Not That NEET: What Went Wrong With The NTA And Where Do We Go From Here?

With more than 23 lakh students writing NEET-UG, the National Testing Agency (NTA), the agency that conducts it and other national entrance tests, is under fire. The Secretariat analyses the crisis, to identify structural flaws and explore a way forward.

Unfolding Of The Crisis

On June 4, 2024, the NTA declared NEET-UG results on its website. The next day, it addressed representations and cases about time lost during the test held on May 5, based on a 2018 Supreme Court (SC) judgment. By June 6, widespread allegations of paper leaks emerged.

The agency notified that it had applied a normalisation formula to grant grace marks to students who lost time, leading to 67 students securing an All-India Rank 1. Further, several students scored 718 and 719 out of a total of 720 marks, a feat otherwise impossible. Subsequently, student protests erupted across the country 

On June 8, the Calcutta and Delhi high courts sought NTA responses on alleged irregularities. Criticism from all quarters, including medical associations, followed.

On June 10, a petition challenging the award of grace marks was filed in SC. On June 13, the apex court refused to stay the ongoing NEET-UG 2024 counselling but agreed to the NTA proposal to hold a re-test for the 1,563 students who got grace marks. 

The re-examination was held on June 23, but only 813 of the 1,563 candidates turned up; results are expected before June 30. 

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, however, denied allegations of corruption on June 13. On June 15, another petition seeking a complete re-evaluation of all Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) answer sheets, a re-ranking of candidates and a court-monitored investigation was filed in the SC.

Facing widespread criticism, Pradhan acknowledged discrepancies in NEET-UG on June 17. The next day, the SC deferred its decision on a petition seeking a CBI investigation, posting it next for July 8.

On June 19, the ministry cancelled the already conducted UGC-NET examination due to “prima facie inputs” of compromise. Meanwhile, clear evidence of paper leaks across the country started pouring in.

Following a ministry directive, the NTA on June 21 postponed the combined CSIR-UGC-NET examination for science post-graduates, scheduled for June 25-27.

On June 22, the government formed a seven-member expert committee to recommend a roadmap for examination reforms and review the NTA's structure and functioning, led by former ISRO chairman K. Radhakrishnan. It will submit its report in the next two months.

The same day, the decision to remove Subodh Kumar Singh as NTA chief was made public. The NEET-PG examination, scheduled on June 23, was also put on hold, affecting around 2 lakh candidates.

Does India Need A Centralised Examination Agency?

Established as an autonomous agency under the Department of Higher Education, the NTA came into being in November 2017. It conducted UGC-NET in 2018 but took charge of other examinations 2019 onwards. It now organises different admission and fellowship-related examinations, including JEE Main, NET, CMAT and GPAT. 

With a rising young demographic shift, the number of applicants in entrance and scholarship examinations soared in the last two decades. Simultaneously, the case for a centralised assessment agency gained ground.

Earlier, state governments and educational institutions bore the burden of examination and assessment. But the admission process got overwhelming with the increasing number of applicants. 

For example, under the earlier marks cut-off system of admission at Delhi University, most aspirants applied to all good colleges, making the task of selection difficult every year.

As a professor and researcher of higher education, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “A centralised admission and evaluation process provides wider choice to the students. As students are eligible to apply anywhere in the country with the centralised admission exam score, it reduces their transaction costs in terms of money, effort and time.”

The new digital format of the examinations also makes students’ lives easier. Since the exams are national level ones, there is always scope for better uniformity of quality and standardisation. This paves the way for better allocation of aspiring educational talents, the professor added.

“There is a wide disparity between marks secured under different state boards and those secured under CBSE and ICSE. An all-India entrance examination provides a level playing field,” said another New Delhi-based higher education expert.

However, a centralised admission process ignores the diversity across the states in curriculum and assessment. This may adversely affect education systems in better-performing states, he said, adding that "in a diverse country like India, the 'one-nation-one-examination' proposition ought to be taken with a pinch of salt."

There are never-ending debates around diversity, standardisation and autonomy. But with limited manpower at college and university levels and the ever-increasing number of applications, the admission process had become unmanageable, said a professor at Delhi University.

Pitfalls Of The NTA

A centralised assessment agency should be led by seasoned evaluation and assessment experts with proven track records. However, the onus was given to an IAS officer. Ironically, the previous head of the NTA has now been replaced by another IAS, albeit temporarily.

Heading NTA is the job of an education expert, with substantial assessment experience. Anybody else may miss the pitfalls of the system and fall into a ditch. Precisely that has happened.

Also, there is a serious manpower problem at the NTA, which conducts the exams mostly by outsourcing to private agencies. Most of the NTA's employees are contractual or on deputation; they have issues with their remuneration.

“The NTA is not an experienced and long-standing government organisation like the CBSE or the UPSC. This six-year-old agency is registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. This is just a governing body with no formal structure or general body, and is not subject to the rules that govern the conduct and honesty of government employees,” said Ayesha Kidwai who teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University. 

“The 95-year-old CBSE had been conducting several national examinations since the 1970s and the UGC-NET since 2014. Why was the CBSE’s examination wing not expanded to take over the national testing mechanism?” she asked.

Under the administrative structure, the Central Government appoints the chair and the head and picks nominees from the IITs, NIITs, IIMs, IISERs, central universities and testing experts. So, the government practically runs the organisation, but is not responsible for any mishaps technically.

“This is like exercising power without taking any responsibility or accountability whatsoever,” Kidwai said.

For example, the NTA took over the entrance examinations in JNU 2019 onwards. According to Kidwai, RTI enquiries about the memorandum of understanding (MoU) and costs incurred in the admission process so far have failed to provide any clarity. 

An important national body like the NTA cannot operate with this level of opacity. Even issues including the selection criteria of vendors (conducting examinations), testing centre protocols and financing are not available in the public domain.

All the experts The Secretariat spoke to feel that incompetent and unprofessional people are appointed to run the NTA. One expert commented, “The NTA was asked to conduct too many examinations even before it could stand on its own feet.”

Though digitisation was touted as a major reason, reverting to OMRs for many examinations underlines its existing incompetence. Many experts feel quick convenience at the NTA resulted in setting below-par questions and later botched-up assessments.

“The government should hand back testing and evaluation to the CBSE and/or the UPSC. We, at the central universities, want our admission process back," Kidwai said, adding that "the multiple-choice questions (MCQs) format resulted in low-quality intake."  

Way Forward: A 10-Point Action Plan

Based on a deep dive with the experts, The Secretariat proposes the following action plan — in 10 points:

1. The testing agency must come under the Central Government's purview to be held accountable. The issue of autonomy has to be addressed within a structure that has well-defined responsibilities.
2. High-ranking universities and institutions, under the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), should conduct their own entrance examinations. Quality education cannot be sacrificed for the sake of standardisation.
3. Admission to Ph.D. programmes can be strengthened by innovative methods like writing essays or statements of purpose (SOPs) at the institution-level.
4. The strait-jacket of MCQs should be done away with. Testing subject knowledge should get due weightage, particularly for post-graduates and above.
5. The refurbished testing agency should be headed by education and assessment expert(s) with experience and proven track records. Treating the agency as another bureaucratic destination does not work.
6. New testing agency should have adequate manpower to deal with the task at hand. Recruitment through regular government bodies like the UPSC can improve transparency.
7. Ensuring government-level salary, remuneration and career progression is a must. An unhappy workforce will only pave the way for future corruption.
8. The administrative structure and organisational hierarchy should be demarcated to ensure accountability.
9. Like any other public institution, transparency in declaring the MoUs and financial accounts in the public domain for scrutiny has to be ensured.
10. Selection criteria, bidding process and final selection of external vendors should be displayed and updated on the website.