More Medical Seats Is Great News. Now Let’s Make NEET A Little Neater Too

In his speech today (15 August), Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the government would create another 75,000-odd medical seats in the country over the next five years.

This announcement comes against the backdrop of a heated debate surrounding the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), which has been marred by serious allegations of paper leaks and arbitrary grace marks.

These issues have ignited fears about the exam's integrity, fears that were previously confined to states like Tamil Nadu but have now escalated into a national political crisis.

Whether the concerns regarding NEET's fairness and integrity are valid or not, the fact remains that the exam has become a contentious issue on a national scale, reflecting a growing distrust in the exam's fairness and administration.

While increasing the number of seats will offer more candidates a shot at admission, it won’t restore the trust in NEET that was undermined by recent politicisation.

The government must confront this issue head-on, and it will require decisive action to resolve the deep-seated scepticism surrounding the exam.

Conducting NEET in its current form is an unparalleled logistical endeavour. Consider this: in 2024, an astounding 23.33 lakh students took the exam simultaneously on the same day across 4,750 centres in 571 cities, including 14 international locations.

This monumental scale, though impressive, highlights the grave systemic risks inherent in the current setup. The sheer complexity of managing such an enormous operation brings the efficacy and integrity of the examination process into serious question.

If even a single problem occurs at any of the thousands of exam centres, it could compromise the integrity of the entire examination.

Given the high stakes and the potential for widespread disruption, it is crucial to question the wisdom of continuing with this system. There are alternative models, well-established and in use for years, that offer more flexibility not just to the organisers of the exam but also to the students who have to take it.

Consider GMAT, for instance. Unlike NEET, which is conducted on a single day at thousands of centres, the GMAT offers a more flexible model.

The GMAT is computer-based and allows students to choose their exam date and time within a given period. This approach reduces logistical issues and minimises the risk of widespread problems affecting the entire test. The flexibility of the GMAT means students can schedule their exam around other commitments, such as board exams.

A model like the GMAT could also help weaken the coaching mafia's grip. Currently, the intense pressure of NEET fuels reliance on costly coaching centres, such as the one in Hazaribag where the director and a teacher are now under investigation for their alleged role in the NEET-UG paper leak. Offering students the ability to choose their exam date would reduce pressure by giving students more control over their preparation timeline.

Moving to computer-based exams would cut the hassles of printing, shipping, and securely handling paper tests. It would also reduce mistakes in grading and speed up how quickly results are processed.

A faster and simpler exam model would also make it possible for students to retake the test to improve their scores, just like in the GMAT.

This shift would also deflate the political storm NEET has become. What was once a localised issue exploited by Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu has now exploded into a nationwide grievance, whether justified or not. Implementing a computer-based system could directly address the concerns fuelling this political controversy.

The government must not conflate the justified need for a competent entrance exam with the complexity it has come to be associated with. It is possible to achieve the former without the headache and political costs of the latter.