) at Hyderabad University. So I am searching for the admission process for Hyderabad University I.M.A. (5-year Integrated). Can anyone tell me about its admission process?

Can you provide me previous year question paper for the Entrance Exam for IMA Social Sciences - M.A. (5-Year Integrated) programmes in Social Sciences?

[sumit]

The previous year question paper for the Entrance Exam for IMA Social Sciences - M.A. (5-Year Integrated) programmes in Social Sciences is as follows:


Section-A
Language and Comprehension (Questions 1-25)

Questions in this section (1-25) are based on the passage below. Read it carefully and answer the questions that follow, which is aimed at testing your comprehension skills.

The Passage

It was a summer afternoon in Cambridge, England, in the late 1920s.A group of university dons, their wives, and some guests were sitting around an outdoor table for afternoon tea. One of the women was insisting that tea tasted different depending upon whether the tea was poured into the milk or whether the milk was poured into the tea. The scientific minds among the men scoffed at this as sheer nonsense. What could be the difference? They could not conceive of any difference in the chemistry of the mixtures that could exist. A thin, short man, with thick glasses and a Vandyke beard beginning to turn gray, pounced on the problem. "Let us test the proposition," he said excitedly. He began to outline an experiment in which the lady who insisted there was a difference would be presented with a sequence of cups of tea, in some of which the milk had been poured into the tea and in others of which the tea had been poured into the milk. I can just hear some of my readers dismissing this effort as a minor bit of summer afternoon fluff. "What difference does it make whether the lady could tell one infusion from another?" they will ask. "There is nothing important or of great scientific merit in this problem," they will sneer. "These great minds should have been putting their immense brain power to something that would benefit mankind."

Unfortunately, whatever non-scientists may think about science and its importance, my experience has been that most scientists engage in their research because they are interested in the results and because they get intellectual excitement out of the work. Seldom do good scientists think about the eventual importance of their work. So it was that sunny summer afternoon in Cambridge. The lady might or might not have been correct about the tea infusion. The fun would be in finding a way to determine if she as right, and, under the direction of the man. with the Vandyke beard, they began to discuss how they might make that determination. Enthusiastically, many of them joined with him in setting up the experiment. Within a few minutes, they were pouring different patterns of infusion in a place where the lady could not see which cup was which. Then, with an air of finality, the man with the Vandyke beard presented her with her first cup. She sipped for a minute and declared that it was one where the milk had been poured into the tea. He noted her response without comment and presented her with the second cup.

The Cooperative Nature of Science

I heard this story in the late 1960s from a man who had been there that afternoon. He was Hugh Smith, but he published his scientific papers under the name H. Fairfield Smith. When I knew him, he was a professor of statistics at the University of Connecticut, in Storrs. I had received my Ph.D.in statistics from the University of COlmecticut two years before. After teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, I had joined the clinical research department at Pfizer Inc., a large pharmaceutical firm. Its research campus in Groton, Connecticut, was about an hour's drive from Storrs. I was dealing with many difficult mathematical problems at Pfizer. I was the only statistician there at that time, and I needed to talk over these problems and my "solutions" to them.

What I had discovered working at Pfizer was that very little scientific research can be done alone. It usually requires a combination of minds. This is because it is so easy to make mistakes.
When I would propose a mathematical formula as a means of solving a problem, the model would sometimes be inappropriate, or I might have introduced an assumption about the situation that was not true, or the "solution" I found might have been derived from the wrong branch of an equation, or I might even have made a mistake in arithmetic.

Whenever I would visit the university at Storrs to talk things over with Professor Smith, or whenever I would sit around and discuss problems with the chemists or pharmacologists at Pfizer, the problems I brought out would usually be welcomed. They would greet these discussions with enthusiasm and interest. What makes most scientists interested in their work is usually the excitement of working on a problem. They look forward to the interactions with others as they examine a problem and try to understand it

The Design of Experiments

And so it was that summer afternoon in Cambridge. The man with the Vandyke beard was Ronald Aylmer Fisher, who was in his late thirties at the time. He would later be knighted Sir Ronald Fisher. In 1935, he wrote a book entitled The Design of Experiments, and he described the experiment of the lady tasting tea in the second chapter of that book. In his book, Fisher discusses the lady and her belief as a hypothetical problem. He considers the various ways in which an experiment might be designed to determine if she could tell the difference. The problem in designing the experiment is that, if she is given a single cup of tea, she has a 50percent chance of guessing correctly which infusion was used, even if she cannot tell the difference. If she is given two cups of tea, she still might guess correctly. In fact, if she knew that the two cups of tea were each made with a different infusion, one guess could be completely right (or completely wrong).

Similarly, even if she could tell the difference, there is some chance that she might have made a mistake, that one of the cups was not mixed as well or that the infusion was made when the tea was not hot enough. She might be presented with a series often cups and correctly identify only nine of them, even if she could tell the difference.

In his book, Fisher discusses the various possible outcomes of such an experiment. He. describes how to decide how many cups should be presented and in what order and how much to tell the lady about the order of presentations. He works out the probabilities of different outcomes, depending upon whether the lady is or is not correct. Nowhere in t~is discussion does he indicate that such an experiment was ever run. Nor does he describe the out-come of an actual experiment.

The book on experimental design by Fisher was an important element in a revolution that swept through all fields of science in the first half of the twentieth century. Long before Fisher came on the scene, scientific experiments had been performed for hundreds of years. In the later part of the sixteenth century, the English physician William Harvey experimented with animals, blocking ,he flow of blood in different veins and arteries, trying to trace the circulation of blood as it flowed from the heart to the lungs, back to the heart, out to the body, and back to the heart again.

Fisher did not discover experimentation as' a means of increasing knowledge. Until Fisher, experiments were idiosyncratic to each scientist. Good scientists would be able to construct experiments that produced new knowledge. Lesser scientists would often engage in" experimentation" that accumulated much data but was useless for increasing knowledge. An example of this can be seen in the many inconclusive attempts that were made during the late nineteenth century to measure the speed of light. It was not until the American physicist Albert2

Michelson constructed a highly sophisticated series of experiments with light and mirrors thatthe first good estimates were made. Source: David Salsburg, The Lady Tasting Tea: How Statistics Revolutionized Science in the Twentieth Century, (New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2001) pp.I-5Answer the following questions based on the above passage:


Answer the following questions based on the above passage:

1. Where was the afternoon tea event described in passage happening?
A. Connecticut
B. Oxford
C. Cambridge
D. Harvard


2. Which beverage were they discussing about?
A.Mocha
B.Tea
C.Latte
D. Cappuccino


3. What was the proposition the lady was making?
A. That Tea would taste different with milk
B. That milk would taste different with tea
C. Both of the above
D. None of the above


4. How did the scientific minds react to a proposition on tea tasting differently?
A. They think deeply about it
B. They scoffed at it
C. They try to taste and see the difference
D. They discuss about it


5. What did the thin, short man with Vandyke beard do when the lady spoke about the difference in Tea tasting?
A. He scoffed at it
B. He pounced on the problem
C. He started discussion
D. He was calm