The din and fury over the NEET fiasco has had an unfortunate consequence: some major and very worrisome issues have escaped scrutiny. On the face of things, it is somewhat reassuring that the government has proposed stringent legislation to stem the rot and has also set up a committee to recommend necessary changes in the conduct of the NEET examination.
However, such actions bypass the real factors that underpin the problem. Some pressing matters in the context of NEET seem to have been ignored completely, either by design or by neglect.
To begin with, I have never fully grasped the significance of a centralised examination for admission to our programmes of medical education. For that matter, I have been just as disappointed by the introduction of the Central Universities Entrance Test (CUET). We, in our blessed land, seem forever obsessed with a one-size-fits-all solution to so many of our problems, particularly in the realm of education.
I have said this earlier, and it bears repetition here — we are examining our youth out of their minds. Our children face an unending onslaught of mostly dreary and unimaginative tests from the early years of schooling. As time goes by, they must face a plethora of other examinations that are not directly connected with their school studies. Such testing tends to kill creativity. Learning becomes focused on doing well in the innumerable tests that the student must face.
Is it any wonder that despite supposedly being an IT superpower of sorts, not a single major IT-based invention or innovation—such as a coding language—seems to have sprouted from our knowledge institutions?
Lest we forget, schoolchildren must sit for one or the other examination depending on the course of study they wish to pursue, whether it’s JEE, NEET, CUET or the National Law School admission test. During their school and college years, they may also take various other tests that certify them as ‘gifted’ in mathematics or general knowledge—whatever that means.
Also Read: A proposal for NTA—digitise exam centres, encrypt question papers
What the NEP envisages
My biggest disappointment arises from the ironic fact that, with the exception of the NCERT, no major body connected with education seems interested in, or capable of, rectifying the situation in the manner envisaged by the National Education Policy 2020. This includes the UGC, the AICTE and, for that matter, our institutions of knowledge and learning.
The NEP is very clear on the matter of assessment and makes some extremely enlightened recommendations. These aren’t always heeded. The implementation of CUET, for instance, flies in the face of those recommendations.
As for the leaks that have beset so many of our national examinations, the simple use of technology—as outlined in a recent article in ThePrint—could easily help sort out the problem.
The NEP seeks to shift student assessment from high-stakes, summative exams focused on memorisation to continuous, competency-based formative evaluation. It prioritises higher-order skills such as critical thinking and practical application. Its core recommendations include a system of 360-degree progress cards, incorporating self, peer and teacher evaluations that cover cognitive, affective, and soft skills.
In the context of board exam reforms, the NEP recommends redesigning them for lower stakes, offering multi-attempt flexibility, modular testing, and tiered subject options. The policy also calls for standardised assessments in Classes 3, 5 and 8 to track learning at key stages without subjecting children to the pressure and shame of passing or failing.
Additionally, the NEP provided for the formation of PARAKH, India’s apex body for standardising student assessment across state and central school boards. Via the NCERT, PARAKH has partnered technically with the US agency Educational Testing Service (ETS), as well as with state boards, to establish uniform grading criteria, bridging disparities across India’s various school boards. This is what India needs to help standardise and normalise the test scores of various school boards across India.
My concern is that in the matter of national-level testing, India has willy-nilly edged closer to the ungainly aspects of the SAT and ACT examinations in the USA. These are standardised, high-stakes tests used primarily for college admissions. They emphasise comparability and ranking rather than holistic development.
In contrast, the NEP, in a very enlightened manner, integrates assessment into everyday learning. Where it treats assessment as part of education, the SAT and ACT treat it as a selection mechanism. The tragedy is that NEET and JEE have created a format that has caused untold damage to the meaning and purpose of true education.
Also Read: Jammu and Kashmir offers a model for NEP-led success. It’s called ‘Design Your Degree’
School exams should be enough
What India first needs to recognise is that examinations such as NEET and CUET have not helped raise educational standards.
It is high time we followed what the NEP says and restored the value and recognition of school-leaving exams. We should use them, in accordance with the policy’s recommendations, for admission to institutions of higher education—be it medical education, legal education or any other form of higher education.
The difference between what the NEP prescribes and what we have actually put into practice is fundamentally philosophical: intellectual growth versus ranking through a solitary and badly designed exam, continuous evaluation versus one-time testing, and holistic development versus narrow measurement. India’s well-being lies in this recommendation, for it shall enlighten the minds of our youth rather than depress them.
Dinesh Singh is the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi and adjunct professor of mathematics at the University of Houston, Texas, USA. He tweets @DineshSinghEDU. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)