Kota, India’s coaching hotspot, has seen over 100 NEET-UG aspirants commit suicide between 2014 and 2023. Such heartbreaking events are common today. Reasons include cutthroat competition, pressure to achieve, lack of emotional support, and future uncertainty. NEET, JEE, GATE, and other entrance exams are so tough that they require 10-12 hours of study a day, rigorous test series, and coaching institute drills and skilling. The story is about Herbert Spencer’s survival of the fittest replacing learning with fear of failure. The ultimate NEET-UG success percentage is 7-8%. About 15% in GATE. In professional courses, failure to pass the admission exam constitutes failure, unlike in humanities. Young aspirants who are unprepared for it feel frustrated and distressed. Admissions seem to be ailing.
In fairness, NEET-UG was the best screening procedure because it eliminated corruption and fraud in the many entrance tests held by States and other autonomous institutions before 2012. There are certain important issues that undermine system equality, equity, and inclusivity. First, the entrance test favors CBSE schools and NCERT’s pedagogical material, even though most hopefuls are from State Boards with vernacular mediums. Second, tests are difficult and need expensive tutoring, which disadvantages low-income people. A survey found that over 80% of successful candidates got coaching for Rs.1-2 lakh each aspirant. The affordability of the ‘test’ makes it classist and exacerbates social inequality, and unlike in Europe and the West, academic performance up to class 12 does not affect the selection process. Only the NEET rating matters, ignoring the potential that a bright student may fail and an average student with good coaching may succeed.
Western standards are more inclusive and promote selection over elimination. There is no coaching boom or suicide wave. The University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT), administered by a collaboration of UK, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand universities for medical and dentistry degree programs, measures aptitude and attitude, not academic performance. Behavior and mental talents like critical thinking, logical reasoning, and inference determine selection. UCAT is just one aspect of a balanced admissions process. The Italian International Medical Admission Test (IMAT) emphasizes aptitude above academic performance. Most significantly, if two applicants score similarly on the academic syllabus, their Logical Reasoning and General Knowledge scores will determine the tie.
In the US, Australia, and Canada, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) has a 50% crack rate compared to 5-7% for NEET. Dr. Geoffrey Young, Senior Director AAMC, said the admission policy increased historically underrepresented groups because more diversity in physicians promotes confidence and improves physician-patient relationships. Black and African American enrollment rose 14%, Hispanic and Spanish-speaking applicants 7.3%, and Asian applicants 13.3%. Women candidates dominated all groupings (56%).
Inclusive admission criteria provide equal opportunity. To give varied applicants a fair chance to establish themselves, it should be more like a marathon than a 100-meter race. As long as ‘win-lose’ entrance tests are the main criterion for admissions, increasing seats or regulating coaching will be ineffective. A philosophical question is: Is it necessary for innocent adolescent aspirants to undergo years of self-mortifying, emotionally destabilizing cram and rote in coaching centers to become dedicated doctors like Dr. Kotnis, visionary engineers like Visweswarayya, or cosmologists like Stephen Hawking? Maybe not, since there are less painful ways (not management quotas).
Merit is opportunity—access, equality, and inclusion. Using one large but terrifying admission test to choose candidates ignores years of hard-earned academic achievements and inherent mental aptitude and critical thinking. Science will favor a holistic admissions process that weighs school performance, aptitude, reasoning skills, and behavioral dispositions equally. It gives candidates emotional security and confidence. Entrance exams should be part of the process, not the entirety. However, NEET and other national admission tests should remain since they have more pros than cons. However, NEET entry criteria and redesign may be needed.
Conclusion:-
In Kota, India, over 100 NEET-UG hopefuls committed suicide between 2014 and 2023 owing to cutthroat competition, pressure to perform, lack of emotional support, and uncertainty about the future. NEET, JEE, and GATE are competitive entrance exams that require rigorous study, test series, and coaching institute drilling. GATE has a 15% success rate, but the final rate is 7-8%.
The NEET-UG screening procedure is the finest in India, sparing the bother of several state and independent entrance tests before 2012. However, systemic factors hinder equality, equity, and inclusivity. The entrance test favors CBSE schools and NCERT’s pedagogy, hurting low-income people. The affordability issue renders the test classist and exacerbates social inequality. Academic performance up to class 12 is irrelevant in the selection process, dismissing the potential that a bright student may fail the admission test while an average student with the finest coaching succeeds.
Western standards are more inclusive and promote selection over elimination. The UK, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT) measures aptitude and attitude, not academic performance. MCAT in the US, Australia, and Canada has a 50% crack rate compared to 5-7% for NEET.
A more scientific approach to admissions that evaluates school performance, aptitude, reasoning skills, and behavioral attitudes equally would make candidates feel emotionally secure and assured.
