Since its inception in 2013, the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) has faced criticism on multiple fronts. Firstly, the decision to conduct a centralised exam in a country as diverse as India, with its multiple education systems and testing methods, has been the target of ongoing scrutiny. Additionally, the manner in which students have endured unnecessary hardships and inconveniences before and during the examinations, ostensibly to ensure accountability and prevent malpractices, has garnered widespread condemnation. It is worth mentioning that these measures failed to curb malpractices effectively. What is even more disconcerting is that some instances of malpractice have involved officials, revealing glaring loopholes and casting doubt on the reliability and efficacy of the system.
Now, a recent announcement by the National Medical Commission has reignited the debate surrounding NEET, raising doubts about its much-touted efficacy. On September 20, following the health ministry’s directive, the commission announced rather worryingly the reduction of the qualifying percentile for NEET to ‘zero’ across all categories for postgraduate programmes. The decision, as expected, elicited a range of reactions from astonishment to shock and ridicule. In India’s higher education history, this is perhaps the first time zero has become the qualifying percentile for specialised medical education. One cannot help but question if the yardsticks should become more stringent as education becomes more specialised or entirely relaxed to admit everyone who takes the exam.
Among the polarised reactions to the decision, the following stand out. Since allowing candidates with a zero percentile to qualify for postgraduate seats will undoubtedly undermine the system, medical associations and concerned individuals, without wasting time or mincing words, have criticised it, saying it is a form of social injustice. They have also expressed concerns about the quality of medical education and the healthcare system in India. Organisations such as the Federation of All India Medical Associations promptly and rightly denounced the decision as “shocking” and “bizarre”. The public and other stakeholders believe such a move will drastically compromise the quality of medical education and healthcare in India.
On the other side of the argument, proponents of the new yardstick have defended the decision. Dr Harish Gupta, a member of the Delhi Medical Council, has assured that there will be no compromise on the quality of medical education. However, it isn’t easy to understand how this assurance will be upheld. Dr Lakshya Mittal, president of the United Doctors Front Association, emphasises that the change will allow thousands of previously unused non-clinical seats to be used by ‘newly eligible’ students, preventing the ‘national loss’ incurred otherwise. The question left lingering is—at what cost and to whose benefit?
This controversial development has compelled educationists to question the validity and credibility of NEET, which was introduced in India with the promise of merit-based admissions and streamlining medical education, apart from a commitment to end corruption in medical colleges through capitation fees. However, the recent move has not only undermined the meritocracy principle that NEET was meant to uphold but has also promoted corruption. Ironically, under this rule, a student with a score below zero can also get a seat if he or she can afford it, raising doubts about the system’s efficacy and its avowed ability to transform medical education in India.
NEET has inadvertently contributed to the commercialisation of medical education, with coaching centres raking in substantial revenues. The AK Rajan committee constituted by the Tamil Nadu government to examine the challenges faced by NEET aspirants revealed that the entrance exam primarily benefits the affluent and goes against social justice as it hinders the aspirations of the poor and marginalised. Instead of identifying talent or merit, the test filters out the disadvantaged through its one-size-fits-all approach, which disregards the diverse socio-cultural, economic and educational backgrounds of Indian students, putting undue pressure on those already burdened by the examination-centric education system.
Thus, reducing the NEET cut-off to zero raises broader questions about regulating higher education, particularly medical education. Instead of addressing the root causes of vacant seats each year, the authorities have opted for a quick-fix solution. The primary issue lies in the exorbitant cost of Indian medical education, which is beyond the reach of many. The problem can be addressed by making medical education more affordable and introducing welfare schemes for underprivileged sections. Additionally, unused seats in private institutions should be converted into government seats, and where unfilled seats exist, the central government must return them to the states. Such proactive measures will help strengthen the states’ resources and improve the quality of the country’s medical system. A decentralised approach may yield better long-term results than hasty, knee-jerk reactions such as this or the proposal to simplify the entrance exam in the years ahead.
The decision to reduce the NEET cut-off to zero, primarily motivated by economic factors, has prompted us to ask crucial questions about the quality of India’s medical education, the negative consequences brought about by this change, and our commitment as a welfare society to equity and social justice. The solutions lie in a more nuanced and balanced approach.
John J Kennedy
Professor and Dean, Christ University (Deemed), Bengaluru
(johnjken@gmail.com)