NEET – Menace of Medical Education
The menace of NEET has been continuing for more than a decade distorting the future of multitude of doctor aspirant headed with the loss of significant hopeful lives. The latest leakage of NEET question paper and the conduct of retest are the highest disorder, subjecting to severe countrywide opposition.
Not suitable for diverse sub-continent and its composition
The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) was introduced with the socalled promise of ensuring merit, transparency, and uniformity in medical admissions. A decade later, however, it has become increasingly evident that NEET has failed to create a level playing field. Instead of promoting equal opportunity, it has deepened educational inequalities, marginalized rural and government school students, fuelled the coaching industry, and subjected lakhs of young aspirants to immense psychological pressure. It is time to re-examine whether a single, centralized examination is the best way to select future doctors in a country as diverse as India.
Related articles
Prior to NEET
Before NEET, medical admissions were conducted through separate entrance examinations organized by states, universities, and private institutions. While the old system had its shortcomings, including allegations of irregularities and multiple examinations that burdened students, it also allowed states to frame admission policies suited to their educational systems. Students were assessed within the context of the curricula they had studied, and state governments retained greater autonomy in determining admissions.
Fundamental flaws
The idea of a common medical entrance examination emerged in 2010 when the Medical Council of India proposed NEET. The examination was introduced in 2013 but was struck down by the Supreme Court shortly afterwards. In 2016, the Court revived NEET, making it the sole entrance examination for MBBS and BDS admissions across the country. The objective was said to eliminate multiple entrance tests and establish a uniform standard of merit While the intention was itself flawed, the implementation has exposed fundamental flaws. India is not a country with a uniform school education system. Students study under different educational boards with varying syllabi, teaching methods, and levels of infrastructure. Expecting every student to compete in one national examination assumes equality where none exists.
A race of dominance by coaching centres
Perhaps the greatest criticism of NEET is that it has transformed medical admissions into a race dominated by coaching centres. Success increasingly depends on expensive coaching programmes, mock tests, and years of specialized preparation rather than classroom learning. Families spend enormous amounts of money on coaching institutes, while economically weaker students are left struggling despite possessing the talent and dedication required to become competent doctors. Merit should reflect knowledge and potential, not purchasing power.
Rural students at disadvantages
Government school students and those from rural backgrounds face even greater disadvantages. Many schools lack adequate laboratory facilities, experienced science teachers, and access to modern learning resources. Their state board syllabus often differs from the examination pattern followed in NEET. Consequently, thousands of academically bright students lose opportunities simply because the system favours those with better educational and financial resources.
Another concern is the erosion of the importance of school education. Board examinations, classroom performance, and years of consistent academic effort carry little weight when admissions depend almost entirely on one examination conducted over a few hours. A student’s future should not be determined by performance on a single day, especially when illness, anxiety, or unforeseen circumstances can significantly affect results.
The psychological burden created by NEET is equally alarming. Every year, millions of students compete for a limited number of medical seats, many preparing for several years and appearing multiple times. The enormous expectations placed upon young minds have resulted in rising levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and, in several heart breaking cases, student suicides. An admission system that pushes students to such extremes deserves serious scrutiny.
Equal rules and opportunities, a Must
Supporters argue that NEET has reduced corruption and introduced transparency into medical admissions. While a common entrance examination may simplify administration, transparency alone cannot justify a system that leaves many deserving students behind. A fair admission process must ensure not only equal rules but also reasonably equal opportunities to compete.
Recurring Controversies, Factual
The repeated controversies surrounding NEET—including allegations of question paper leaks, irregularities in examination management, and disputes over grace marks and evaluation—have further weakened public confidence. Such incidents undermine the claim that a single national examination is inherently more reliable than decentralized systems.
Rather than relying exclusively on NEET, India should explore a more balanced admission model. School board performance, continuous academic assessment, and aptitude evaluation could be combined with an entrance examination. Strengthening government schools, harmonizing curricula across boards, and providing free quality coaching for disadvantaged students would help create genuine equality rather than merely uniformity.
Besides, judging the knowledge level acquired through the 12 years of school education, and admitting the candidates into the medical colleges based on the marks secured in the school final examination is comparatively for better than the single entrance test conducted on all India basis as eligibility. Academic examination is not equal to a entrance test.
The dream of becoming a doctor should depend on talent, compassion, and sustained academic effort—not on access to expensive
coaching or the ability to excel in a single high-pressure examination. A country as socially, economically, and educationally diverse as India requires an admission system that recognizes diversity instead of ignoring it.
NEET was introduced with the ‘socalled’ intention of reforming medical admissions, but good intentions alone do not guarantee good outcomes. After years of implementation, its social costs have become too significant to ignore. Re-examining NEET is not an attack on merit; it is a demand for a more equitable, inclusive, and humane system that gives every deserving student a fair chance to serve the nation as a doctor.
“State board syllabus often differs from the examination pattern followed in NEET. Consequently, thousands of academically bright students lose opportunities simply because the system favours those with better educational and financial resources.”
OSM – Evaluation Malice
When Centralisation Overrides Classrooms: Lessons from the CBSE Onscreen Marking Controversy
Education is not merely an administrative exercise; it is a deeply human process shaped by teachers, students, communities, and regional realities. Yet, over the years, school education in India has witnessed increasing centralisation, with the Union Government and national bodies exercising greater control over curricula, examinations, and evaluation methods. The controversy surrounding the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) Onscreen Marking (OSM) system has once again raised an important question: Does greater central control necessarily lead to better education?
Imaginary objective
The Onscreen Marking (OSM) system was introduced with the objective of making the evaluation of answer scripts faster, more secure, and technologically efficient. Instead of physically handling answer booklets, scanned copies are digitally distributed to examiners who evaluate them through a computer interface. The system promises greater confidentiality, reduced logistical challenges, and quicker declaration of results.
Practical Pit falls
However, many teachers and educationists have expressed reservations about the manner in which OSM has been implemented. One recurring criticism is that digital evaluation often places excessive emphasis on speed. Examiners are expected to complete a large number of answer scripts within strict timelines while constantly working before computer screens. Such conditions may unintentionally compromise thoughtful evaluation, particularly in subjects that require careful reading of descriptive answers.
Teachers have also pointed to the increased mental strain associated with prolonged screen-based evaluation. Unlike traditional marking, where examiners could comfortably review entire answer scripts, digital interfaces may require constant scrolling, frequent navigation between pages, and adaptation to software constraints. Fatigue and reduced concentration are natural consequences of prolonged screen work, potentially affecting consistency in assessment.
More than technological malady
The concerns surrounding OSM are not merely about technology. Rather, they reflect a larger problem—the growing tendency to centralise educational decision-making without adequately incorporating the experiences of classroom teachers. Policies are often designed at the national level with uniform procedures intended for every school, every teacher, and every student across India. Such an approach overlooks the country’s enormous educational diversity.
Weakening the diversity
India has one of the most varied school education systems in the world. Students come from metropolitan cities, remote villages, tribal regions, and socially and educationally disadvantaged communities. Schools differ in infrastructure, teacher availability, language of instruction, and access to digital resources.
Educational challenges in Kerala or Tamil Nadu may differ substantially from those in Rajasthan, Bihar, or the North-Eastern states. A single administrative model cannot always address these varied realities.
Education has traditionally been regarded as an area where states possess valuable experience and contextual understanding. Teachers, state education departments, and local academic institutions are often better positioned to appreciate regional educational needs. Excessive centralisation risks weakening this diversity by replacing locally evolved practices with uniform national mechanisms.
Efficiency, not at the cost of fairness
The implementation of centrally designed systems like OSM also illustrates another challenge: technology should remain a tool, not become the driving force behind educational policy. Digital innovation undoubtedly offers many advantages, but efficiency should never come at the cost of fairness or academic judgement. Evaluation is not a mechanical process of assigning marks; it requires professional discretion, patience, and subject expertise. When software design, productivity targets, and administrative timelines begin to dominate the evaluation process, educational quality may suffer.
Reform by mere intimation?
Another concern is the limited scope for consultation before introducing large-scale reforms. Teachers—the individuals who actually implement educational policies— often feel that they are informed rather than consulted. Successful educational reform depends not only on technological capability but also on the confidence and participation of those working within the system. Ignoring teachers’ voices can create dissatisfaction and reduce the effectiveness of otherwise well-intentioned reforms.
The broader trend of increasing central control is also visible in curriculum design, examination patterns, teacher training, and assessment frameworks. While national standards are important for ensuring quality, excessive uniformity may undermine the constitutional spirit of cooperative federalism. India’s educational strength has always rested on accommodating diversity while maintaining common academic goals.
Education, not merely administration
Education is ultimately about nurturing human potential, not merely managing administrative processes. Policies succeed when they inspire confidence among teachers, reassure students, and respect the diversity of India’s classrooms. Technology should strengthen the teacher’s role, not constrain it. Central institutions should provide leadership, but they must also recognise the wisdom and experience that exist within states and schools.
The OSM debate is therefore more than a discussion about digital evaluation. It is a reminder that educational reforms cannot be measured solely by efficiency or uniformity. True educational progress lies in balancing national standards with regional autonomy, technological advancement with human judgement, and administrative control with democratic consultation. Only then can India’s school education system remain both modern and truly inclusive.
Irregularities and resultant loss of life of students are looming larger through the countrywide uniform mode of admission and evaluation processes. These are all the manifests of centralised control of education system of both school and higher education. Originally educational development took place, mainly through the policies of States. In 1976, during the Emergency, the subject ‘Education’ was shifted from the State List to the Concurrent List of the Constitution. From then on problems started and erupted in different modes. Almost the governing power related to ‘Education’ is exercised by the Union government as if it is in its exclusive domain ‘Union List’. To set right all the current happenings through implementation of ill-conceived educational policies and programmes by the Union government, it is high time to restore the subject ‘Education’ to the State List. Only States are the proper governing authority to exercise and regulate educational policies and programmes for a diverse sub-continent, India
