Address inherent flaws, disparities in NEET

The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) was first conducted in 2013 by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to streamline medical entrance exams across India by establishing a uniform and transparent process for medical school admissions. In 2019, the responsibility for conducting NEET was handed over to the National Testing Agency (NTA), an agency specifically created to handle national-level entrance exams. Despite its intended benefits, NEET has faced significant opposition and controversy since its inception.

From the beginning, several states, including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, voiced their objections to NEET. They argued that a single, standardised exam could not fairly accommodate the diverse educational systems, languages, and syllabi across India. Each state has its unique education system, and imposing a uniform exam threatened to exacerbate the rural-urban divide. Critics feared that NEET would favour urban students who have better access to educational resources, English-medium instruction, and specialised coaching centres. Furthermore, states were concerned that NEET might undermine their local reservation policies designed to benefit disadvantaged populations, potentially denying these groups preferred admissions.

Despite these concerns, NEET brought about several improvements in the medical admission process. It standardised the admission procedure, reducing discrepancies across states. NEET also lessened the financial burden on students and their families by eliminating the need for multiple entrance exams.

Unequal playing field

However, the implementation of NEET was not without its shortcomings. The primary issue lies in the mismatch between the NEET syllabus and the state board syllabi. NEET primarily follows the CBSE curriculum, which differs significantly from many state board curricula. This discrepancy puts students from state boards at a disadvantage, as they may not be adequately prepared for the NEET. Though NEET was conducted in multiple languages, the quality and availability of study material and coaching for languages other than English and Hindi are limited. This creates an additional hurdle for students from rural areas and those who study in regional languages, and is perhaps one of the major reasons for the alleged malpractices.

The dependency on expensive coaching centres also increased, creating an unequal playing field for students from economically weaker sections who cannot afford such coaching. The high-stakes nature of a single exam determining the students’ future causes stress and pressure, negatively impacting their mental health. Furthermore, students in rural and remote areas faced challenges in reaching designated exam centres, which were often far from their homes. This added logistical and financial burdens, adversely impacting rural students.

Inclusive syllabus, multiple exams in a year could help

Several potential alternatives and improvements can address these issues. Firstly, making the NEET syllabus inclusive of different state board syllabi would level the playing field for all students. Improved regional language support, with high-quality study material and coaching available in all regional languages, is crucial. Conducting NEET multiple times a year could reduce the pressure on students and provide them with more opportunities to perform well. Ensuring robust counselling and mental health support for students would help them cope with the stress associated with the exam. Increasing the number of exam centres in rural and remote areas would make the exam more accessible to all students. Provision of scholarships and financial aid for students from economically weaker sections would enable them to access necessary coaching and study material.

While these improvements could create a more equitable and effective medical entrance examination system in India, there is a need to address more fundamental and systemic issues. This applies not only to NEET but to all entrance exams in India. The shift to the plus-two system has significantly increased educational commercial activity, particularly private coaching. The recent controversies surrounding paper leaks, despite the enactment of central laws to prevent such malpractices, highlight the need to examine the fairness and justice of testing and evaluation systems.

There are reports indicating that the syllabi for entrance examinations for both engineering and medical courses cover only about half of what is taught in Classes 11 and 12 across various states. Furthermore, there is a lack of adequately trained professionals for teaching, testing, and evaluation. In some technical universities, millions of answer sheets need to be checked annually, yet there are no trained teachers or professionals available for such a monumental task. This results in perfunctory evaluations and encourages malpractices, such as fake certificates and paid evaluations.

Moreover, it is well-known that many Indian students who do not perform well in national or state entrance exams excel in international exams, such as the SAT, GRE, and GMAT. This discrepancy is because these international exams test students on what they have been taught or should know at an appropriate level, and the evaluation burden is minimised.

Improvements, systemic reforms

Long-term reforms in testing and evaluation are necessary to end controversies like the ongoing NEET issue. Ensuring that school syllabi are aligned with entrance exams in a manner that eliminates the need for additional private coaching is crucial. Legislative measures to contain the unethical proliferation of coaching centres and “Kota factories” are also essential. Children should be tested on what they have been taught or should know at an appropriate level. Testing should be commensurate with knowledge imparted in schools.

NEET was designed to test students on the knowledge and skills they have acquired up to the 12th standard, with a syllabus based on topics covered in physics, chemistry, and biology (botany and zoology) in Classes 11 and 12, following the NCERT curriculum. However, this alignment is not always accurate, particularly for schools in rural and semi-urban areas and non-English medium schools, where teaching standards need improvement and learning outcomes are low and require constant monitoring.

Though NEET was introduced with the objective of making several positive changes to the medical admission process in India, it is essential to address its inherent flaws and disparities. The NTA should evolve decentralised structures of implementation without conceding any space to mischief-mongers to manipulate the distant centralised systems. With these improvementSs and systemic reforms, India can move towards a more equitable and effective medical entrance examination system, ultimately ensuring fair opportunities for all aspirants. sureshkumarnangia@gmail.com

(The writer is a retired Punjab-cadre IAS officer. Views expressed are personal.)