Mock group discussion
60 min · Advanced
Need help? Ask a tutor on WhatsApp (opens in a new tab)A group discussion is judged in minutes, and most students have never watched themselves in one. A mock GD with friends, an observer and a timer shows who dominated, who stayed silent and what to fix before the real round.
Ten mock GD topics with key points
A mock topic set is a list of GD prompts with key points on both sides, so the group can check afterwards which points it missed.
Give everyone two minutes to think, run the GD, and only then compare what the group said with the key points. Do not read them first.
Example 1 · Topics 1 to 5 with key points
1. Should India have a four-day work week?2. Is a college degree necessary for a tech job?3. Should social media platforms verify every user's identity?4. Electric vehicles: are Indian cities ready?5. Should engineering exams be open-book?1. For: better health, focus, fewer commutes. Against: customer-facing work needs coverage; longer days may tire people. Way forward: pilot in suitable teams with shifts for customer work. 2. For a degree: strong basics, campus hiring, visas often need one. Against: skills and projects matter more in many roles; costly. Way forward: degree helps entry, but skills decide growth. 3. For: less fake news, trolling and fraud. Against: privacy risk if ID data leaks; anonymity protects whistle-blowers. Way forward: optional verified badges, strong data protection. 4. For: lower running cost, cleaner air, growing two-wheeler market. Against: charging gaps, battery cost, power supply. Way forward: start with two- and three-wheelers and fleets, expand charging. 5. For: tests understanding, not memory; closer to real work. Against: harder to set papers; weak students may rely on books. Way forward: open-book for design subjects, closed-book for basics.
What this code does
- Every topic has both sides and a way forward, which is what a full GD should cover.
- Topic 2 has a fair point on each side; groups that only argue one side miss content marks.
- Use the way-forward lines to check whether the group's summary reached a sensible conclusion.
Example 2 · Topics 6 to 10 with key points
6. Gig work on delivery apps: an opportunity or a trap? 7. Should AI tools be allowed for college assignments? 8. Case: a bug in your startup's app exposed users' phone numbers. You are the founding team. What do you do in the first week? 9. Abstract: "Silence"10. Startup or large company: where should a fresher begin? 6. Opportunity: quick income, flexible hours. Trap: no fixed pay or
benefits, accident risk. Way forward: basic insurance and fair pay
rules for gig workers.
7. For: real-world skill, faster research. Against: copying, less
learning. Way forward: allow with disclosure; assess with vivas.
8. Fix and stop the leak first; check what data and how many users;
inform affected users honestly; follow the legal reporting rules
that apply; review code and add tests; tell users what changed.
9. Silence as listening, as protest, as calm under pressure, or as a
problem when people do not speak up at work.
10. Startup: wide responsibility, fast learning, more risk. Large
company: structured training, stability, slower scope. Way forward:
depends on the person; strong basics matter in both.What this code does
- Topic 8 is a case: the group should produce an ordered plan, not just opinions.
- Topic 9 is abstract: groups that agree on one or two meanings early have better discussions.
- Topic 10 has no single right answer; a good summary says "it depends on" and names the factors.
The ten topics mix topic-based, case-based and abstract prompts across work, technology, education and society. Revise: How GDs are evaluated (opens in a new tab).
Running a GD with friends: roles and timer
In a mock GD, participants discuss the topic, the moderator announces it and runs the timer, and observers stay silent and note each turn and its length.
Use 6 to 8 participants, one moderator and one or two observers. Rotate the roles across mocks, so everyone practises and everyone observes.
- Moderator announces the topic and starts a 2-minute thinking timer.
- Discussion runs for 12 to 15 minutes; observers log every turn.
- Moderator asks one person (or anyone) to summarise in 1 minute.
- Each observer fills the feedback form; then 10 minutes of feedback.
Example 3 · An airtime tracker for observers
# Observer's log: speaker and seconds, in the order the turns happened.speakers = ["Ravi", "Sana", "Ajay", "Ravi", "Meera", "Ajay", "Ravi", "Farhan", "Ajay", "Sana"]seconds = [35, 40, 60, 30, 25, 75, 45, 20, 50, 30]
time = {}turns = {}for name, sec in zip(speakers, seconds): time[name] = time.get(name, 0) + sec turns[name] = turns.get(name, 0) + 1total = sum(seconds)
print(f"Total speaking time: {total} s")for name, spent in time.items(): share = spent * 100 // total flag = " (too much)" if share > 30 else " (too little)" if share < 10 else "" print(f"{name:<7} {turns[name]:>2} turns {spent:>4} s {share:>3}%{flag}")Total speaking time: 410 s Ravi 3 turns 110 s 26% Sana 2 turns 70 s 17% Ajay 3 turns 185 s 45% (too much) Meera 1 turns 25 s 6% (too little) Farhan 1 turns 20 s 4% (too little)
What this code does
time.get(name, 0) + secadds to an existing total or starts from 0, so one line handles both cases.- Ajay spoke for 45% of the time in three long turns: feedback for him is "shorter turns", not "speak less often".
- The 10% and 30% lines are practical guides for a group of five; change them for bigger groups.
Observers log each turn as a name and seconds, then add up each person's airtime: their share of the total speaking time. Revise: Start, add and summarise (opens in a new tab).
Peer feedback form
A peer feedback form is a short sheet the observer fills for each participant: marks for content, communication, teamwork and leadership, one thing to keep, one to change, and the airtime.
Give feedback kindly and directly, starting with something that worked. Take feedback without arguing: say thank you, ask one question if unclear, and note it down.
Example 4 · A filled peer feedback form
Participant: Ajay Observer: Priya Topic: 4 (EVs)Content (0-5): 4 Two new points (battery cost, fleets) with examplesCommunication (0-5): 3 Clear, but turns of 60-75 seconds lost the groupTeamwork (0-5): 2 Cut Meera off once; did not build on others by nameLeadership (0-5): 3 Gave the summary, but it added a new pointAirtime: 45% (185 of 410 seconds)Keep doing: Using real examples (the e-rickshaw fleet point)Change: Keep turns under 40 seconds; let Meera finish- Every mark has a reason the participant can check - "Change" is one specific, measurable action - Starts with a real strength, so it is easier to accept
What this code does
- The observer notes facts (cut Meera off once, 45% airtime), not personality ("he is arrogant").
- A measurable change ("under 40 seconds") can be checked in the next mock.
- Keep the form to one page; long forms do not get filled honestly.
Specific feedback ("You cut Leela off twice") helps; vague feedback ("Be more confident") does not. Revise: Handling disagreement (opens in a new tab).
Common improvements after the first mock
A first-mock pattern is a mistake that almost every group makes in its first mock GD, such as several people opening at once or two or three people taking most of the time.
Agree one small group rule for each pattern before the second mock, such as "whoever opens offers three headings".
Example 5 · First-mock problems and agreed fixes
Problem seen in mock 1 Fix agreed for mock 2Three people opened at the same time Opener = first to raise a handNo structure; talk jumped around Opener offers three headingsAjay and Ravi spoke 71% of the time Turns under 40 s; invite quiet membersSame "cost" point made four times Before speaking, ask: is this new?No summary; time ran out Observer signals at 12 minutesOne clear opening with headings; talk followed them Top two speakers: 46% of the time (was 71%) A 60-word summary at 13 minutes
What this code does
- Each fix is a small group rule, easy to remember during a live GD.
- The result is measured with the same airtime log, so the improvement is real, not a feeling.
- Most first mocks show these five problems; expect them and plan the fixes.
Keep every rule short enough to remember in a live GD. Revise: Communication practice (opens in a new tab).
Plan for the second round
A second-round plan gives each participant one or two personal targets taken from the first round's feedback, such as "speak in the first three minutes" or "no interruptions".
Average each parameter across all observers and aim at the lowest one or two. Run the second mock with a new topic of the same type.
Example 6 · Picking second-round targets from peer marks
params = ["content", "communication", "teamwork", "leadership"]# Marks out of 5 from three observers for one participant (Ajay).marks = [ [4, 3, 2, 3], [4, 4, 2, 2], [5, 3, 3, 3],]
avg = {}for p, name in enumerate(params): avg[name] = sum(row[p] for row in marks) / len(marks) print(f"{name:<14} {avg[name]:.1f}")
# The two lowest averages become the targets (sorted keeps the first on a tie).targets = sorted(params, key=avg.get)[:2]print("Targets for round 2:", ", ".join(targets))content 4.3 communication 3.3 teamwork 2.3 leadership 2.7 Targets for round 2: teamwork, leadership
What this code does
- Averaging three observers smooths out one observer being too strict or too kind.
/always gives a decimal in Python, so 7 / 3 is 2.33; use//only when you want to cut the decimal part.- Two targets per person per round is enough; more targets usually means none get fixed.
Keep the same form and rotate the roles, so the two rounds can be compared fairly.
For a timed solo round on spoken answers, use the Mock Interview Mode (opens in a new tab).
Next step
Check your understanding
12 quick questions