May give rise to same old problems, say experts over demand for decentralised medical entrance tests
- PC : MRP Graphics
While the Supreme Court has asked the NTA to overhaul the way it conducts NEET, calls for a return to the old system have seen a revival even as some experts remain apprehensive about states' ability to take care of the logistics and adhere to the domicile rule.
According to the NEET domicile rule, 85 percent of medical seats are reserved for students who are bona fide residents of the state and have completed their class 12 from a school there. The rest 15 percent are earmarked for aspirants from other states.
In the wake of the NEET fiasco, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and West Bengal passed resolutions in their assemblies to be allowed to opt out of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and conduct their own medical entrance exams.
Such a proposal also found mention in the Lok Sabha, when DMK member Rani Srikumar slammed NEET, alleging that it has shattered the dreams of many students.
In a debate in the Lok Sabha on August 2, Srikumar said the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed a law exempting the state from NEET which was not sent to the President by the Union government for approval. "Let the state governments decide the process of medical entrance," she had said.
The idea is nothing new. Before NEET was introduced in 2016, medical entrance exams were conducted by several entities, including states.
However, some experts say that returning to the old system may give rise to the same old problems that became the reasons for scuttling it.
Former AIIMS director Dr M C Mishra said there is nothing wrong with states asserting their right to conduct an exam, provided they take care of the logistics that they failed to do even earlier.
"There is nothing wrong if some states want to conduct medical entrance exams. It used to happen earlier also. When I was a student, exams were conducted at the state level. Then came Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT), and then NEET," he said.
Should the states get the exemption, they must ensure that NEET qualifiers get admission in the 15 percent seat reserved for the all-India quota candidate as per the NEET domicile rule, said Dr Mishra, a laparoscopic surgeon.
"They will have to think about that. The functionality and the logistics of it have to be worked out," he said.
Dr Mishra said, "I don't think this should be encouraged. What if two states decide to conduct the exam on the same date? An aspirant can appear at only one place at a time. Effort must be to make NEET airtight and conduct it online."
He hailed NEET as a potent tool for north-south integration and an improvement over the earlier fragmented system.
"As much as they curse NEET, states have not been able to conduct their entrance exams well... There have been fraudulent practices in the past too. Here, at least there is no government intervention," he said.
Before NEET was introduced in 2016 through an amendment to The Indian Medical Council Act, it was challenged in courts by several institutions and the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The objections were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Delhi Medical Council's Secretary cum Registrar Girish Tyagi said there are more chances of manipulation at the state level as well as that of a compromise with the uniformity of the exam pattern.
"A central exam is more uniform and that must be maintained. Another reason is that NEET is conducted in several languages. Also, it will be challenging for states to bring uniformity in question papers, something that stands to affect the quality of doctors," Tyagi, a urologist, said.
Kapil Gupta, the founder of NEETPrep.com, an online portal providing coaching for aspirants of the medical entrance exam, said there is nothing new in states, at least Tamil Nadu, wanting to go back to the earlier system.
He termed the state's demand "disingenuous" and even a "gimmick".
"This is the same shenanigan the Tamil Nadu government has been playing since 2016. This year there has been noise... West Bengal and Karnataka too have joined the bandwagon. To be exempted from NEET, they need the President's approval, and their request is sent back every year... They're making a fool of people," Gupta said.
The educationist, instead, suggested maintaining the sanctity of the exam, for which he proposed a two-tier system involving the conduct of preliminary tests at the state level followed by a central exam with the filtered candidates.
"What that would do is, the burden of bungling it up at the moment will get divided... Plain and simple decentralization of the exam may solve the problem," he said.
The NEET-UG examination is conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related courses in government and private institutions across the country.
This year, the exam was held on May 5 across 4,750 centres, and around 24 lakh candidates appeared in it. The test was bogged in controversy when results were announced on June 4, with the emergence of an inordinate number of toppers, clustering at few centers, and allegations of paper leaks.
A central committee, formed at the order of the Supreme Court under former ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan, has been charged with reforms in how the test is conducted.
According to the NEET domicile rule, 85 percent of medical seats are reserved for students who are bona fide residents of the state and have completed their class 12 from a school there. The rest 15 percent are earmarked for aspirants from other states.
In the wake of the NEET fiasco, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and West Bengal passed resolutions in their assemblies to be allowed to opt out of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and conduct their own medical entrance exams.
Such a proposal also found mention in the Lok Sabha, when DMK member Rani Srikumar slammed NEET, alleging that it has shattered the dreams of many students.
In a debate in the Lok Sabha on August 2, Srikumar said the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed a law exempting the state from NEET which was not sent to the President by the Union government for approval. "Let the state governments decide the process of medical entrance," she had said.
The idea is nothing new. Before NEET was introduced in 2016, medical entrance exams were conducted by several entities, including states.
However, some experts say that returning to the old system may give rise to the same old problems that became the reasons for scuttling it.
Former AIIMS director Dr M C Mishra said there is nothing wrong with states asserting their right to conduct an exam, provided they take care of the logistics that they failed to do even earlier.
"There is nothing wrong if some states want to conduct medical entrance exams. It used to happen earlier also. When I was a student, exams were conducted at the state level. Then came Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT), and then NEET," he said.
Should the states get the exemption, they must ensure that NEET qualifiers get admission in the 15 percent seat reserved for the all-India quota candidate as per the NEET domicile rule, said Dr Mishra, a laparoscopic surgeon.
"They will have to think about that. The functionality and the logistics of it have to be worked out," he said.
Dr Mishra said, "I don't think this should be encouraged. What if two states decide to conduct the exam on the same date? An aspirant can appear at only one place at a time. Effort must be to make NEET airtight and conduct it online."
He hailed NEET as a potent tool for north-south integration and an improvement over the earlier fragmented system.
"As much as they curse NEET, states have not been able to conduct their entrance exams well... There have been fraudulent practices in the past too. Here, at least there is no government intervention," he said.
Before NEET was introduced in 2016 through an amendment to The Indian Medical Council Act, it was challenged in courts by several institutions and the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The objections were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Delhi Medical Council's Secretary cum Registrar Girish Tyagi said there are more chances of manipulation at the state level as well as that of a compromise with the uniformity of the exam pattern.
"A central exam is more uniform and that must be maintained. Another reason is that NEET is conducted in several languages. Also, it will be challenging for states to bring uniformity in question papers, something that stands to affect the quality of doctors," Tyagi, a urologist, said.
Kapil Gupta, the founder of NEETPrep.com, an online portal providing coaching for aspirants of the medical entrance exam, said there is nothing new in states, at least Tamil Nadu, wanting to go back to the earlier system.
He termed the state's demand "disingenuous" and even a "gimmick".
"This is the same shenanigan the Tamil Nadu government has been playing since 2016. This year there has been noise... West Bengal and Karnataka too have joined the bandwagon. To be exempted from NEET, they need the President's approval, and their request is sent back every year... They're making a fool of people," Gupta said.
The educationist, instead, suggested maintaining the sanctity of the exam, for which he proposed a two-tier system involving the conduct of preliminary tests at the state level followed by a central exam with the filtered candidates.
"What that would do is, the burden of bungling it up at the moment will get divided... Plain and simple decentralization of the exam may solve the problem," he said.
The NEET-UG examination is conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related courses in government and private institutions across the country.
This year, the exam was held on May 5 across 4,750 centres, and around 24 lakh candidates appeared in it. The test was bogged in controversy when results were announced on June 4, with the emergence of an inordinate number of toppers, clustering at few centers, and allegations of paper leaks.
A central committee, formed at the order of the Supreme Court under former ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan, has been charged with reforms in how the test is conducted.
