On Issues Emerging out of Recent NEET, NET Examinations’ Fiasco

 

(This article was published in July 2024 issue of New Democracy, written by Mrigank)

Current controversies

The NTA announced the NEET 2024 results ten days ahead of schedule, which caught parents and students off guard. The results were released on June 4, 2024. The public’s shock was increased by the early announcement’s timing, which aligned with the nation’s attention on the general election outcomes. Amidst concerns about the fate of approximately 25 lakh students who took the NEET 2024 exam, 9 lakh hopefuls were disappointed to learn that the UGC NET was cancelled due to unspecified reasons (although unaware of this, UGC Chairman M. Jagadesh Kumar tweeted that the NTA had “successfully conducted UGC-NET June 2024”.). CSIR UGC NET and NEET PG were subsequently cancelled as well (in both these examinations, about 2 lakhs each were expected to appear). The CUET results were delayed.

First, let us discuss NEET 2024, which initially caused the uproar. Reports that many of the highest scorers had consecutive roll numbers, suggesting they may have taken the exam at the same centre, added to the suspicions. This brought up allegations of collaboration and potential exam centre misconduct. Many toppers, in fact, are from the same centre. There were reports of people from distant locations preferring a particular centre. 6 toppers were from a Hardayal Public School in Haryana run by Anuradha Yadav who had campaigned for BJP several times. There were reports of paper leaks in Patna and Gujarat.

Stakeholders were left perplexed and suspicious when reports surfaced of candidates receiving scores of 718/720 and 719/720, which are not conceivable under NEET’s grading scheme. This is because NEET gives 4 marks for every correct answer and deducts 1 mark for the wrong answer. So, if one question is omitted, one will get 716 and if 1 answer is wrong one will get 715. To justify this, NTA said they have given grace marks to the students whose exams started late. But NTA could not satisfactorily answer the criterion of grace marks. NTA referred to a Supreme Court judgement in CLAT 2018, where compensatory marks for time were awarded. But the difference is CLAT was conducted online, with meticulous software, which tracks the activities, even eye movement. Login time and logout time can be seen precisely. NEET was conducted on OMR sheets, even if CCTV footages are scanned the exact time loss is difficult to determine. In competitive examinations like this, time management is the key to being successful, even one mark can make a big difference in ranks.

Secondly, in the case of CLAT, a grievance redressal system was ordered by the Supreme Court, and it was found that due to some technical glitches and lack of experience, multiple login attempts were made causing a waste of time. Such eventualities were not possible in NEET. Neither is the formula of compensatory marks followed by CLAT applicable in NEET due to the different scoring system. Moreover, it only allows computation of revised numbers of correct and wrong answers which can’t explain impossible scores of 718 and 719.

 Unsatisfied with NTA’s response Supreme Court ordered a Rexam for these students but only about half those students appeared in the re-examination- indicating that students were not confident of their performance and giving enough hints about the earlier malpractice. Similarly, the response of NTA to other anomalies only turned out to be a cover-up. The reason for increase in a number of toppers, NTA says, is that this year 14% more students have appeared in NEET so obviously number of toppers has increased. But from 2 toppers in 2023 to 67 in 2024 is far greater a jump than can be justified by this logic. Another explanation given was that one answer key to physics was revised and therefore 44 candidates got 720. But again, the remaining number of 17 is still too large to be explained by NTA logic.

The problem with such a high number of toppers will also be that even top-ranked students will not be able to get their preference for medical college.

The NTA has not given a clear and transparent justification for using this algorithm for the offline NEET exam. How the compensatory marks formula was applied was left unclear. There was no established grievance redressal system that any of the applicants might have used to voice their concerns about the challenges they encountered.

NTA also said that revision ofthe syllabus, which has removed many portions of the science curriculum, might have made it easier for candidates to score more. This is a coverup, moreover, it is a commentary on NCF 2023.

Whatever the justifications, such unparalleled mark inflation has a negative effect on both tutors’ and students’ morale. This puts them in a highly precarious situation and erodes their confidence in the test (and the educational system) because it means that even a very high score in a competitive exam like NEET, which requires enormous effort on their part to achieve, does not guarantee a decent result. Therefore, rather than attempting to dismiss the issue as a minor side effect of the rise of applicants, the NTA needs to recognize the seriousness of the situation.

Again, the reasons given for the sudden cancellation of UGC NET were not clear. The government said that the National Cybercrime Threat Analytics Unit of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, which is part of the Ministry of Home Affairs, provided the negative inputs on UGC-NET. The statement did not elaborate on the specific way the exam’s integrity has been undermined, although sources indicated that I4C inputs indicate the existence of a dark web paper leak.

This strongly suggests widespread corruption, ingrained malaise, and the complete incapacity of the NTA to hold such important nationwide examinations.

Not just these exams and NTA-conducted exams,there have been at least 50 instances of leakage of papers of important examinations at the national and state level since 2015. Malaise is much more deep-rooted and what we see is only the tip of the iceberg.

Police Investigations

The Director General of NTA has since been fired, an inquiry has been ordered, and the CBI has begun inquiries. Initially, Minister of Education Mr Dhirendra Pradhan denied any inconsistencies, but he later acknowledged certain errors. He admits only as much as is exposed in the media, and whenever it is exposed.

Although the police havefound incidence of paper leaks in Patna and later in Haryana, Jharkhandand Gujarat too, the Minister is still saying that these are localised problems only. The fact is that we know only as much as is exposed. The possibility of unreported leakage cannot be denied.

Investigations are still on, there is one report saying NTA is not cooperating with CBI. In any case, it will take time and many coverups will be done. Some locally involved people will be booked. But the real players will remain unscathed.

Much trumpeted new law will also be used to catch the last few in the chain. The main culprits will continue to plan another scam.

The NTA

The origin of the idea of NTA can be found in the Programme of Action 1992 formulated for the National Policy of Education of 1986, which proposed administering common admission examinations at the national level for both professional and non-professional study programs. The National Testing Agency was founded in 2010 when a committee made up of some of the directors of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) submitted a report to the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), which is now the Ministry of Education. The Committee recommended that the National Testing Agency be “created by an Act of Parliament.” According to the paper, a statutory agency can guarantee impartiality and openness in assessing the intended scope.

The National Testing Agency (NTA) concept was to be advanced through the creation of a special purpose entity, and the MHRD established a seven-member task force in 2013 to draft a blueprint for this purpose. This came after the decision to establish the agency was announced in April 2013.

The Finance Minister made a statement regarding the NTA during the 2017 budget speech, and Cabinet approval came next. The government named Vineet Joshi as the agency’s first director-general.

The National Testing Authority (NTA) was to administer the National Eligibility Test (NET), the Graduate Pharmacy Aptitude Test (GPAT), the Common Management Admission Test (CMAT), and the Joint Entrance Examination–Main (JEE Main) twice a year, according to a press conference held on July 7, 2018, by former Union HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar.

A Governing committee comprising the chairperson, secretary, and at least eight representatives from various national-level institutes was to oversee the administration of the agency. The NTA was to begin operations in the first year with an initial allocation of Rs.25 crores from the Union Cabinet. The Ministry of Education’s Department of Higher Education provides funding for the organisation.

It announced in 2018 that it would conduct 5 national level tests but started in 2019 and now it conducts 28examinations every year including 15 for universities and colleges, 10 for recruitment and 3 for schools.

Controversies came up almost side by side from the beginning of the functioning of NTA. In 2017 itself, the Anitha case in Tamil Nadu put the drawback of the concept of NEET to the fore. It shall be discussed later. In 2020, the JEE mains exam had an impersonation issue when Neel Nakshatra Das used someone to answer his exam with his father being an invigilator. In the same year, Vidhi Suryavanshi of MP committed suicide when she found she had got only 6 marks, but later it was discovered that she had got 590 marks. Similarly, Mridul Rawat was declared unsuccessful; when the result was challenged, he was found to be a topper in the ST Category.

The JEE (Main) 2022 exam was improperly administered, lower results were the consequence of numerous students experiencing technical difficulties during the test, and errors in the exam’s response sheet and answer key constituted a major issue as well. In JEE(main) 2024, there was some arbitrariness in the difficulty level, NTA had tonormalize the score to the discontent of many. In JEE (main) Session I numerous students have brought attention to the disparity between the number of pupils who appeared in the first four shifts on January 27 and January 29. It is said that the NTA arbitrarily assigned candidates to each of the ten shifts. According to claims, there were noticeably more students present on the first two days, which resulted in significant differences in the candidates’ percentiles. There was also a noticeable increase in the cutoff, which added to several students’ dejection. In session II, cases of the usage of unfair means were seen.

Two years back NTA conducted CUET for the first time and there was big mismanagement as centres were shifted on the day of exams. It also announced that apart from UG and PG it will also conductexams for PhD but later it backed out for that year. Now Ministry has announced that NET scores will be a criterion for PhD admission, and scores will be valid only for a year. This has made NET more important than ever and therefore more stakes are involved.

Apart from the above, there have always been problems with the examinations conducted by NTA. The first CUET exam saw a sudden shifting of the exam centre at the last moment. Many students missed it. NTA has not been able to decide about the pattern of exams and mode of exams. The first 2 CUETs were conducted in online mode. But this year OMR sheets were given.There is a very poor andnon-transparentgrievance redressal system. The complaints of candidates are not addressed and by the time it is, time for any corrective action is lost.

This shows the complete incompetence and total unpreparedness of NTA to conduct such important examinations of this level.

If we look at organizational structure and who is in charge, things will become clearer. The Chairman, Dr.Pradeep Kumar Joshi, has strong links with RSS. He had been president of ABVP and was recommended by RSS pracharaks to become chairman of MPPSC as well as Chhattisgarh PSC. He was at the helm of the affairs when infamous VYAPAM scam took place in 2013. The NTA chairman is sort of expert in scams in entrance exams. The government has not shifted him but only the Director General was shifted.

It is evident that the purpose of NTA is to centralize all entry and eligibility exams. It was visualized before the NDA government and NEP 2020. It is a component of the WorldBank-GATS model. NEP 2020’s implementation has expanded its scope and made it operational. It aligns with the RSS’s strong central control vision as well.

Effect on Students

The abrupt cancellations or anomalies have a detrimental effect on the students. It has an impact on them both monetarily and mentally. Following this, many pupils are experiencing shock and additional emotional damage. They have endured an extremely demanding schedule and years of preparation to prepare for these exams. Students now experience mental distress if exams are abruptly cancelled or if results are uncertain.

In the hopes that their efforts will be sufficient to pass the tests, many students work hard and their families financially assist them. If the procedure is repeated, it will place an enormous financial strain on these students’ families, who even borrow money to pay for the coaching as for coaching and preparations, they are forced to live away from home. Such events place pupils in really awkward situations where they will have to ask for support from their family once more.

Problems with Centralised Entrance Exam

Although the recent problem that has precipitated the matter is anomalies in the conduction of exams, it has also brought the centralized examination system into discussion. Progressive forces have always opposed this as also opposed NEP2020 which strongly bats for this. NEET is a classic example of this. We may recall the case of Anitha of Tamil Nadu who, despite being among the toppers in the stateboard, could not clear NEET. She even appealed to the Supreme Court that she could not afford expensive coaching and that she should be given a seat. Despitethe support of the Tamil Nadu Assembly, the Supreme Court quashed her appeal and she committed suicide. Her suicide highlighted several important issues.

The arguments in favour of the Supreme Court’s decision to stop corruption connected to admissions in private universities through tests like NEET have also been made. Some people think that students who take several entrance exams will benefit from a common exam, and that admission test corruption will be reduced under the watchful eyes of the Medical Council of India and the CBSE. Then there is the supposedly desirable idea of a single syllabus, which would guarantee the production of physicians with comparable backgrounds everywhere.

The argument is bogus as most of the states already conduct their entrance exams. It could have been ordered that private medical colleges in that state be asked to make admissions through these exams. Many states have been doing this. The incidence of corruption in a few states cannot be a ground to generalize the issue and change admission procedures everywhere to a central exam. As such only 5% of students opt for high-capital fee private colleges. That means it was a problem of a minuscule only.

Such central exams at UG level are heavily skewed in favour of CBSE. In a country like India with huge diversity, set central exams only tend to ignore this diversity and different syllabi and patterns followed in different states. This is also not a factthatthe CBSE is the largest board conducting grade 12 exams. UP board and Maharashtra board examine more students respectively than CBSE. CBSE syllabus-based exams only means heavy urban and private schools’ centric bias.

It can also be argued that the CBSE syllabus is not the best syllabus. All the boards have a thoughtful, well-conceived syllabus of science which is suitable for the students of their states. Such central exams will gradually force state boards to adopt the CBSE syllabus.Anil Kumar and Dibakar Chatterjee of the Indian Institute of Science have donerigorous researchon this and found that in performance in science subjects, students of CBSE are notthe best. West Bengal students have done better in all science subjects and Andhra Pradesh students have done well in mathematics and physics. However, the NEET results show that students of these states are not among the best scorers.

Therefore, a Board of Education’s scientific syllabus’s viability or “worth” is determined not by how well it instructs pupils in the subject but, astonishingly, by how well it has adopted—or not—the fundamental structure of the curriculum of a Board located in Delhi. As a result, the Class 12 exam will become less significant, and coaching facilities will become more commonplace, functioning as informal replacement schools.

In fact, the corruption issue at the entrance also needs to be given another view. MCI led by Dr. Ketan Desai approached the court arguing for NEET as a solution when different states were reluctant to adopt NEET. Given his history and reputation, it is impossible to believe that his zeal for combating corruption is sincere. Immediately after the NEET judgment, the flourishing of CBSE-based coaching institutes was seen. The obvious need not be stated in words here.

We have seen similar discrepancies in the CUET undergraduate exam for entrance in Central Universities. Two years back, when it was conducted for the first time, Delhi University got only 2% of students from the states as opposed to approximately 40% on average in previous years. Students from government schools in Delhi too were reduced to a negligible number.

All these central exams are not only biased towards CBSE but also put socially and economically disadvantaged sections to a huge disadvantage. These exams were conducted in online mode, and many students touched computers for the first time in the examination hall. Almost simultaneously with the announcement of these exams Coaching centres have mushroomed. Which means the people who can afford this coaching will perform better and eventually only a small section of people will be able to access these exams.

Thus, these exams, on the one hand, violate the Federal rights of the state and on the other hand, are heavily biased towards the elite section of the society.

The Union Government is arguing before the Supreme Court that it will be difficult for the deserving students who have put in the necessary effort and performed well in the test to have the NEET results cancelled and the exam redone. Such students will undoubtedly find this difficult. However, the cause of this suffering for many students is the RSS-BJP Government and its utterly corrupt apparatus. This argument must not be permitted to perpetuate allegations of impropriety surrounding the entire testing process. Justice should be served to everyone involved in this, including the highest-ranking members, at the heart of the fraud, not just a few supporting players.

As we have seen, the leaks were at both the national level and state level. Entire machinery is mired in corruption. They are not concerned about the future of students or the country. The NEP 2020 only strengthens this as it bats not only for strong centralization and commercialization but also in a way seeks to institutionalize corruption.

While this NEET UG 2024 should be scrapped and rescheduled so that a fair exam be held for all, there should be further measure taken. NEP 2020 be withdrawn and central agencies like NTA be abolished, the conduction of examinations should be given to states as in past and the federal structure in education be restored by removing education from the concurrent list to the state list.

Obviously, the RSS-BJP government will not do it unless a strong movement of students and teachers takes place.