IIPM posts what is arguably its first 'civil' response to the whole fiasco instead of shooting off legal notices.

The JPEG is here.

The notice bleeds desperation to save some skin, the tone is defeatist and in the process of 'refuting' the findings of JAM, the notice only adds more subtances that beg to be investigated.

Also, they are doing the sort of maneuver known to millitary commanders which I term, 'the side dodge' and to logicians as the 'straw man fallacy'.

They have side stepped the real allegations and are trying to argue on grounds they still have 'some' strenght. If they succeed in focusing all attention on points they can fight on and possibly win, the onlookers will forget about the other side-stepped real issues and think that IIPM has substanciated themselves. This is the same as building up a straw-man and going on to demolish it with pomp and show.

• First point:

  The article claims that the magazine's 'reporters visited various IIPM facilities', and that 'the swimming pool, 300 seater auditorium, seven huge ampitheatre classrooms, mini golf course, and other fancy facilities are restricted to just one campus'. The fact is that one reporter of this magazine visited only the Delhi campus of IIPM and did not visit any other facility. All the other eight IIPM towers located in various parts of India also provide world-class facilities in exact accordance with what IIPM mentions in its advertisements.

  They mention with such confidence that the reporter visited only ONE facility and that she/he did not visit others. Now, does that really have any bearing on the fact that the other campuses do not have a swimming pool and mini golf courses? It is plain rhetoric to claim that all other eight IIPM towers 'provide' world class facilities 'in exact accordance with what IIPM mentions in its advertisements'. Wow. But.... the issue is NOT about whether these towers provide vague 'world class facilities' but whether they all have in particular, a swimming pool/ mini golf or not. The difference is that they can resort to complex circular logic to argue that it is NOT mentioned anywhere in their advertisements that ALL the eight towers have these particular facilities. However the advertisements are tailored in such a way to appear so to the students. JAM made an well deserved endeavor to dissolve the rhetoric paradise image IIPM was projecting and reveal them in plain english. IIPM is only concerned about the artificial image they try to manufacture for the potential students, not the truth.

• The second point is serious stuff for humour.

  The article claims that faculty from Harvard, Columbia, Wharton, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanfort 'et al' come to IIPM to take sessions for the students. IIPM wishes to clarify that 'et al' also includes most distinguished faculty from MIT-Sloan, Yale University, London School of Economis, IMD ....... 'et al' have also undertaken exclusive sessions for the IIPM students/

  it is settled then.. by this clarification, IIPM has actually admitted to the JAM contention that the faculty do not take classes/lectures, but just 'sessions' like in 'talk' sessions that last for an hour or so. JAM point was that these 'sessions' are for a select few and are no way regular lectures and workshops for all students of the MBA programme which in turn qualify to call the visitors, Visiting FACULTY. If not, they are just 'GUEST SPEAKERS'. Thanks for clarifying this IIPM.



• The article claims that amongst the 400 companies that participate in IIPM campus placements, 'At least one of the ompanies - Max New York Life - confirmed that it had never recruited from IIPM campuses.' IIPM clarifies that, apart from the hundreds of other companies that recruit through IIPM campus placement cell (including American Express, Coca Cola, Deloitte Consulting, hindustan Lever) Max New York Life also has reruited IIPM students through the campus placement cell last year.

  The Third Point just claims that the Max New York are lying through their teeth. But going by the evidence available on the integrity of the IIPM founders, and by considering the fact that Max New York have nothing to loose or gain by either confirming or denying such a recruitment, the judgement is obvious.



• The article misrepresents the name of the largest recruiter at IIPM campus placements session. IIPM clarifies that the largest recruiter for the last batch was ICICI Bank

  Ah.. largest recruiter is NOT planman, but ICICI, clarifies IIPM. This is classical like the wolf guarding the sheep. Now, since Planman belongs to IIPM, their HR records can be manipulated just to prove this point. So.. this clarification is rejectable.


• Fifth point:

  IIPM also clarifies that though Planman regularly is invited to recruit students from various business school campuses (including IIM Bangalore), Planman prefers to reruit IIPM students because of the comprehensive academic curriculum at IIPM and the excellent focus on overall personality and communication skills development undertaken at IIPM for every student

  What are they really trying to say? That the IIPM programme is one of the best in the country? Don't they shout this from the rooftops already? Ah.. I see it, they are trying to justify the cost of this 'official response' with a bit of more canvassing. Pathetic. The jewel in the crown is that excellent focus on communication skills development undertaken at IIPM for every student found expression when they left remarks at Bansal's Blog. Nice skills they have learnt no doubt.



• The article mentions that people in McKinsey, ..... 'failed to remember the consulting solutions' provided by Planman. We clarify that not only has Planman provided consulting services to all the abovementioned firms and (received appreciative feedback from McKinsey, E&Y, Hewitt ad Samsung!!!), but also to firms like Accenture, KPMG PricewaterhouseCoopers, General Electric, American Express, Sony, Citibank, HP, Hindustan lever, Wipro, Honeywell, Reliance, Maruti, P&G, Amway, Fair Isaac and many other Fortune 500 companies: a list that might be difficult to fanthom for the particular magazine.

  Again, IIPM's word against the world's! While they are at it, they add a dose of arrogance too