Busting myths about group discusions

Posted by raj in on Wednesday, April 29, 2009

1) If I speak more, I will be noticed and hence remembered by the panelists.
Panelists do not remember people. They remember points. If you make one good point that impresses, you are in.

2) I have to start, lead and summarize the GD.
You can easily have a good GD without starting or summarizing it. In fact, being asked to summarize can be an indication that you have not participated enough in the GD.

3) Case studies are tougher than normal GDs.
Though case studies are real life examples, you are only expected to provide logical and reasonable solutions to the problem at hand. A good approach would be to define the problem, list all available paths of action and then recommend the best one. It can be mastered by practice. Case studies are better than factual GDs as all participants are at the same knowledge level with respect to the problem.( GK does not matter much.)

4)I need to take a stand with respect to the topic given.
The aim of a group discussion is to reach a consensus as opposed to that of a debate which is about proving your point. In some cases, the time given is not enough to reach a consensus. Then, it is perfectly alright to conclude saying that a final stand cannot be taken on this topic given the limitation of time.

5) A bad GD performance is the end of the road.
Most institutes have a minimal weightage for the GD (about 10-15%) ad major weightage for the (interview about 40-50%). A good GD does give a better first impression but it is something that one can be in without.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.