CHENNAI: The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), seen as a landmark attempt to ensure merit in medical and dental college admissions across the country, has been shrouded in controversy since its inception in 2010. Why so much opposition?
NEET has revived debates on the efficacy of a centralised examination for admission. Similar attempts have been made elsewhere in the world to bring uniformity to the system of examination and evaluation in a federal setup. However, here’s a catch: Such one-size-fits-all attempts have deteriorated the quality of education and increased discrimination/disparity among students in the long run. The most recent example is the United States’ No Child Left Behind (NCLB) programme launched in 2001. “Nearly 15 years down the line, the system has created much havoc, and the quality of American public schools has deteriorated to a great extent,” said Anil Sadgopal from All India Forum for Right To Education (AIFRTE).
Tamil Nadu, known for social justice movements, is probably the only Indian State to have witnessed all three forms of medical college admissions — personal interviews (before 1986), in which students’ socio-economic conditions was given preference over academic performances; a common entrance test (1986-2006); and single-window counselling based only on Class XII scores (after 2006).
Apart from seats in 24 government medical colleges, a portion of seats in minority (50%) and non-minority (65%) private medical colleges were filled through counselling. As for filling the remaining seats, referred to as ‘Management quota seats’, retired Madras High Court judge D Hariparanthaman said a huge amount was collected as capitation fees by these institutes.
Despite a prolonged legal battle, Tamil Nadu was unable to bring private deemed universities under this umbrella. So rampant was this practice that a private medical university chancellor from Chennai was arrested for collecting crores from parents for assuring seats. Though the chancellor was released on bail, the case is still pending, he added.
In the said scenario, the Central government endeavoured to regulate medical admissions and issued a notification in December 2010. Nearly four years later, the 92nd Parliamentary standing committee under the Union Department of Health and Family Welfare was given the task of submitting recommendations to restrict private medical colleges from collecting excess fees.
The committee recommended the introduction of a Common Medical Entrance Test (CMET), but with a rider. “CMET should be done across the nation barring those States who wish to remain outside its ambit,” read the report. However, in contradiction with the standing committee’s report, the Centre went on to make NEET mandatory for all States from 2017-18.
“Union Health Minister JP Nadda misguided the Parliament stating that all States had sought exemption for a year. Tamil Nadu always sought complete autonomy in this aspect, and even in her letter on May 25, a day after an ordinance was promulgated exempting Tamil Nadu from NEET for a year, former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa had clearly sought a permanent exemption,” said educationist Prince Gajendra Babu.
Justice Hariparanthaman said there has been an unexplained delay in approving two bills adopted by Tamil Nadu in February 2017 which would empower the State to have its own medical admission procedure. Admission to higher education institutes comes under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent) in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. So, by not approving these bills for Presidential assent, the Centre is infringing on a State’s rights, Sadgopal from AIFRTE added.
Coming back to the fee aspect, will NEET help in controlling commercialisation of medical education as it claims? “Earlier `40-50 lakh was collected as capitation fees by private institutes. Now, NEET has empowered them to collect this amount legally,” said a doctor working in a State-funded hospital in Chennai. Medicos added that there is a need to bring in more transparency and fairness in this aspect. However, Niti Aayog, the Centre’s premier think-tank, in its report on August 2016 has recommended the government not to interfere with private medical institutes in determining fees. Hence, the uncertainty continues.
Though acknowledging the need for transparency, educationist Narayanan Natarajan said fees was no longer a great hindrance, as educational loans are available for students from banks. “We are continuously underestimating the potential of our rural students. Even without going to coaching centres, they can clear such tests with minimum support from the State government. It would roughly cost `20-40 crore to provide additional learning material for one lakh students in Tamil Nadu,” he added. This year, nearly 88,000 students from Tamil Nadu took NEET.
Reports have surfaced suggesting that there was no correlation between entrance tests conducted and entry of government school students into premier medical institutes. On the contrary, Express had reported in January that the number of government school students getting admitted into top medical colleges reduced after the abolition of entrance tests in 2006. There has also been a constant increase in a number of arrears taken by first-year students. Experts attribute this to the scrapping of entrance tests and schools not teaching basics.
Interestingly, M Anandakrishnan, former vice-chancellor of Anna University, who was on the committee that abolished the common entrance test, supported NEET. “I made half a dozen recommendations including a syllabus revamp but all caveats were ignored. It has created chaos resulting in the abolition of the test,” he said in one of his recent interviews. Tamil Nadu has quickly responded to these shortcomings by introducing board exams for Class XI and revamping the syllabus.
THE American EXPERIENCE
STATE’S HEALTH POLICY AT RISK