Source: The post Make undergraduate admissions fairer and less stressful has been created, based on the article “Detoxifying India’s entrance examination system” published in “The Hindu” on 30th August 2025. Make undergraduate admissions fairer and less stressful.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- governance-Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Education, Human Resources
Context: Nearly 70 lakh students chase limited UG seats via JEE, NEET, CUET, and CLAT. Coaching scandals, an ED raid, and suicides reveal systemic harm. The article argues for simpler, fairer admissions that prioritise equity, mental health, and genuine readiness.
Why is India’s UG admissions under strain?
- Scarcity and uneven capacity: About 15 lakh aspirants compete for 18,000-plus IIT seats. Limited capacity and uneven college quality turn tiny score gaps into life-defining outcomes.
- Coaching empire and adolescent costs: Two-year JEE courses cost ₹6–7 lakh. Students as young as 14 practice Irodov/Krotov far beyond B.Tech needs. This breed stress, depression, and alienation, and shrinking normal adolescence.
- Scandals signal a broken system: Branch closures, financial misconduct at a major coaching centre, an ED raid, and suicides underline systemic failure. Some States regulate coaching, but the exam-centric regime remains the root driver.
Does the current “merit” filter mismeasure readiness?
- Overprecision without purpose: Distinguishing 91% vs 97% in boards or a 99.9 JEE percentile adds false accuracy. For B.Tech, a 70–80% PCM score is sufficient; hyper-selectivity reflects scarcity, not learning.
- False hierarchy and exclusion: Limited seats, vast applicant numbers, and quality disparities create a hierarchy that sidelines capable students. Those who can afford coaching gain advantage, worsening urban–rural, gender, and regional gaps.
- Psychological toll and merit critique: Pressure is immense and pervasive. As Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel argues, claims of pure merit ignore luck and privilege; lotteries can blunt toxic status competition in elite admissions.
What should be done?
- Trust Class 12 and simplify selection: Use the board exam as the primary gauge. Set an 80% PCM eligibility bar, band candidates (90%+; 80–90%), and allocate seats through a weighted lottery. Higher marks raise odds; reservations for gender, region, and rural backgrounds operate within existing policy.
- Learn from best international practices: Adopt the Dutch model of a threshold-based weighted lottery for oversubscribed courses. It reduces bias, promotes diversity, and eases pressure. Draw on China’s 2021 “double reduction,” which banned for-profit tutoring in school subjects and nationalised coaching to cut costs and protect student well-being.
- Reduce coaching distortion and widen access: If entrance exams persist, ban or nationalise coaching and provide free online study materials and lectures. Reserve 50% of IIT seats vertically for rural students educated in government schools to promote social mobility and reduce structural inequality.
- Equalise IIT value and student experience: Introduce a student exchange so cohorts study across IIT campuses over four years, promoting integration and diverse exposure. Incentivise professor transfers to equalise standards and dismantle artificial hierarchies so any IIT B.Tech carries equal value.
- Restore balance and lower barriers: A lottery-based system frees students from the coaching treadmill, enabling school engagement and sports. It reduces financial burdens and gives every qualified student a fair shot, letting youth be youth rather than percentile-chasing machines.
Question for practice:
Discuss why India’s undergraduate admission system is under strain and what reforms can make it fairer and more equitable.
