Experts have suggested online examinations as a possible solution. The debate over pen-and-paper vs computer-based testing is unending. The former would be better given the familiarity and conditioning of Indian students.
The NEET 2024 exam crisis seems to be the subject of several debates, in Parliament, the Supreme Court, and in the media due to the alleged use of unfair means in the examination process. But the rhetoric does not consider the dangers of the alternative — an exclusionary, high-stakes medical entrance examination. The discourse and subsequent criticism are also highly politicised. There is a need to clarify the misconceptions that are damaging the reputation of professional agencies like the National Testing Agency (NTA).
The examination, for which around 2.4 million students appeared across 4,750 centres, was flagged for the use of unfair means by several candidates. However, there is no conclusive evidence of mass malpractice. NEET 2024 was conducted using Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets with specific question booklets. A few cases of the examination superintendents tampering with the OMR sheet occurred and they were arrested. The government constituted a high-powered committee to suggest future improvements in the conduct of entrance tests.
There are allegations that a particular set of question papers was leaked and bought by certain students, which helped them achieve inordinately high scores. But in the exam, there are multiple sets of question papers with no guarantee of which set a student may receive. It is likely that these students were duped. Such a situation can only arise if all stakeholders, including the centre’s superintendent and the invigilators, conspire with the paper solvers to leak the paper. This would be rare, considering the inbuilt checks and balances of the system.
The OMR sheets belong to different series and have jumbled questions, allotted according to the number of examinees sitting for the exam. It would be difficult to predict which student would receive a particular series number. Moreover, the results of those who’ve engaged in such practices have already been cancelled and disciplinary action has been taken against them. Discrepancies in scoring will also reveal the use of unfair means. The media narrative seems to miss these crucial nuances.
Designing such an entry-level test is the sole responsibility of the examining body, the NTA in this case. There are standard operating procedures for OMR-based examinations — from setting the question papers to printing to transporting. The examination centres are instructed to create a seating plan to ensure candidates with the same paper set sit apart. There is also the issue of grace marks, which are frequently allotted during paper correction as directed by the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment. However, there is a need to formulate a comprehensive grace marks policy.
Experts have suggested online examinations as a possible solution. The debate over pen-and-paper vs computer-based testing is unending. The former would be better given the familiarity and conditioning of Indian students. This may explain why the regulatory body in health education opted for the hybrid mode — students answered using OMR sheets and the results were processed through computing. There persists the view that computer-based testing is more efficient. However, the issue of accessibility, data security, and more importantly, students’ comfort using such technology must not be overlooked. NEP 2020 highlighted the issue of a digital divide, with digital reach still limited across the country.
Digitisation of exams would likely be outsourced to private sector enterprises, rendering the testing agencies dependent on these companies. Another important aspect favouring the hybrid mode is the governance of entrance examinations. Good governance happens through process mapping and change management, as opposed to the broad application of information and communication technologies. There is also the issue of cybersecurity. The example of EVMs in the Indian elections exemplifies the benefits of technology whilst ensuring data security.
Professional agencies must ensure accountability and trust whilst conducting these examinations at the grassroots. Rather than using private institutions to hold the exams, government secondary schools and colleges, which offer a wider network across the country, could be used. The NTA must also identify the state coordinators monitoring the NEET and appoint observers carefully. The district authorities should be made responsible for safe custody of question papers.
The integrity of institutions that design and conduct entrance examinations can only be upheld by reforming exam governance rather than jumping to digital solutions. Hopefully, the government-instituted committee tasked to look into the NEET issue would pay heed to the aforementioned aspects and devise a plan of action to improve educational governance.
The writer is former executive director, School of Open Learning, and worked as the Dean (Examinations), University of Delhi
