PAPER LEAKS OR irregularities do not emerge overnight; they are the outcome of structural weaknesses that have been ignored for too long. One of the most serious concerns is the institutional weakness of the system that conducts NEET. Last year, a parliamentary committee had clearly pointed out that the agency responsible for the exam (National Testing Agency) needs permanent staff. Yet, even today, it largely functions with contractual employees. You cannot run a massive, high-stakes, all-India examination system with temporary staff. They have little long-term accountability or emotional investment in the institution. The system, in that sense, is fragile at its core.
At a broader level, the issue goes beyond administrative failure. In a country as vast and diverse as India, relying on a single, one-time examination is not a sound idea. We already have examples in engineering admissions where a two-stage process helps filter candidates more effectively.
But even more fundamentally, we need to rethink what we are testing and how we are doing it. Our current system depends almost entirely on multiple-choice questions. This rewards those trained to crack patterns rather than those who truly understand concepts or have the aptitude for a medical profession.
The coaching industry has already mastered this system, often reducing education to a set of strategies and shortcuts. As a result, the exam does not necessarily select the best future doctors, but those best prepared for this particular format.
Another major flaw is that schools and teachers, who engage with students over several years, have no role in assessing their potential. If they were involved in some capacity, it would have not only enriched the evaluation process, but also brought in greater accountability and participation from states. Such a model would require a significant reimagining of the system, but it is worth considering.
There is also a growing tendency to view technology as a cure-all solution. While it can improve efficiency in certain areas, over-dependence is risky. Every system can be manipulated in some way. To assume otherwise is unrealistic. More importantly, computerisation does not address the core issues of trust, fairness and quality. These are human and institutional challenges.
The question of language also needs attention. India’s linguistic diversity is vast, and many students take exams in their mother tongue. However, the translation, often through software or inadequate processes, can be highly unreliable. This creates a disadvantage for students not taking the test in English. These are not minor issues; they strike at the heart of equity in education.
Over the years, several states, including Tamil Nadu, have raised concerns about NEET. Many of these concerns are valid, particularly those related to social and educational disadvantage. Yet, what we have today is a rigid, centralised and mechanical system that has become resistant to change.
Reform will take time. It will require imagination, political will and a willingness to question deeply entrenched practices. But without such efforts, we will continue to see the same problems year after year.
—As told to Kanu Sarda
The writer is former director of NCERT.