‘NEET is the best and only option’
How genuine are the concerns of those protesting NEET? NEET is the best thing to have happened in recent times in the professional examination system in India. The protests are one-off incidents; one cannot generalise or make an opinion from such incidents. However, if you talk to students across the country, there are concerns and misconceptions that need to be addressed timely and appropriately. Is it true that NEET is based on the CBSE syllabus, although CBSE schools are only a small per cent of the total number of schools in the country? No. NEET syllabus is not based on that of the CBSE. It is based on a core curriculum approach, whereby the syllabi of all the school boards have been taken into consideration. It has been prepared by the CBSE, Council of Boards of School Education (Cobse), National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and adopted by the Medical Council of India. But India doesn’t have a common core curriculum and there are 50 different boards, with each one of them having a different syllabus and evaluation process... There are three national boards, including the National Institute of Open Schooling and about 50 other boards situated in the respective states. There are wide variations with regard to curriculum design, curriculum transaction and curriculum evaluation among these boards. Efforts were earlier made to bring some sort of uniformity. Some state boards have prepared their content in tune with the curriculum of national boards, particularly in science subjects, but many of them have not fallen in line. Will a common curriculum solve the problem? Even if the curriculum design is made uniform, unless and until it reflects in the classroom transaction and the assessment process, no uniformity can be achieved in a true sense. There is so much of difference in classroom practices and evaluation patterns among these boards that uniformity seems to be a distant dream. Whereas it is “more of the same” in several boards, the national boards and some of the state boards have switched over to “higher order thinking skills”. The latter are relevant to this type of professional exam (NEET). So I will say that students from some of the state boards are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis those from progressive boards. Also, these examinations do not test the attitude and aptitude of the students correctly. It is the best “coached”, not the best “talent”, who cracks such a type of exam. Unless we change the typology of the questions and design the question paper properly, the situation may not improve. What about students from rural India and those studying in government schools? Students in rural India and those studying in state government-run schools seem to have a lesser chance of success because of their repetitive and stereotypical teaching learning process. Students of some of the state boards have this fear that they may not be able to crack the exam because their school boards are addressing mediocrity and their curriculum process is inferior to that of national boards. This mindset needs to be removed. The situation can definitely be improved in three to five years, provided sustained and earnest efforts are made. There are allegations that NEET is infringing upon the state governments’ power to hold admissions in the medical colleges funded by them. In no manner is NEET infringing upon the powers of the state governments. State interests are fully protected in the form of state domicile, reservation, etc. I repeat, NEET is the best and only option, considering the multiplicity of such exams and the fact that candidates have to rush from one place to other, wasting time and money to sit for exams in some states; there’s also the issue of unethical practices. There was a big difference in quality between AIPMT/NEET and tests conducted at the state level. But in order to address the fears and concerns of students, can we build a certain flexibility into it? In India, due to the huge diversity and multiplicity of boards, a Scholastic Aptitude Test type of exam — as conducted in the US — may not be feasible and practicable until we achieve true equivalency in standards among boards. There should not be a concentration of students from national boards and a few enlightened state boards and virtually no representation from several other
state boards. What are the necessary changes that should be immediately made to NEET? The immediate need seems to be that it should be conducted in English only. One of the eligibility criteria for admission in MBBS/BDS is that the candidate must have studied English as a core subject in school. In any case, the candidate has to study MBBS/BDS only in English, hence it is assumed that the candidate is proficient enough in English to join the course. Earlier, when states were holding state-level entrance exams, these were conducted in English and Hindi. Secrecy of tools adopted in such examinations is of paramount importance; a question paper is one of the tools. If the tools are handled by various people, including the paper setter, moderator, translator, proof-reader, there are chances of pilferage and leak, which can help mischief-makers.
Also, the uniform domicile rule needs to be adopted in this case and a candidate must claim a seat only in one state against 85 per cent of the seats.
At present, a candidate can claim domicile in more than one state, which makes the admission process lengthy and allows scope for malpractices. In NEET, the upper age limit may be fixed to ensure the quality of future doctors. There is also a need to go for central counselling for 100 per cent of the seats, so that in one go, all the candidates are allotted seats as per their merit. The basic issue — looking at the enormous variety among boards — is, do we need to fill up 100 of the seats through NEET?
Students in rural India and those studying in state government-run schools seem to have a lesser chance of success because of their repetitive and stereotypical teaching learning process