THE EXAMINATION OVERLOAD AND ITS ENORMOUS COST

30 Oct 2026

Tags: Social Justice   Social Services   Education sector issues

Source: The Hindu

Context: Indian students increasingly face multiple entrance examinations for higher education, postgraduate studies, research and recruitment, creating a continuous cycle of competitive testing.

• Major examinations: JEE, NEET, NATA, CLAT, CUET, CUET-PG, GATE, CAT and NET, followed by recruitment examinations conducted by UPSC, State Public Service Commissions, SSC and IBPS.
• Underlying concern: Limited availability of affordable, quality higher education and employment opportunities forces students to make repeated attempts, even after securing good academic qualifications.

Challenges Associated with Multiple Competitive Examinations

• Financial burden: Multiple examinations require separate application fees, months of preparation and expensive coaching, disproportionately affecting economically weaker and marginalised sections.
• Mental health concerns: Repeated examinations, uncertain outcomes and centralised counselling for seat allotment increase students' anxiety, stress and psychological trauma.
• Examination irregularities: Public examinations face allegations of paper leaks, dummy candidates, mark manipulation and other unfair practices, resulting in cancellations, financial losses and delays in admissions and recruitment.
• Erosion of public trust: Repeated examination failures undermine confidence in the fairness and credibility of the assessment system.
• Inequality in opportunities: Competitive examinations increasingly reward access to expensive coaching rather than students' inherent abilities, diligence and classroom performance.
• Prolonged examination cycle: Students spend much of their adolescence preparing for successive entrance and recruitment examinations instead of focusing on education and holistic development.
• Disruption of education: Coaching-centre preparation has increasingly replaced classroom learning, while board examinations have become secondary to entrance tests.
• Questionable assessment of merit: Most entrance examinations assess a narrow range of skills, particularly the ability to solve objective questions quickly under pressure, rather than evaluating cumulative knowledge acquired over several years.

Systemic Deficiencies in the Examination Framework

• Questionable justification: Separate entrance examinations were introduced because school and university examinations were considered inconsistent, vulnerable to manipulation and lacking uniform standards. However, centralised examinations have also faced similar irregularities.
• Failure of institutional reforms: The National Testing Agency (NTA) has continued to face operational difficulties despite a comprehensive review by a committee headed by a former space scientist in 2024.
• Further review: Another high-powered committee was constituted in July 2026 to examine deficiencies in the examination system.
• Legislative response: Strengthening the law against unfair practices in public examinations is being considered to address examination malpractices.
• Core institutional concern: Excessive dependence on centralised examinations raises questions about why years of assessment by teachers and universities are not trusted, while agencies conducting single examinations are repeatedly entrusted with determining students' futures.

Restoring Credibility of Existing Academic Assessments

• Strengthen existing institutions: Instead of creating additional examination layers, priority should be given to improving the credibility of school board and university examinations.
• Holistic assessment: Class XII marks and university Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) reflect students' consistent academic performance over several years and provide a broader assessment of knowledge and diligence.
• Standardisation: Differences in assessment standards across States and institutions should be addressed through normalisation, common moderation frameworks, external audits and periodic score equating.
• Institutional accountability: Boards and universities with questionable assessment standards should be reformed rather than requiring all students to appear for multiple additional examinations.
• Continuous evaluation: School and university assessments, despite their imperfections, evaluate learning over an extended period and are moderated by established educational institutions.

Suggested Reforms

• Higher education admissions: Admissions should primarily be based on standardised and moderated school-leaving examination results.
• Scholarships and fellowships: Awards should consider students' academic performance and long-term educational track records.
• Public recruitment: Recruitment to public services could rely on verified academic records and structured interviews.
• Limited common testing: At most, a single national test at each exit level of the educational hierarchy could assess scholastic aptitude, with its scores used to moderate board or university examination results.
• Shift towards learning: Classroom teaching and genuine acquisition of knowledge should regain priority over coaching-centre preparation and examination-oriented learning.

Global Practices in University Admissions

• School-leaving performance: Many countries primarily consider school-leaving examination results for university admissions.
• Supplementary assessment: References, essays and language or scholastic aptitude test scores may be considered, but generally receive relatively limited weight.
• Indian exceptionalism: India's extensive system of multiple examinations, often testing the same competencies repeatedly through different agencies, represents an excessive approach.
• Key lesson: Maintaining academic standards does not require repeatedly testing students; credible school and university assessment systems can provide a reliable basis for admissions and recruitment.

Way Forward

• Reform rather than multiply: Strengthen existing school boards and universities instead of continuously adding new entrance examinations.
• Ensure equity: Reduce dependence on expensive coaching and multiple examination fees to improve access for economically weaker and marginalised students.
• Improve institutional accountability: Strengthen examination security, transparency, moderation and grievance-redressal mechanisms.
• Prioritise holistic merit: Recognise consistent academic performance and cumulative learning rather than relying excessively on single high-stakes examinations.

Conclusion: Dismantling the excessive examination pyramid is not an argument against academic standards. It is an argument for restoring trust in existing educational institutions, reducing repeated assessments and promoting genuine merit, educational equity and the well-being of young people.