NEET controversy: MCQ-based examination isn’t the right way to spot doctors

Trouble was brewing for quite some time in several centralised exam systems, but this summer the lid has blown off in the test for the medical entrance. There are just too many problems with the NEET result declared on June 4. That was the date when everybody expected to hear the Lok Sabha results. The NEET result was to come 10 days later. That’s why its co-appearance surprised everyone. For a vast number of candidates, it was not a pleasant surprise. Then there are other, somewhat technical, issues. Rarely does a candidate get full marks. This time, there is a crowd at the top. Many have been given grace marks to compensate for the lack of sufficient time. Then there was a dispute about a question. The NTA is busy explaining everything away. It has denied the rumour of a paper leak.

In a mega-event like the NEET, every little detail is a potential nightmare. The paper must start at the same second at all the centres across the country. Entry rituals into an exam hall are far tougher than in an airport. The principle is clear: No cheating teenager should become a doctor. Given the scale of the operation — over two million applicants — and the fragility of the NTA, one must sympathise with it. I visited its website, hoping to find a senior faculty’s number to ring up and find out what exactly is going on. I discovered that it is one of those new-age institutions that follow the dictum — “permanence mars efficiency”. That permanence may also jeopardise confidentiality must be another concern.

The NTA’s vision is, of course, unexceptionable: “To improve equity and quality in education by administering research-based, valid, reliable, efficient, transparent, fair and international-level assessments”. That, however, is a daunting task, especially when it is to be accomplished by requesting scholars of other institutions to spare time for the NTA.

MCQ-based mass testing has gripped India’s systemic imagination. Eligibility for research, teaching and now undergraduate admission is part of the MCQs regime. Well-designed MCQs can probe capacities such as reasoning, judgement and analogical thinking, but they can’t help us inquire into capacities like reflection and review of one’s own first impression. In mass entrance tests, speed becomes a crucial factor in success. Young people know that the NEET demands “cracking” and you can’t crack something at a slow speed. Coaching institutes drill skills into you such as surface scanning and pattern recognition, enabling you to wade through hundreds of items without wasting a minute on thinking. If you like to think about things, letting your mind look carefully at a problem before resolving it, it seems you are unfit to become a doctor, an engineer or even a teacher in India. Mindless speed is what you must possess to enter the courses that lead to these professions. The MCQ mantra has exorcised the old ghost of quiet reflection.

If a test leaves youngsters feeling that an exam was unfair, it dents a cornerstone of education. Over the years, a vast number of young minds have felt unfairly assessed. Impartial evaluation is not merely a moral condition, it is also a key condition for equity. As it is, our system of education faces deeply entrenched problems of inequality arising from caste, gender, language and other aspects of social hierarchy. The coaching industry further compounds the problem. Mechanical testing makes it convenient to deal with large numbers of aspirants, but the cost is heavy.

News of suicides reminds us every now and then what sort of cost we pay as a society and nation for maintaining a system of judging eligibility that marginalises the thoughtful as a first step. It is not merely a question of putting the young mind under excessive stress — that is now happening from early childhood. Stress in early life is detrimental to learning, but the ordeal of living with the smell of injustice inflicts a deeper corrosion. It encourages a generalised cynicism which is directly hostile to democracy.

This year’s NEET result may prove a bit too hard to cleanse by available technical means. The NTA has set up a committee to look into some aspects of the mess and suggest ways to mitigate it. Evidence is mounting that a great number of candidates suspect unfair treatment. Perhaps the judiciary will exercise its discernment and power. Whatever happens, a larger strategy and consensus around it must be worked out for radical changes in the prevailing system of deciding eligibility for entry into medical courses. Doctors constitute far too important an aspect of civil society to be selected on the basis of coachable capacities — cracking question after question, based on a textbook, no matter how good it is. Other capacities must be recognised and assessed.

The writer is former director, National Council of Educational Research and Training