Read the cohort before reading the headline
DMS’s placement page lists a Final Placement Report for 2023-25 alongside reports for earlier two-year cohorts. Page 2 identifies the final placement report for the IIT Delhi MBA Class of 2023-25; page 3 is headed “About MBA & MBA Telecom.” The metric pages reviewed do not provide a programme-wise split, so these figures cannot be assigned separately to MBA or MBA Telecom.
The report prints “98% placement,” but the page does not give the eligible-student denominator or explain whether the percentage includes every student seeking a placement. It should be read as a figure reported by DMS, not as a guarantee of an individual outcome. Ask the placement office for the cohort definition, eligible count, placed count and any exclusions if those details affect your decision. The official DMS report index links the cohort PDF and also lists earlier reports, which is the right starting point for comparing other years.
Compensation values: keep the unit caveat attached
On page 4, the 2023-25 report prints a median value of 22,50,782, an average of 22,52,966, a female average of 23,28,717 and a highest value of 43,55,300. The page labels these measures but does not identify a currency symbol, whether they are rupees or another unit, or a pay period. The figures are therefore preserved here exactly as printed, without converting them to lakh per annum or comparing them with another college’s compensation figures.
Within that same graphic, the average is 2,184 printed units above the median, by subtraction. This small difference does not show how offers are distributed: a median and mean cannot replace a range, percentile distribution or programme-wise breakdown. The highest figure is especially unsuitable as a typical-outcome estimate. Before using any of these values for a financial comparison, ask DMS to confirm the unit, annualisation basis, cohort denominator and whether MBA and Telecom are combined. Until then, compare only the report’s stated labels and keep this source limitation beside every number.
For a useful comparison, request the number of students eligible for placement, the number who accepted offers, the number still seeking work and the treatment of students who pursued other options. Ask whether the median is calculated per student, per accepted offer or with another method, and whether it covers domestic and international offers. Those definitions can change the meaning of a headline even when the printed number is unchanged. The public graphic does not answer those questions, so this guide leaves them open rather than filling them with assumptions.
Where the report places roles
Sector share answers a different question from compensation. It describes how the report classifies roles, not how many offers were made in each function, what a typical offer paid, or how many graduates entered a sector. The report’s operations-consulting footnote also shows that category labels depend on its own classification rules. Applicants comparing roles should check the job function, employer, location and compensation basis in the original offer or placement data rather than treating the sector label as a job title.
The report’s sector-wise split lists Strategy & Consulting at 30.07%, Information Technology at 23.78%, Sales & Marketing at 19.58%, Finance at 10.49%, HR & General Management at 8.39%, and Operations & Supply Chain at 7.69%. The printed shares sum to 100%. DMS adds a specific footnote: operations-consulting profiles are counted under Strategy & Consulting. That matters when reading the largest category; some work with an operations label is included in the consulting share rather than the Operations & Supply Chain bar.
This is the report’s cohort-level sector presentation, not a forecast of which function an incoming student will enter. The PDF does not show the headcount denominator beside this graphic or provide a programme-wise split. Use the distribution to understand the roles represented in the report, then ask DMS for a programme-specific count basis if you need a like-for-like comparison.
The cohort profile helps explain the mix
On page 5, DMS reports that 67% of the cohort had an engineering background and 33% a non-engineering background. It gives average work experience as 19.7 months and says 69% had prior work experience. Its experience bands are 35% freshers, 24% with 12-24 months, 28% with 25-36 months, 11% with 37-60 months and 2% with 60 or more months. The bands sum to 100% and help show that the cohort included both fresh graduates and candidates with several years of experience.
These profile figures describe the graduates in this report, not an eligibility rule or a recommended minimum experience level. The report also does not show placement outcomes by these profile groups. A reader should not infer that an engineering background, prior work experience or a particular experience band caused a salary or placement result from these pages. The mix may help a prospective student judge whether the cohort has varied academic and work histories, but it does not establish which backgrounds employers preferred or whether prior experience led to higher offers.
For year-on-year comparisons, use the same cohort span, placement stage, programme grouping, denominator, compensation definition and unit. DMS’s list includes adjacent 2022-24 and 2023-25 report windows, but the 2023-25 graphic alone does not establish a trend. Confirm the labels and bases in both original PDFs before comparing; do not turn the 2023-25 headline, its highest figure or its sector shares into an individual outcome estimate.