AK-Rajan-Committee-Report-on-NEET-1.pdfs

1
Government of Tamil Nadu
Report of the High Level Committee
To Study
The Impact of NEET on Medical Admissions in Tamil Nadu
2021
Justice A. K. Rajan
Chairman

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Constitution of the Committee and Terms of Reference
II. Medical Education
III. Common Entrance Examination: Practices and Flaws
IV. History of National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)
V. NEET: Academic Merits and Validity
VI. Impact of NEET: Stakeholders‟ Opinion
VII. Impact of NEET on Admission: From the Perspective of Academic, Socio-Economic and
other Demographic Status and Health Services in Tamil Nadu
VIII. Constitutional Provisions Relating to Education
IX. Recommendations
X. Acknowledgement
XI. References
XII. List of Abbreviations
XIII. Annexures

3
CHAPTER-I
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Government of Tamil Nadu by G. O. Ms. No. 283 Health and Family Welfare Department
dated : 10.06.2021 and Amendment G.O. (Ms.) No.295 of Health and Family Welfare (MCA-1)
Department dated : 19.06.2021, constituted the Committee under the chairmanship Hon‟ble
Justice Dr. A. K. Rajan (Former Judge) Madras High Court.
The members of the committee are:
1. Justice Thiru A. K. Rajan
(Retired High Court Judge)
- Chairman
2. Dr. G. R. Ravindranath
General Secretary,
Doctor‟s Association Social Equalities.
- Member
3. Professor L. Jawahar Nesan
Former Vice-Chancellor.
- Member
4. Dr. J. Radhakrishnan,
Principal Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department.
- Member
5. Tmt. Kakala Usha,
Principal Secretary, School Education
- Member
6. Thiru. C. Gopi Ravikumar,
Secretary Law
- Member
7. Dr. P. SenthilKumar,
Principal Secretary /OSD,
Health and Family Welfare.
- Member
8. Dr. R. Narayana Babu
Director of Medical Education.
- Member
9. Dr. P. Vasanthamani,
Additional Director of Medical
Education/Secretary, Selection Committee.
- Member

4
The Terms of Reference are as follows:-
1. To Study, whether the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) based admission
process has adversely affected the Social, Economic and Federal Polity and the students
of rural and urban poor, those who studied in Government Schools, those who studied in
Tamil Medium or any other section of students in Tamil Nadu.
2. If so, to suggest the steps to be taken to remove the impediments and to protect the rights
of the State, for advancing the principles of Social Justice and also to fulfill the
mandate of the Constitution to provide equal and equitable “access to health” to all
section of the people of Tamil Nadu.
3. To study, whether NEET is an equitable method of selection of students.
4. To consider, the effect of mushrooming NEET coaching centres on the educational
system in Tamil Nadu.

5
CHAPTER-II
MEDICAL EDUCATION
Opportunity is the mother of advancement that leads to achievement. Education provides
opportunities, and denial of education amounts to denial of opportunities. Plato said “A society
is stably organised when each individual is doing that for which (s)he has aptitude by nature in
such a way to as to be useful for others; and that it is the business of education to discover these
aptitudes and progressively to train them for social use.” Coming to Medical Education,
cultivation of the highest levels of the desirable aptitude, attitude, skills, knowledge and
commitment by the physicians during their studies and beyond, life long, and enabling them to
apply these for social use is what medical education is to deliver. Social responsibility, integrity
and accountability are core values expected of physicians. Much emphasis on social
accountability has therefore been attached to the medical profession since time immemorial. The
Hippocratic Oath taken even today by physicians emphasizes social accountability and
professional ethics to be inherited by the physicians, and the World Federation for Medical
Education (WFME, 2015), requires that “social accountability should include willingness and
ability to respond to the needs of society, of patients and the health and health related sectors and
to contribute to the national and international development of medicine by fostering
competencies in health care, medical education and medical research”. Social accountability
connects medical education to the diverse needs of society based on factors such as geography,
ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, social structure (caste),
illness, different health contexts of population, those who are most vulnerable.
Achieving this diversity means - 1) curricula need to: focus more attention to humanism,
reflection of current evidence, patient communication, shared and ethical decision-making,
clinical reasoning, team working, use of technology, and leadership; replacement of the
biomedical model of health and disease with a broader bio-psychosocial model of health,
disease, and the patient-physician relationship; be transformed from hospital to community based
education; integrate health system science with traditional basic and clinical medical sciences;
and address medical ethics and human rights as core requirements (WFME, 2015; O‟Brien et al,

6
2019; Buja, 2019); and 2) the physician will have to be an all-rounder; as a communicator, team
worker, scholar, manager, health advocate, counsellor, professional, and a medical expert.
Achievement of the diversity embarks upon attracting/selecting a student base that is more
representative of the diverse Indian population. According to the WFME (2015), the health
needs of the community and society would include consideration of intake according to gender,
ethnicity and other social requirements (socio-cultural and linguistic characteristics of the
population), including the potential need of a special recruitment, admission and induction policy
for underprivileged students and minorities. This means the selection process and admission
criteria used to select students should correctly predict the cognitive, social and behavioural
skills of the potential students and ensure that the diversity is achieved.
All other educational processes involved including curriculum development, teaching and
learning, clinical exposure, learning assessment, licensure and professionalism all should be
made society-driven in order to equip the students to acquire necessary skills, attitudes, and
knowledge that are very much essential to achieve the diverse medical and healthcare
requirements of the society. All stakeholders, including the society, government and its
regulatory agencies, medical educational institutions, hospitals, healthcare system, physicians
and other professionals, professional organisations, students and suppliers, shall assume suitable
roles and responsibilities to ensure that the diversity is achieved in the medical and health
education and services.
In India, presently, the National Medical Commission Act 2019 seeks to provide for a medical
education system that improves access to quality and affordable medical education, ensures
availability of adequate and high quality medical professionals in all parts of the country; that
promotes equitable and universal healthcare that encourages community health perspective and
makes services of medical professionals accessible to all the citizens; that promotes national
health goals; that encourages medical professionals to adopt latest medical research in their work
and to contribute to research; that has an objective periodic and transparent assessment of
medical institutions and facilitates maintenance of a medical register for India and enforces high
ethical standards in all aspects of medical services; that is flexible to adapt to changing needs and
has an effective grievance redressal mechanism and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.

7
The key provisions of the objective of the Act ensure accessibility to quality and affordable
medical education, equitable and universal healthcare, transparent assessment of medical
institutions, maintenance of medical register, ethical standards in medical services, and a
grievance mechanism. Of these, except a couple of issues like maintenance of medical register,
all of the others mainly, the provisions of accessibility to and affordable quality medical
education and equitable and universal healthcare have been found to have no constructive
measures throughout the Act, to achieve them in reality. If medical education is to be affordable
to and accessible by all people, it will not be possible without a fair and equitable admission
process and criteria and a proper fee regulation. Contrary to this, the National Eligibility cum
Entrance Test (NEET) does not seem to help achieve the much required diversity.
It is a fact that the private medical institutions charge tuition fees as high as
Rs. 30 Lakhs per annum, and the majority students who succeed with medical admissions in
private institutions post NEET period have so achieved only with average NEET scores. Some
have secured seats with NEET scores as low as just a pass, which is often less than 20 percent of
the total marks of the NEET. This has disproved the predictions of both the Parliamentary
Standing Committee (PSC), in its 92nd
Report, entitled “The functioning of Medical Council of
India”, and the expert committee headed by Dr.Ranjit Roy Chaudhry that, in the words of the
PSC, “if a unitary Common Entrance Exam is introduced, the capitation fee will be tackled in a
huge way; there will be transparency in the system; students will not be burdened with multiple
tests; and quality will get a big push. However, despite the recommendation of the Committee
that the Common Medical Entrance Test should be done across the nation barring those states
who wish to remain outside the test, the union government had forcefully implemented it, in the
name of NEET, against the interests of the states.
What had happened during the NEET period is exactly the opposite of what the Committee had
wished for; students who can afford to pay such an exorbitant fee have the opportunities more
than those who cannot pay. This system, in contrast to the assertion of the PSC and the expert
committee, has kept the most meritorious and underprivileged students who can neither pay for
seats nor pay the high annual fee in private medical colleges. On the other hand, it has become a
cause for the raising culture of „coaching‟ as opposed to „learning‟. Students have to pay a hefty
fee for private coaching to get prepared for the NEET, which only the affluent and rich people
could afford to. Such negative consequences have already discouraged and prevented the most

8
vulnerable communities, like socially depressed and backward, educationally and geographically
backward, and those who studied Higher Secondary in Thamizh medium and that too in
Government schools, who enjoyed so far at least a little number of enrolments, though
disproportionate, before NEET.
The coaching Centres make the students as „marks scoring machines‟, as learning is discouraged
in favour of coaching. The prospective medical aspirants do not get opportunity to acquire all
round skills, as aforesaid, including cognitive, reasoning, creative, social and behavioural skills,
that are very much essential prior to enter medical studies. As medical education, as foreseen by
the global medical federations and relevant other fraternities, is changing itself from the one of
the biomedical model of health and disease to a bio-psychosocial model of health and disease,
from hospital to community based education, from the traditional basic and clinical medical
sciences to the one that is integrated with health science systems, a great deal of multi skills,
social behaviours and attitudes are expected of the medical aspirants. Whereas, the culture of
coaching and commercialisation caused by the single-criteria admission based on the NEET
score would not encourage either the educators to impart a holistic education or the medical
aspirants to work towards acquiring it.

9
CHAPTER-III
COMMON ENTRANCE EXAMINATION: PRACTICES AND FLAWS:
Since independence, one of the hallmarks of Indian education has been the testing of the
academic achievement of increasingly large diverse groups of students; to either assess their
degree of learning achievements in their studies or their level of their developed abilities when
they seek admissions for higher studies. Both forms of assessments have taken a standardized
format as otherwise comparison of scores among the test takers would not be possible.
Traditionally, the former – i.e., the scores of the Board Examinations at the level of Higher
Secondary – along with the assessment results of the other parameters has been used as an
instrument to screen students who were competing for admissions to higher studies. However,
the later – i.e., Common Entrance Examination (CEE) – came into existence under the
pretextthat there must be a CEE to further standardize the evaluation of the students‟ ability as
they are from different Boards with different scores competing for admission to higher studies.
The choice between these two especially becomes controversial, especially, when the number of
students competing is greater than the number of seats available in higher education programmes
and thus the admissions results in disproportionate representations by different social and
demographic divisions of the society. Despite its century old practice and the controversies
attributed to it, the CEE has been practiced in different formats with different norms
conveniently in some countries. Countries like India have also been floundered by joining this
league since past few decades. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said “examination is something quite
different from education, but in the name of raising the standard of education, they are making
the examinations so impossible and so severe that the backward communities which have
hitherto not had the chance of entering the portals of University are absolutely kept out”.
The USA versions like Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), Graduate Record Examination,
Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), MCAT (Medical College Admission Test),
China‟s National College Entrance Examination (NCEE), known as „Gaokao‟ in Chinese, Iran‟s
National University Entrance Examination, known as „Konkoor‟, Australia‟s GAMSAT
(Graduate Medical School Admission Test), UK‟s UCAT (UK Clinical Aptitude Test) and

10
BMAT (Biomedical Admission Test), South Africa‟s NBT (National Benchmark Test), and
Russia‟s USE (Unified State Exam), known as EGE are few to quote out of many.
In most of the countries, CEE was implemented in an evolutionary manner, after being tested for
its validity, veracity and biasness to ensure that no one individual or a social group is affected.
For instance, the pioneering work of the SAT in this field and its long track record of
administering the exam globally have repeatedly prompted it to self-introspect its framework
several times in its hundred years of existence. To defend accusations like its predominant tilt
towards testing aptitude as opposed to learning achievement and its bias against the people with
lower socio economic status, familial background and school status, the SAT had to
retrospectively tweak its strategies and framework for achieving universal appeal.
Yet, the USA higher education sector at different times rejected its use in admissions, even
though the universities prevalently considered the SAT scores as one of the many other criteria
used in admission like school GPA (Grade Point Average), reasoning, social and behavioural
skills, socio economic backgrounds and so on. Especially, top institutions like Harvard
University, University of California Berkley and Stanford University have used SAT or other
scores like ACT (American College Testing) very cautiously but, in admission, relied very much
on the all-round parameters of the candidatures.
This academic year, beginning with the University of California, currently over half of the four
year degree colleges and universities in the USA have done away with the SAT or ACT scores
for admission to courses starting in Fall 2021 (The Times of India, 2021). Their decision comes
after a 2019 lawsuit said the college entrance tests were biased against poor, and mainly Black
and Hispanic students. The contention was that basing admissions on the test allowed the system
to illegally discriminate on the basis of students‟ race, wealth and disability. Same on the use of
SAT or ACT has been continually reported in the past by several researches. Similar
experiences were encountered with the China‟s Gaokao Test (Yu Liu and Helwig, 2020, Zhu,
2014), and several other tests conducted in several countries. However, in most of the
economically advanced countries, such tests are not government run but by the private or
charitable organisations, and that too the scores are used as optional in admissions or if used,
along with the weightages of the other criteria.

11
In the case of India, the modern form of CEE came into practice as professional courses like
Engineering and Medicine began to face a surge of exponential competition among the aspirants.
Consequently, the Union Government, States and some higher education institutions started
implementing CEEs conveniently with respect to their requirements. The prominent ones hosted
by the agencies and institutions of the Union Government include: Common Entrance
Examination (CEE); All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE); Joint Entrance
Examination (JEE); Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE); National Aptitude Test in
Architecture (NATA); and the ones related to medicine include; All India Pre-Medical Test
(AIPMT), All India Institute of Medical Sciences Entrance Examination, JIPMER Entrance
Examination; and currently, the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). During the
course of developments some of these examinations were either abandoned or merged or
rechristened. Similarly, different states have commissioned and implemented their own entrance
examinations for both professional and non-professional degree programmes, and that they also
have either abandoned or rechristened their examinations at times when warranted.
However, due to its continuous long track record, the JEE could be considered as a case
representing the Indian experience on the CEE. Unlike the SAT, introspective studies were not
done by the JEE on its reliability, validity, predictability and its impact on the entry of students
from diverse socio economic backgrounds. Both earlier (King, 1970) and recent studies (Kumar,
2016) have revealed that the relative deprivation evident with regard to economic, linguistic and
possibly social background, irrespective of any real or imagined difference in intellectual
capacity, placed students in the less preferred disciplines at an educational disadvantage on
entering the IIT. In addition, the JEE did not provide a fair chance to aspirants from all the State
Boards, as the pattern of the examination seems skewed towards, mainly the CBSE. This causes
a considerable amount of self-rejection of the disadvantaged and State Board students from
appearing for the examination. Also, it is a proven fact that majority of the IIT aspirants got
succeeded with admission mainly through prior coaching through the countrywide mushroomed
coaching centres, which put the un-coached disadvantaged at risk. The other side of the story
that is yet to be proved is that whether the JEE has been time tested for the academic validity,
predictability and reliability which is very much essential for a CEE to be impartial and unbiased
- Presumed that it is not.

12
Tamil Nadu, along the footsteps of the culture of competitive examination, for whatever may be
the said reason, instituted its own format of CEE, named TNPCEE (Tamil Nadu Professional
Courses Entrance Examination), as early as 1984-85, for admitting students to the engineering
and medical colleges in the state. A combined TNPCEE and HSc scores was used to rank
students for admission. Later, to the Postgraduate studies in the state, Tamil Nadu Common
Entrance Test (TANCET) was instituted in the year 2009 for ranking and admitting students.
However, on the experience gained and the consequences the entrance examination caused on
the students, especially from rural areas and belonging to socially disadvantaged, the Tamil Nadu
Government decided to abolish the CET. Therefore, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed
“Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act 2006”, which got the assent of the
President of India in 2007. Consequently, the Act was numbered as Act 3/2007. Thereafter,
students were admitted to such institutions based on the marks obtained by them in their
qualifying HSc (Higher Secondary) examinations.
After a brief passage of legal struggle, the Medical Council of India succeeded to conduct a
single common medical entrance examination, named the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test
(NEET), in 2016, across the country, with exemption to Tamil Nadu. However, admission to
medical studies in Tamil Nadu was also brought under the admission policy that exclusively
mandates NEET score as a sole criterion for admission.
Past few years of its application in medical admission in Tamil Nadu indicates that the NEET
has caused an unprecedented havoc and setbacks for the students of different social, economic
and demographic denominations aspiring for medical studies. This has eventually prompted the
Tamil Nadu Government to commission this committee to study the impact of the NEET on the
admission prospects of students belonging to the state.
Any testing framework, be it a CEE or Qualifying Examination, being used in admission to
higher education should ensure academic validity, predictability, reliability and equity for all
students irrespective of their backgrounds, socioeconomic situations, race or gender. Only then
such assessments means democratized. Between these two tests, global experience has proved
that the CEE has been criticised much for its bias on multiples of parameters. If NEET is
considered foolproof and free from the aforesaid biases, it must prove so, but the past few years
of its practice indicate that it does not. By any means the NEET does not seem to reflect any of

13
the common features of CEE as is globally known, and therefore, it cannot be construed even as
a version of CEE but a discrete arbitrary framework that is politically driven. A psychometric
test like CEE should follow rather than lead educational practice, since psychometric test is
concerned primarily with comparing performances of the students rather than creating them. It is
unfortunate that in India, especially, in medical education, the NEET seems to lead medical
education rather than be led by the medical education itself.

14
CHAPTER-IV
HISTORY OF NEET
After the Medical Council of India [MCI] started regulating the Medical Education, many a
notification was issued relating to medical education. On 21.12.2010, MCI issued a Notification
and another notification was issued by Dental Council of India [DCI] on 31.5.2012. By these 2
notifications, NEET examinations were made mandatory for all Medical and Dental courses.
Both the notifications were challenged by Vellore Christian Medical College [CMC] (3 Judges),
on the ground that the said Notification, violated their minority rights to administer the college,
which includes admission to their medical college. A number of states including State of TN,
Challenged the competency of MCI issue such Notification in their respective High Courts. All
the cases were transferred to Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and heard together. In those cases, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court by a 3 Judges bench on 18th
July 2013, by a majority of 2-1, held that
MCI and DCI have no power to regulate the admission of students into Medical and Dental
Colleges. In that case Justice Anil R.Dave gave a dissenting judgment.
The majority judgment held that the TN Act 3 2007 and the Andhra Pradesh Act will remain
unaffected by the Notifications issued by MCI and DCI. The Hon‟ble Supreme court also
categorically held that both the regulations cannot override the constitutional guarantee, in the
following words. “In the light of the views expressed in the various decisions cited we have no
hesitation in holding that the regulations are ultra vires the Constitution, since they have the
effect of denuding the States, State-run universities” and contrary to the decisions in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case. Thus, the Hon‟ble Supreme court held that the regulations were void and
therefore cannot be enforced. Thus NEET was not enforced.
4.1 Review Petitions and the Recall Order:
Against that order, review petitions were filed by MCI. By 2016 the two judges, who gave the
majority 2013 judgement in the CMC case, had retired due to superannuation. Thereafter when
justice Anil R.Dave, who gave the dissenting view, was heading a Five Judges Bench, the
Review petitions were transferred to that bench. The Five Judge Bench passed the following
order, on 11-4-2016.

15
“ .......... Civil Appeal No. 4060/2009 and connected matters involving an identical
issue, had been ordered to a Five Judge Bench. Accordingly on 21st
January 2016,
these review petitions were ordered to be heard by a Five Judge Bench.
On 21st
January 2016, notice was ordered to be served through substituted service
and in pursuance of the said order, necessary publication was made in the
newspapers and proof thereof was filed on 15th
February 2016. Thereafter, we heard
the matters.
Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 and its connected matters have been heard and
orders have been reserved on 16th
March 2016……………. After giving our
thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the view that the judgement delivered in
Christian Medical College ….. needs reconsideration. We do not propose to give
reasons in detail at this stage as to see that it may not affect the hearing of the
matters”.
…………….. Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has not taken into
consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no
discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgement.
We therefore allow these review petitions and recall the judgement dated 18th
july2013 and direct that the matters be heard afresh. The review petition stand
disposed of as allowed”.
4.2 C.M.C. case was not clubbed with Modern Dental College case: (3 Judges)
When the judgment in the CMC case was “recalled‟ on the ground of pendency of “identical
issue”, the CMC case could have also been heard fully along with the said Civil Appeal No.
4060 of 2009,[ Modern Dental College and others Vs State of M.P.].
„Sankalp Order‟:
Shortly after 11.4.2016, one Sankalp Charitable Trust, whose object was to give medical
treatment to the poor, filed a PIL, making UOI and CBSC Board and another as respondents.
The prayer in the Writ Petition was to,
“issue a writ of mandamus ….. directing the respondents to conduct the National
Eligibility cum Entrance Examination (NEET) for admission to MBBS courses throughout
the country for academic year 2016-17”. That case first came before the Court for gearing on

16
27-4-2016,before a three Judge Bench headed by Justice Anil R. Dave. The Bench posted the
matter to the very next day after deleting the proposed 4th
Respondent. On 28-4-2016, rejecting
the arguments made by some of the counsel of non-parties to the PIL, Writ of mandamus was
issued as prayed for.
4.3 NEET became mandatory:
The order read that the judgment in Christian Medical College, Vellore “has already been
recalled” therefore the “Notifications dated 21st
December 2010 are in operation as on
today”. Thus, NEET became mandatory, without even hearing the State of Tamil Nadu.,
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh who were parties to the CMC -Batch case.
The three- judge bench did not even taken note of the existence of the T.N. Act 3 of 2007,
though Tamil Nadu also had challenged the Constitutional validity of the said Notifications.
Further, in the CMC (2013) case, the S.C. had relied on the Judgment of the S.C. by the 11
Judges Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case. In which the S.C. had considered all the relevant
provisions of the Constitution including Articles 19(1)(g) and 29(2) of the Constitution, and the
rights of the minority colleges, relating to admission of students to its educational institutions,
including the professional courses.
It is a well-known fact that TMA Pai Foundation case was the culmination of fifty years of legal
battle in courts, starting from Kerala Education Bill case, on the rights of the minorities vis - vis
the admission to the minority institutions. Considered in the light of decision in TMA Pai
Foundation case, the order passed in Sankalp Charitable Trust Case appears to be a „judgment
per incurium‟.
4.4 Modern Dental College judgment:
The very same Five Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, headed by Justice Anil R.Dave,
delivered judgement on 02.05.2016 in the Modern Dental College case. In Paragraph 93, it has
held that:
Entry 66, List-I, would not include conducting of examination etc. and admission of
students ……‟.Such power is derived in so far as medical education is concerned, “by
parliamentary legislation in the form of Medical Council of India ACT 1956 and by creating
thestatutory body like Medical Council of India …..”
On 28-4-2016, in the “Sankalp‟ order, it was stated, that the “Notification dated 21-12-
2010 were in operation” therefore it „would not be improper to hold NEET”. In fact,

17
Sections 10D and S.33(mb) of the MCI Act, by which the power to conduct Entrance
Examinations was conferred on the MCI, by amending the MCI Act, by an Ordinance only on
24- 5-2016. Without those provisions such Notifications issued on 21-12-2010 could not be
issued. (On 2-5-2016, on the day of the judgment in Modern Dental College Case, Sections 10D
and 33(mb) MCI Act were not in the statute book).
In as much as the MCI Amendment Ordinance No.4 of 2016 was issued by the President of India
only on 24-5-2016, the power to conduct examinations were not conferred on the MCI prior to
that date, much less on 21-12-2010. That is on the date of the „Sankalp‟ judgment, (viz.)
28.4.2016, MCI did not have the power to conduct NEET, because such power was not
conferred.

18
CHAPTER-V
NEET: ACADEMIC MERITS AND VALIDITY
Competitive examinations are often used to either measure general academic skill competencies
and understanding of an individual's performance in a particular area of academic performance
(e.g. 12th
Standard) or the capacity or potentiality of an individual for a particular kind of
behaviour in later learning (e.g. higher studies). The first aims to measure the learning
achievement (degree of learning in specific content areas) and the latter the aptitude that includes
cognitive and reasoning abilities, personality and emotional characteristics. In fact, an aptitude
test is not a test of achievement in school subjects but on the ability to learn and apply
knowledge to discrete situations.
Unlike the achievement test, in aptitude test, previous experience or training or coaching on the
part of the individual is assumed to be lacking for all individuals comprising the population
considered. An aptitude test is supposed to be freed from testing, exclusively, prefixed subject
matters like physics, chemistry and biology on the basis of their contents as having been
prescribed in the NEET. The structure of the NEET indicates that it attempts to emulate the
concept of achievement test as it prescribes a set of syllabus and attempts to test the students‟
knowledge on the subjects including physics, chemistry and biology in a standardised format.
It is to be considered whether NEET:
1) Tests the academic abilities of the concerned student population using „bias-less common
standards and criteria‟
2) Tests the academic abilities developed by the concerned students over their entire academic
life
3) Precisely „predicts‟ the success of the students in their higher studies (after being admitted
based on the NEET)
4) Ensures that previous experience or training or coaching on the part of the individual is
assumed to be lacking for all individuals comprising the population considered

19
5) Is less vulnerable to charges of cultural, regional, linguistic, and socio economic biases.
According to several research studies, any competitive-standardised-entrance test that tests an
eligible population for entry into higher studies should ensure that these conditions are met.
5.1. NEET is Biased and not based on common standards and criteria
It is that the NEET is a standardised „criterion based test‟, but it does not conform to the
principles of the criterion based test. A criterion based test is designed to assess students‟
performance against a fixed set of predetermined standards or criteria, which at the level of
secondary education is used to assess if students have acquired a specific body of knowledge or a
specific skill set. Whereas, despite its nature of being a criterion based standardised test, the
NEET does not have any such standards and criteria that are „common‟ and „relevant‟ to all
states in the country.
It is a rote framework aiming to assess students on simply a set of „contents‟ relevant to three
subjects, viz., Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Not having drawn from a predetermined broad
based set of standards and criteria, the content based test is directionless, and its ability to
correlate with performance in higher education (MBBS) is doubtful.
As entrance tests are often meant to judge or evaluate a student‟s academic potential, capacity
and/or readiness to perform in his/her higher studies, such tests should have a clear set of
standards and criteria (that bridge the academic potentials achieved in the secondary studies and
the performance potentials required by the higher studies), so that the potentials of the students to
study higher programmes can reasonably be evaluated.
Contrary to this, the NEET tests the students only on the prescribed contents (syllabus). Instead
of setting core academic standards and making the assessment more open to test all possible
knowledge within the purview of those standards, the NEET prescribes an exclusive syllabus like
an academic programme.
For instance, a similar competitive examination, called SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test),
conducted by a private agency - College Board - states that its assessment framework has been

20
built upon the national level „Common Core Standards‟, developed by the Association of
Governors of all the constituent states. With this the College Board claims that its assessment is
regionally or provincially bias-less and that it conforms to the nationally developed common
standards agreed upon by all the states of USA.
The NEET lacks any such common features; neither common standards and criteria nor a
common syllabus that is common and relevant to all Indian states. Despite its claim that it has
developed the syllabus after a review of various states syllabi, academics have been challenging
that it is not so.
It is evident from the results that it is CBSE biased, as the results have consistently proved that
the students from the CBSE stream have secured MBBS seats as high as 26.83% in 2020-21
from 0%in 2015-16 in government medical colleges and 12.01% in 2020-21 from a negligible
0.07% in 2015-16 in Self-financed colleges in this high stake exam (see Table 7.16).
Critics supporting the duo of the NEET and CBSE argue that the CBSE students are
academically potential more than the State Boards students. It is baseless as there is no evidence
in support of this claim, as those who make such claims are making so based on, again, such rote
surveys which are not testing all round all relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes.
On the other hand, the NEET seems to duplicate the Board exams (both state Boards and CBSE),
as it assesses the students using the same standardised criteria-referenced test as used by the
Board exams. Unlike the tests, used in some progressive countries, like UCAT (University
Clinical Aptitude Test) and MCAT (Medical College Admission Test), which assess both the
students „achievement‟ and/or „aptitude‟ and whose scope is completely different from the
Board/School exams, the NEET uses only a standardised criteria-referenced test only on the
contents, partially or fully used by the different Boards.
Insofar as the NEET uses the same standardised criteria-referenced test on a similar set of
contents, as done by the different Boards, it is not warranted again as it simply duplicates the
Board exams, making them redundant, amounting double hardship to the fateful students, and it
is by no means a superior test than the state Boards as it largely deviates from the globally
accepted principles of the standardised criteria-referenced test.

21
5.2 NEET does not measure the chronologically developed academic abilities
The notion of a continuum of knowledge acquisition ranging from no proficiency at all to highest
performance is the underling concept of scholastic achievement. The degree to which the
achievement of the students resembles desired performance at a specified level of education
should be the purpose of the measures of achievement.
The NEET does not have any inherent, either implicit or explicit, means of such measures to
predict the achievement correctly, except its content based crude assessment. In the continuum
of knowledge acquisition, "developed abilities" – i.e., the level of development attained by an
individual over a period of time in abilities – should be the focus of the testing, be it achievement
or aptitude (Anastasi, 1982).
This requires that the assessment should be able to have features that are composite and
continuum, which more accurately reflects the overlapping of aptitude and achievement tests. If
an individual's relative position along the continuum of attainment is the primary concern, as it
might arise in testing certain abilities, then an appropriate achievement measure, like norm-
based, should be administered.
However, this can best be achieved in the school based exams or Board exams, as they provide a
continuum of a multitude of testing opportunities (like, continuous achievement evaluations,
verbal type intelligence, practicals etc.), and that too in a composite manner (like achievement,
aptitude, norm based, criteria based etc.), to test chronologically developed academic abilities.
One could easily notice that this sophistication is very much lacking in the NEET, and that it is
content based multiple-choice test. Over reliance on such a test, would lead teachers to
emphasize exercises that would promote rote learning, foster test-taking skills, and discourage
complex thinking and higher order skilling.

22
5.3 Uncertain Predictability of the NEET on the success of the students in their higher
studies
The primary rational for using the standardised NEET test in medical college admissions is to
predict success in college. Similar tests around the world like MCAT, UCAT and SAT all have
been going through the test of time for their „predictive validity‟ to ensure their reliability in
predicting the future performance of the students in the college. Despite being observed for their
inability to accurately predict success in college as a lone predictor, coupled with other
predictors like (school) GPA, they proved to be a reasonable predictor.
For instance, Validity studies consistently find that high school grades and SAT scores together
are good predictors of achievement in college (Camara and Echternacht, 2009). The
combination of GPAs and MCAT total scores performs well as a predictor of unimpeded
progress toward graduation. They both together are strong predictors of academic performance
in medical school through graduation (Dana et al, 2013).
Five years of its existence is longer than enough to evaluate the validity and reliability of the
NEET, but lack of this information has become a cause of concern for its genuinity. The NEET
organisers [formerly CBSE and now NTA (National Testing Agency)] have failed to undertake
any serious studies on the predictive effectiveness, validity and reliability of the report. Minus
the aura of entrance and eligibility, as an entry check point, and compared with the Secondary
Board examination grades (standardised achievement test score), the NEET will be the least
predictor of the performance in higher studies.
Despite variability in educational input and educational service, school courses provide the
experience, both in learning and on examination that most closely relates to courses in higher
studies. The Board examination pertaining to particular subjects would be expected to correlate
better with performance in higher studies than does with the NEET.
An examination, on subject matters like physics, chemistry and biology, not placed in the
continuum of the realm of learning, would not connect the subject-learning with the learning-
assessment. The NEET, being a discrete, one-off test, without any connections whatsoever with
learning experience cannot predict precisely the subject potential and readiness of the students

23
for higher studies. Neither a composite of „achievement‟ and „aptitude‟ test does the job better in
the Indian condition, as ever widening socio economic gap between various social groups and
other variance in psychosocial conditions facing students during their schooling all would not
create a level playing field for the disadvantaged students to contest such test fairly. Therefore,
the score obtained in the Board examinations is comparatively a reasonable yardstick to measure
and predict the student‟s academic ability and readiness to pursue medical education.
5.4 NEET promotes coaching as opposed to learning
Truly, any universal entrance examination (aptitude test or assessment test) that aims to test the
students potential or their readiness and or ability to pursue higher studies, then it should be
distinct from the standardized tests of learning achievements (e.g. Secondary Board Exams).
The abilities measured by the test are developed over a student‟s entire academic life, as such,
the test shall not incur a prior special coaching or training.
If, on the other hand, coaching for the test can raise students‟ scores, then it does not conform to
the concept of entrance examination. Standardised one-off qualifying test privileges those
affluent with financial strength and social status to go for a prior training and coaching, so that
the fundamental objectives of such tests should be to make them less susceptible to socio
economic advantages.
In India, several coaching factories have mushroomed since the advent of the NEET in 2016.
The alarming rise of such coaching factories, both offline and online, above 400, generating
around Rs. 5750 crore annually indicates that coaching has become the means to be successful in
the NEET (Chapter 7).
This has also been vindicated in the recent figures that consistently, in recent years, the
percentage of the repeaters, taking the test repeatedly, has increased, and that the repeaters are
often able to finish the test successfully to get admission in a medical college. For instance, the
percent of repeaters who have secured admissions in MBBS programme rose to 71.42% in 2020-
21 from a meagre 12.47% in 2016-17.
It is the fact that these repeaters stay un-enrolled for higher studies after their 12th
standard only
to be coached by the corporate and school based coaching factories for the subsequent few years
until they clear the NEET with enough score to get admission in their desired college or

24
according to their financial strength. This clearly indicates that medical education has treaded
rapidly, just in a couple of years of its inception, into the hands of those affluent segments of the
society who can afford to pay such a sizable fees for coaching; be it school based or corporate
based. On an average, a repeater has to invest Rs.10 Lakhs exclusively for coaching. The NEET
has become a cause for the universal practice of an unintended but a detrimental consequence of
„coaching‟. Both educational institutions and parents are now inclined more towards coaching
the kids to prepare them for successfully appearing in the NEET rather than grooming them all
round as educated human beings with all relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes.
Even many state governments and agencies in India [Uttar Pradesh (2), Maharashtra (3), Indian
Army (4)] have started offering coaching classes to the underprivileged students, without which,
they assume that these students may not succeed in the competitive exams like NEET, JEE and
UG CLAT. Beyond this the union territory of Ladakh had announced Rs. One Lakh financial
assistance to meritorious students to join the private coaching centres for the preparation of
NEET, JEE, UG CLAT, and NDA for Two years (1). Such market trends even forced the
progressive states like Tamil Nadu to impart coaching to the needy students in order to remain in
the competitive race.
This trend confirms that coaching has replaced learning and paved the way for the entry of
poorly skilled candidates (who are financially and socially strong) belonging to the affluent
segment of the society into medical education.
Thus, the future medical profession is likely to be more commercialised than now and dominated
by medical professionals of poor quality. This is what the progressive worlds, which had
pioneered in such competitive exams over a century, had feared for when they started
considering these scores for admission into higher studies. Therefore, those offering these exams
have continually been tweaking the exams to ensure that previous experience or training or
coaching on the part of the individual is assumed to be lacking for all individuals comprising the
population considered. Exams like SAT had made several attempts to ensure that coaching does
little or nothing to raise the students score (Slack and Porter, 1980).
The NEET, however, by its very nature, inadvertently attracts prior preparation in the form of
coaching and destroys the „learning‟ - and made learning already redundant - which is very much
a fundamental element of „education‟ and converts students like machines.

25
Medical aspirants studying 12th
Standard do not undergo learning in their studies but outsource
private coaching for their success in the NEET is an irrefutable fact.
Wherever learning is overlooked by a rote training, an all-round grooming of secondary students
on different aspects including logical reasoning, decision making, social disposition, emotional
intelligence and other abilities – that are very much essential for medical studies – will not be
possible.
5.5 NEET is vulnerable to charges of cultural, regional, linguistic, and socio economic
biases
The relation between achievements in standardised entrance exams and socioeconomic and other
demographic disadvantages is one of the most widely replicated findings in educational research.
Especially, a country, where the society is graded hierarchically with social inequality and
unequally segregated in terms of economic conditions, level of income, level of education,
occupation, living standards, cultures, linguistic status and geographical location, a standardised
common entrance exam like NEET is more likely to exacerbate its reflection of all such
inequities than to attenuate them.
If there is any significant difference in score distributions according to these segregated groups,
that difference would probably be an increase in the score gap between the specially cultivated
upper classes and socially suppressed lower classes, high income and low income of parents,
high living standards and low living standards, literate and illiterate parents, urban and rural
students, private run and government run students.
While this gap in educational performance in general has been historically observed by different
reports including the series of Five Year Plans, reports of education departments, and the
recently unveiled National Education Policy, it is pertinent to note the observations, in specific to
the common entrance exam, made by; 1) the Hon‟ble Madras High Court Bench comprised of
Hon‟ble Justice P. Misra and Justice J.A.K.S. Kumar, in Minor S. Aswin KmarVs State of Tamil
Nadu [(2007) 2 CTC 677]; and 2) Report of the Commission on Reservation to State
Government Schools‟ Students in MBBS Course, chaired by Honourable Justice P. Kalayarasan.

26
The Hon‟ble Madras High Court observed that the common entrance test is advantageous to: the
aristocrat schools imparting education to students of graduate parents; coaching centres
imparting coaching to students for fees; students of elite people devote full time in studying with
comfort; parents who attend the care of their children for their studies; students of highly
qualified parents; and disadvantageous to: students of illiterate parents; students who cannot
afford to go to the coaching centres due to financial crunch; students of socially and
economically backward area who cannot afford to devote full time in studying as they have to
attend to other work also; parents who cannot afford to care of their children for their studies as
they have to afford to the work otherwise to eke out their livelihood; students of unqualified
parents; and students studying under the greenwood tree with mosquito bites.
The latter also observes more or less the same factors that influence the scores in the NEET
exam including: significant gap in children‟s cognitive development; parents‟
occupation/education; parental income; living standards; economic conditions; and psychology
of the child. The Anandakrishnan Committee (2006), commissioned to examine the implications
of abolition of Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Common Entrance Test (CET), also
recommended abolition of the test on account of severe disadvantages encountered by different
vulnerable sections of the student population such as rural households, Tamil medium students
and underprivileged categories.
The analytical section of this report, in the later pages, also vindicates that the ever present socio
economic disadvantages and other educational, geographical and linguistic backwardness facing
the students of the Tamil Nadu state do not favour the practice of a common entrance exam as it
causes injustice to the disadvantaged majority people of the state.
Even if the aforesaid five conditions, viz., - 1) tests the academic abilities of the concerned
studentpopulation using „bias-less common standards and criteria‟; 2) tests the academic abilities
developed by the concerned students over their entire academic life; 3) precisely „predicts‟ the
success of the students in their higher studies (after being admitted based on the NEET); 4)
ensures that previous experience or training or coaching on the part of the individual is assumed
to be lacking for all individuals comprising the population considered; 5) is less vulnerable to
charges of cultural, regional, linguistic, and socio economic biases – are met by the NEET, either

27
it or any other forms of common entrance examinations, cannot be applied in India because the
diverse nature of the Indian polity and society and its inherent socio economic and other
demographic inequalities would result in inequal test results between the advantaged and
disadvantaged. As long as the diversity exists, which is the strength of the nation and cannot be
undone as it is evolutionary and natural, and until the historically embedded inequalities are
ameliorated and a level playing field is established, a unified common entrance test is a curse to
both the nation and society.
5.6. Medical Entrance Examination: Global Practice Vs. NEET
Globally, a wide variety of entrance examinations are conducted for admitting students into
medical programmes. Table 5.1show the details of the examinations, being conducted at present
in some developed countries, including the agent conducting the exam, the knowledge and skills
being tested, subject matters covered, and the admission criteria being followed. Barring some
minor differences between the developing and developed countries, most of the countries cited in
the Table 5.1show a uniform method of administering the exams, whose features are outlined in
the same Table.

Table 5.1:Details of Entrance Exam and Admission Criteria for Medical Studies in Overseas
Country Ability & Skills
(Covered in Entrance Exam)
Subjects/Contents
(Covered in Entrance
Exam)
Admission Criteria Used
(National/State/Institutional
Level)
Conducting
Agency
(Govt./Pvt)
Reference
UK
UCAT (University
Clinical Aptitude
Test)
Verbal reasoning, decision
making, quantitative
reasoning, abstract reasoning
and situational judgement test
No subjects/No Syllabus UCAT/BMAT/GAMSAT score/A
Level (Secondary School
Grade)/Personal Statement/
Interview/ Work Experience/
Diversity (Institutional Level)
UCAT
Consortium/Private
Medical School
Council (2021)
UCAT (2021)
BMAT (Bio-Medical
Admission Test)
Aptitude and skills - problem
solving, understanding an
argument, writing skill, and
data analysis and inference.
Biology, Chemistry,
Mathematics, and Physics
UCAT/BMAT/GAMSAT score/A
Level (Secondary School
Grade)/Personal Statement/
Interview/Work Experience/
Diversity (Institutional Level)
Cambridge
Assessment
Admissions
Testing/Private
BMAT (2021)
Brothwood, P.
(2015)
USA/ CANADA
MCAT (Medical
College Admission
Test)
Natural sciences competencies,
foundations of human aspects
of medicine, scientific inquiry
and research skills,
understanding of humanities
and medicine, equanimity in
natural, social and behavioural
sciences, critical analysis and
writing.
Chemical and physical
foundations of biological
system, critical analysis
and reasoning skills,
biological and biochemical
foundations of living
systems and
psychological, and
biological foundations of
behaviour
Bachelor Degree in Sciences with
minimum GPA of 3.0, letters of
recommendation, extracurricular
activities, MCAT/Diversity
(Institutional Level)
Association of
American Colleges
(AAMC)/Private
Kevin et al. (2020)
Schwartzstein, et
al. (2013)
University of
Harvard (2021)
University of
Toronto (2021)
AUSTRALIA
GAMSAT (Graduate
Medical School
Admission Test)
Problem solving, critical
thinking and writing skill.
Reasoning in humanities
and biological sciences
Bachelor Degree, IELTS/PTE,
GAMSAT/Respective university
entrance score, Personal
Statement/Diversity (Institutional
Level)
Australian Council
for Educational
Research
(ACER)/Private
GAMSAT (2021)
University of
Sydney (2021)
CHINA
GAOKAO (National
College Entrance
Examination)
Academic achievement Chinese Language,
Mathematics, English,
Political Science, History,
Geography, Physics,
Chemistry and Biology
Gaokao Score, University admission
Criteria: interview and/or other
assessments
National
Committee for the
Enrolment of
College Students
with wutonomy for
Province, City and
County
Zhu (2014)
28

29
Except the conducting agent - the private consortium/organisation, in the case of developed
nations and the government agency in the case of developing ones - the methods and strategies
being followed in both categories are mostly similar, adopting the following pattern.
 The entrance exams are composite in nature, predominantly testing the aptitude on logical
and reasoning skills and little subjects. By this way, they predominantly test the aptitude and
partially the achievement; that is the tests are blended. The exams are based on a common
standard core; not based on any defined syllabus.
 The admission criteria are not pivoted around exclusively the entrance exam, but
comprehensively on all round parameters including the secondary school scores/Board
exams, social inclinations/services, personality, and socio economic disadvantages.
 The entrance exam scores are not mandatory but considered as a part of the screening
process. Institutions are empowered to either use or relax with the scores of entrance test.
It could be noticed that the Indian NEET and the admission criteria are diametrically opposite to
the above methodology as it is: mandatory to seek admission in medical colleges; a standardised
subjects based test; not based on a common standard core; the only score exclusively considered
for admission precluding Board exam scores; not optional for states to use it but mandatory.
With this one could conclude that the NEET has exceeded all acceptable scientific forms and
principles of an entrance exam, and the union government making it mandatorily a sole criterion
for admission into medical colleges, is a flaw, eccentrical and an injustice against both the spirit
of the constitution and people of the country. The NEET is purely an affair of the nation-state as
opposed to the other global practices, where, use of the score, is purely an institutional or
regional affair. Even the countries with more homogenous socio economic conditions, like the
Scandinavian and Nordic countries, do not practice the state-driven common entrance exams.
Especially, Finland, which practiced a sort of entrance exam for admission into all higher studies
for more than a century has made it partially ceased to exist. All these countries have never
dared to forcefully impose such a rigid and one-sided test nationally. Even though a unified
standardised test, named Gaokao (National College Entrance Examination), is adopted in our

39
neighbour China, the rights on executing it have been devolved across all levels of China‟s
polity, from national level through provincial and city to the county. These different levels have
the right to determine the time and methods of the test, subjects to be included, and the
enrolment procedure after the test (Zhu, 2014). This shows that the regional and provincial
requirements have been incorporated in both the test and admission. Most of the OECD
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries and several progressive
developing countries do not have a common entrance exam driven by the state. But a country
having a highly graded unequal social structure, with a vast diverse economic, cultural and
linguistic backgrounds, has been subjected to such an excruciating testing exercise, which is very
much an unfair affair.

31
CHAPTER VI
IMPACT OF NEET: STAKEHOLDERS OPINION
6.1. Introduction
In pursuance to achieve the object, as one of the measures, the Committee also intended to
receive public opinion from general public and various organisations including political parties,
non-political organisations, NGOs, educationists, public authorities, and social organisations.
The Committee accordingly published a notification to the public as depicted in Figure 6.1.
Opinions were received through various means including e-mail, post, and in a drop-box
provided at the High Level Committee office at the office of the Directorate of Medical
Education campus.
Figure .6.1. Notification Inviting Public Opinion on Impact of NEET
Pursuant to that a large number of submissions, totalling 86,342, were received by the office. Of
them, 85953 opinions were obtained through e-mail, 332 by posts, and 57 opinions through the
drop-box. All feedbacks were seriously reviewed by the Committee, and ideas, data, suggestions
and comments submitted were segregated per the focussed issues and topics.

32
As regards the level of public acceptance, 65007 opposed NEET, 18966 supported NEET, 1453
had no opinion, and 916 were repeated mails.
It was found that the voluminous submitted opinions were repetitive and overlapping but some
were unique, but all were carefully collated and collectively presented as follows.
6.2. Feedbacks Supporting NEET
1. NEET was carefully reviewed by the Supreme Court of India with respect to growing
commercialisation of private medical education, wherein, medical seats were sold for higher
price, which was affordable only to the rich, and because of this the dreams of deserving
medical aspirants, irrespective of caste, creed and class, were being crushed.
2. With NEET in Place, seats blocking could be reduced, economically weaker people might
get admission in private colleges too under as it is a unifying exam, instead of the previously
used 12th
Std scores which put State Board and CBSE syllabus students at two different
levels. With NEET both the State board and CBSE Board students are evaluated at the same
level. Therefore, when admission is based exclusively on NEET score, one can compete for
the 100% seats and the level of difficulty being faced in the exam if uniform to everyone,
and the rankings are fair. While competing for the state quota, the State students can also
compete for the 15% all India quota in other States.
3. Only using the NEET score, the Tamil Nadu students can enter Institutes of National
importance such as AIIMS, JIPMER etc. Our students can also study in top medical colleges
of the other states too through NEET.
4. NEET can be attempted for three times but a low score in the 12th
Std Board exam
diminishes all chances of getting admission to MBBS. The old method had killed the dream
of many aspiring students.
5. The questions being asked in the NEET are application based which urges the students to
think instead of mugging up and re-producing the same, so, quality students become eligible
instead of someone who just is good at rote learning. Also, compared to the previous
entrance exam (AIPMT), NEET pattern of questions give students ample time to think and it
reduces anxiety towards preparation.
6. TN curriculum and learning styles need to be improved. Making a high standard entrance
exam like NEET mandatory will only help improve the teaching standards in the long run to

33
the point that Tamil Nadu students no longer need to be dependent on money sucking
coaching centres.
7. NEET does not affect reservations. There is currently 69% reservation for medical seats in
Tamil Nadu, which remains unchanged under admission by NEET scores as well.
Therefore, it is not against social justice.
6.2. Feedbacks Opposing NEET
1. The rate of admission to medical programmes by the Tamil Nadu State Board (HSc) was
reduced after NEET.
2. NEET causes mental stress to students and leads them to the extent of committing suicide.
Exam centres outside Tamil Nadu causes mental and physical stress to parents and students.
Private schools are teaching NEET syllabus instead of HSc syllabus. Implementation of
NEET neglects 12 years of School curriculum which is the crux of education and life curve.
It should be noted that the NEET syllabus is based on CBSE syllabus. As India is a diverse
country with so many boards of education which have different syllabi, a common entrance
exam is not applicable to all. NEET is paving the way only for students who are
economically advanced, studying in CBSE schools and spending lakhs for their private
school education and coaching classes.
3. NEET promotes coaching and that without coaching one cannot succeed in it. One has to
undergo coaching for 2 to 3 years, which is waste of time. Coaching centres are collecting
fees in Lakhs of rupees which is not possible for economically poor people. While girls
already face so much of social barriers to continue education, NEET has further worsened it
that they are discouraged from entering private medical institutions for want of financial and
educational assistance. NEET has created an opportunity for a new roaring business of
coaching.
4. The private schools have started coaching even from the IX standards onwards until XIIth to
appear for NEET. In every standard, instead of studying the regular syllabus, the situation
has changed as get ready for NEET. The families who are well-to do are spending huge
amount of money to join NEET coaching Classes

34
5. If the students from rural areas study MBBS, after completion of the course, they will serve
in the rural area. But affluent people who spend lakhs of rupees for coaching will either work
in corporate hospitals or go to foreign countries for working. Medicine has always been a
service to the people but NEET selection instills a highly competitive and business mindset
inthe minds of students, thus public service disappears and profit-oriented medical practice
becomes commercialized.
6. NEET is against social justice, humanism and equality. NEET exam prevents the
opportunity for tribal, rural and oppressed students pursuing medical education. Especially,
it has helped the private and deemed universities to prevent the oppressed students to pursue
medicine in their institutions.
7. State Board studies have become meaningless due to NEET. So students ignore learning and
are not engaged in it but alternatively they concentrate on coaching. Such students will not
be having judging and reasoning capacity.
8. NEET has encroachment into the State‟s right. NEET selection usurps state rights. Therefore,
the Government of Tamil Nadu should mobilize the support of other State Governments in
support of its position that NEET should be abolished.
9. After implementation of NEET the proportion of Tamil Nadu State students studying in
Medical Education has gone to deplorable level. The most affected are the Government
school students.
10. Tamil health care infrastructure is very good and systematically built up medical colleges in
each district with more no of seats than many other states.
11. Irrational rules and regulations like dress code, hair style, jewellery etc. being imposed on
Tamil children, especially, are despicable and condemnable. This has shattered the
children‟s long cherished dream and their confidence.
12. NEET has evolved with a new paradigm to divide the society on the basis of ingenuity,
affluence, ineptitude and regionalism.
13. NEET can be used to admitting students for national quotas. In Tamil Nadu, at State level,
SEET (State Eligibility cum Entrance Test), based on the State Board syllabus can be
conducted.
14. After NEET exam other state candidates got medical seats in Tamil Nadu using fake nativity
certificate of Tamil Nadu.

35
15. In 2018, the NEET exam was conducted in Tamil language, which was not translated
properly, and students who wrote in Tamil were affected.
16. After the NEET, students who got just a mere pass were able to get admission in private
medical colleges by paying huge amount of money. Rich people can buy seat by paying
Rs.25 lakh per annum in Deemed Universities even if they get low score and the total cost of
the entire course would be around Rs 1 crore 50 lakh.
17. Among eligible students who got admission in Medical curriculum, most of the students were
„repeaters‟; who took NEET multiple times. Girl students cannot afford to write the exam
multiple times. Without giving equitable opportunities and improving education systems,
conducting NEET will definitely increase the gap between rich and poor.
18. Two-thirds of the students currently enrolled in the MBBS course are repeaters. There is a
huge difference between those who are writing the exam for the first time and those who
have studied for a few years in private coaching centre and writing the exam again and again
which is possible only for financially affluent families. For example, out of 63835 Medical
admissions a private coaching centre Akash foundation got 96% of admissions which shows
how a coaching centre and highly affluent society influence Medical admissions. Therefore,
it is necessary to limit the number of attempts in NEET.
19. Answering 180 questions in 3 hours would be possible only with proper training, 3 minutes
per question is something that can only be accomplished by those who are well trained. The
rural poor students who are not trained to face such exam cannot do it properly.
20. There is a danger that the NEET will ruin the welfare of the people of Tamil Nadu because
there is also a risk of a major crisis in Tamil Nadu due to a shortage of medical doctors in
future due to NEET.

36
CHAPTER - VII
IMPACT OF NEET ON ADMISSION: FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF ACADEMIC,
SOCIO ECONOMIC & OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC STATUS AND HEALTHCARE
SERVICES IN TAMIL NADU
7.1. Introduction
The main objects of the Committee is to study: whether the NEET based admission process has
adversely affected the different social, economic and federal polities and the students of rural and
urban poor, and those who studied in Thamizh Medium or any other section of students in Tamil
Nadu; whether NEET is an equitable methods of selection of students; the effect of
mushrooming NEET coaching centres on the educational system in Tamil Nadu; and suggest the
steps to be taken to remove the impediments and to protect the rights of the State, for advancing
the principles of Social Justice and also to fulfill the mandate of the Constitution to provide equal
and equitable “access to health” to all section of the people of Tamil Nadu.
Henceforth, this Section reviews and analyses the socioeconomic, demographic, academic,
schooling, geographical and other related backgrounds that caused the so far achieved
performance of the students, belonging to the state of Tamil Nadu, in the NEET, historically, for
the periods of both before and after its introduction in Tamil Nadu. While the Chapter Five has
questioned and analysed the academic merit and validity of the testing framework of the NEET,
with respect to both the universally accepted „concept of academic assessment (achievement)‟
and „socioeconomic status and disadvantages of the students‟, this Section further analyses how
connections between these two has impacted upon the admission prospects of medical aspirants
of Tamil Nadu and how it affects the „medical education‟, „medical profession‟ and „medical and
health care services‟ in Tamil Nadu.
7.2. Data Collection and Method
The two-faceted dimension of the investigation, as aforesaid; i) the causal relation between
„testing framework of the NEET used for and the sole „admission criteria (NEET score)‟ used in
the medical admission and the „socio-demographic status and disadvantages‟ faced by the Tamil
Nadu students‟ demography, and ii) the impact of this causal relationship on the overall

37
aspects of the medical and health sector, inter-alia, „medical education‟, „medical profession‟ and
„medical and health care services‟ in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the impact on the stakes of
different socio-demographic representations in these services and thus its influence on the
overall performance of the sector was the extended question under investigation as well.
In connection with is inquiry, the Committee collected all relevant information and data, both
quantitative and qualitative, from all relevant sources including; Directorate of Medical
Education, Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine, Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Service, School Education
Department, The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University, Technical Education Department,
and government commissioned committees‟ reports, documents, and research literature.
The data collected were verified for their veracity and validity, and scientifically deployed in the
analysis with respect to the intended questions, as aforesaid, and thus carefully, the results were
interpreted and with the inferences emerged therefrom findings were observed.
7.3. State of Affairs of School Education in Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu is India‟s one of the most productive states known for its unique multidimensional
developments in the areas of economy, health, healthcare, industries, agriculture, and human
development for which education development of the state was the backbone. Without quality
educational attainment of the eligible students and society such developments would not have
been a possibility. The rural-urban divide put the total population at the ratio of 52:48
percentages urbanizing the state in a rapid manner. The working age group of 15 to 59 years
constitutes 68.6 percentage of the population. As a state, Tamil Nadu continued to register its
mark in its economic parameters – higher economic growth rate (appr. 8%) than the national
average, third highest GDP per capita in the country, declining poverty ratio and so on. It is one
of the urbanized states as well as among the most industrialized with a strong manufacturing
base and a large service sector. This achievement is a collective product of the people oriented
policy initiatives, measures and interventions consistently taken by the successive Governments
of the state.

38
The trajectory of the multidimensional achievement of the state has a historical underpinning of
„Social Justice‟ that has driven all the policies and reforms in the state, so is with „education‟.
This has resulted in Tamil Nadu known for academic excellence and comparatively quality
educational delivery in India. Recognising the importance of education, the State Government
has been attaching highest priority to both expansion and quality of education and to ensure that
this is available to and accessible by all segments of the society. As a result, Tamil Nadu has
been performing well ahead of most of the other States in the country on the parameters like
literacy rate, elementary, secondary and higher secondary education, higher education, Gross
Enrolment Ratio, Teacher-Student Ratio, drop-out rates and so on. The Educational
Development Index developed by the National University of Educational Planning and the
Ministry of Human Resource and Development has placed Tamil Nadu in the first place in the
Primary level and 3rd
inthe entire Elementary Education Department of School Education (Govt..
of Tamil Nadu, 2012-13).
Since independence, the state has managed to produce educational infrastructures, mainly;
schools and higher education institutions to a level greater than any other states in the country.
At present, the state has more than 3500 higher education institutions (excluding central and
deemed institutions) under the purview of the higher education department and 58932 schools,
both public and private, with one of the highest pupil teacher ratio in the country (Table 7.1 and
Table 7.2). Of which, about 78% students study in Govt.. and Govt..-Aided schools, and that the
37431 Govt.. schools constitute schoolings of different categories like Adi-Dravida Welfare
School, Corporation School, Kallar BC/MBC Department School, Municipal School and Tribal
Welfare Schools to provide access to all disadvantaged segments of the society. The state‟s
Secondary School GER (Gross Enrolment Ratio) is 7% higher and the HSc about 22% higher
than the Indian average. Transition from Primary to Secondary and Secondary to Higher
Secondary is approximately 10% higher than the Indian average.

39
Table 7.1.: Comparison of Educational Indicators of India and Tamil Nadu
Indicator Category India Tamil Nadu
Gross Enrolment Ratio
Secondary 79.55 86.81
Higher Secondary 58.56 80.31
Pupil Teacher Ratio
Secondary 23.03 16
Higher Secondary 49.98 18
Transition Rate
Upper Primary to Secondary 88.4 99.2
Secondary to Higher Secondary 67.8 78.8
Gender Parity Index
Secondary 1.04 1.05
Higher Secondary 1.04 1.26
Source: Report of Justice Kalaiarasan Committee, 2020
Table 7.2.: Distribution of levels of schools across different managements for 2019-2020
Type of Schools
Pre Primary
Schools
Primary
Schools
Middle
Schools
High
Schools
Hr. Sec.
Schools
Total
State Government 0 24298 6961 3118 3054 37431
Aided 4 5020 1511 595 1218 8348
Central Govt. 0 2 62 8 40 112
Matric 0 20 302 1385 2787 4494
CBSE 6 64 273 425 494 1262
ICSE 3 12 18 41 69 143
Unaided Others 396 5924 282 234 306 7142
Total 409 35340 9409 5806 7968 58932
Similarly, Tamil Nadu has been performing well, nationally, in most of the other schooling
parameters and ratios as highlighted in Table 7.3.

40
Table 7.3.: Tamil Nadu Ratios on Schooling in the National Range
Ratios
Achievement
(Range)
Remarks
Student-Classroom Ratio – HSC 36-45 2nd
High
Pupil-Teacher Ratio - Secondary Level 21-50 2nd
High
Pupil Teacher Ratio- HSC 16-27 2nd
High
Exam ResultsSecondary 80.01-95.00 2nd
high
Exam Results–HSC 80.01-90.00 1st
High
Girls-Boys Ratio (Enrolment)–HSC 1.11-1.29 1st
High
Availability of Science Stream
Secondary Level
40.01-92.86 1st
High
Availability of Science Stream–HSC 80.01-100.00 1st
High
Gross Enrolment Ratio–HSC 60.01-98.16 2nd
High
Source: Source: NUEPA, 2016
Table 7.4 (Annexure) presents community-wise enrolment of students in all schools of Tamil
Nadu, which shows that majority of the socially disadvantaged communities like MBC, SC,SCA,
ST and DNC pursue their studies in the Govt. schools, the BC community pursues comparatively
more in ICSE, CBSE, Matriculation, Private, Govt. Aided, and Central Govt.schools, and the FC
(OC) community predominantly pursues in CBSE, ICSE and Central Govt. schools. This
indicates how the income levels and accessibility of different social strata play a major role in
enrolment. If this is related to the Parents‟ annual income (Table 7.5, Annexure), one could
easily understand that those who have admitted their children in schools like Matriculation,
Central Govt., CBSE, Private and ICSE have Parental annual income higher than their
counterparts who have put up their children in State Govt. and Aided schools. Consequently,
those who have higher parental income and CBSE oriented education are likely toimprove their
performance in NEET simply because of the NEET‟s CBSE bias and parents‟ financial
affordability for a high profile coaching.

41
The aforesaid achievements were possible only because of the long term constructive efforts and
measures taken by the successive Governments in the State. As a result it has become one of the
key centres of academic excellence in the country.
7.4. Profile of Tamil Nadu 12th
Standard Students and Their Overall Performance in NEET
This section presents the composition of the overall profile of the 12th
Std students studied in the
state of Tamil Nadu. It outlines the key details that are relevant to assess the impact of NEET on
the eligible Tamil Nadu students, The scope of the details presented in this section is limited to
the information that are pertinent to assess the impact of NEET on the eligible students, and
therefore, this section outlines the overall performance of the students in their 12th
final
examination, the profile and performance of the students who are eligible to appear for the NEET
examination, and their overall performance in it.
7.4.1. Twelfth Standard Students Studied Under Tamil Nadu State Board of Secondary
Education (TNSBSE) and Their Performance
Table 7.6 depicts the details of the students who have studied their 12th
Standard under the Tamil
Nadu State Board of Secondary Education (TNSBSE) for the past ten years. The Table implies
that the ever increasing student size in HSC since 2011 till 2017 has slipped down to 12.7%, with
a loss in student size of 113,322, between 2017 and 2020, in the post-NEET period.
Table 7.6.: Number of 12th
Standard Students Studied under the TNSBSE
YEAR TNSBSE 12th
Std Students
2011 716543
2012 756464
2013 799513
2014 821671
2015 839291
2016 833682
2017 893262
2018 860434
2019 842512
2020 779940

42
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TAMIL MEDIUM ENGLISH MEDIUM OTHERS
7.4.2. Twelfth Standard Students Studied Through Different Mediums of Instruction
Table 7.7 and Figure 7.1 display the quantum of students who have studied 12th
standard under
TNSBSE and their chronological size. Of the three categories mentioned, if students of Thamizh
and English mediums are considered (which are significant), in the post-NEET period, the
Thamizh medium students size went down by 24.8% whereas, that of the English medium rose
to 8.4% between the period of 2017 and 2020.
Standard Students Studied Through Different Mediums of
Instruction
Year
Tamil
medium
English
Medium
Other
languages
Total
2011 509246 205311 1986 716543
2012 532511 222030 1923 756464
2013 555855 241750 1908 799513
2014 555878 263786 2007 821671
2015 553118 284326 1847 839291
2016 540183 291727 1772 833682
2017 563157 328054 2051 893262
2018 526539 331739 2156 860434
2019 497292 343471 1749 842512
2020 423278 355734 928 779940
Figure 7.1. Flow of Students Size by Medium of Instructions

43
7.4.3. Twelfth Standard Students by Gender Classification
Table 7.8 displays gender wise students size in 12th
Standard for the past 10 years and Figure 7.2
shows the trend. Between the boys and girls, the girls-students size is approximately 7% more
than the boys throughout the decade. The Table implies that the actual size of the boys and girls
fell by 14.4% and 11.2% respectively in 2020 compared to 2017. If this is seen with the facts of
Table 1 and compared with the growth in size of CBSE students in Tamil Nadu, the reason for
this downfall could be traced. Probably, the students would have migrated to the CBSE from
TNSBSE.
Table 7.8. Number of 12th
Standard Students by Gender Classification
YEAR BOYS GIRLS TRANSGENDER TOTAL
2011
333084
(46.48 %)
383459
(53.52 %)
0
(0 %)
716543
2012
350736
(46.37 %)
405728
(53.63 %)
0
(0 %)
756464
2013
371450
(46.46 %)
428063
(53.54 %)
0
(0 %)
799513
2014
378215
(46.03 %)
443456
(53.97 %)
0
(0 %)
821671
2015
388883
(46.33 %)
450408
(53.67 %)
0
(0 %)
839291
2016
388935
(46.65 %)
444747
(53.35 %)
0
(0 %)
833682
2017
415331
(46.5 %)
477931
(53.5 %)
0
(0 %)
893262
2018
400179
(46.51 %)
460255
(53.49 %)
0
(0 %)
860434
2019
389250
(46.2 %)
453262
(53.8 %)
0
(0 %)
842512
2020
355652
(45.6 %)
424288
(54.4 %)
0
(0 %)
779940

44
Figure 7.2. The Flow of the 12th
Standard Boys and Girls Students
7.4.4. Twelfth Standard Students Size by School Type (Govt./Govt. Aided/Private)
Table 7.9 and Figure 7.3 display the 12th
Std students studied in different types of schools in
Tamil Nadu. The trend (Figure 7.3) indicates that until 2016 both the Govt. Schools and Govt.
Aided Schools have managed their student size stable, while the private schools showed steady
growth in its student size. Post-NEET period, in the cases of Govt. and Govt. Aided Schools, the
student size fell down by 18.5% and 14.1% respectively, whereas, in the same period, the private
schools have maintained their student strength much unaltered. Interestingly, this concurs with
the assertions made from the Tables 7.6 to 7.8 that they would have migrated to the CBSE.
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
NO.OF BOYS STUDIED NO.OF GIRLS STUDIED

45
450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
GOVERNMENT SCHOOL GOVERNMENT AIDED SCHOOL PRIVATE SCHOOL
Std Students by School Type (Govt.., /Govt.., Aided/Private)
Year
Government
school
Government aided
school
Private school Total
2011
344819
(48.12 %)
218944
(30.56 %)
152780
(21.32 %)
716543
2012
357830
(47.3 %)
224595
(29.69 %)
174039
(23.01 %)
756464
2013
373436
(46.71 %)
232082
(29.03 %)
193995
(24.26 %)
799513
2014
376704
(45.85 %)
233863
(28.46 %)
211104
(25.69 %)
821671
2015
377240
(44.95 %)
235763
(28.09 %)
226288
(26.96 %)
839291
2016
373944
(44.85 %)
227925
(27.34 %)
231813
(27.81 %)
833682
2017
401339
(44.93 %)
235123
(26.32 %)
256800
(28.75 %)
893262
2018
382193
(44.42 %)
222669
(25.88 %)
255572
(29.7 %)
860434
2019
365026
(43.33 %)
216791
(25.73 %)
260695
(30.94 %)
842512
2020
327137
(41.94 %)
201926
(25.89 %)
250877
(32.17 %)
779940
Figure 7.3. Twelfth Std Students by School Type (Govt./Govt. Aided/Private)

46
7.4.5. Pass Rate of TNSBSE Students in 12th
Std Examination (Tamil Medium/English
Medium)
Table 7.10 displays the students‟ pass rate for the past ten years, with specific reference to the
Thamizh and English medium students. Overall, the pass percentage of the students indicates an
upward trend from 86% in 2011 to 92% in 2020. But the pass percentage of the English medium
students increases steadily (around 96%) as opposed to the Thamizh medium students who also
show a steady chronological increase in their pass rate but a few percent less than the English
medium students.
Table 7.10. Pass Rate of 12th
Std Students by Medium of Instruction
Year
Passed
Total
Tamil English Other
2011
422665
(83.00%)
191427
(93.24%)
1505
(75.78%)
615597
(85.91%)
2012
445466
(83.65%)
208673
(93.98%)
1455
(75.66%)
655594
(86.67%)
2013
472607
(85.02%)
230053
(95.16%)
1465
(76.78%)
704125
(88.07%)
2014
490622
(88.26%)
252529
(95.73%)
1547
(77.08%)
744698
(90.63%)
2015
487756
(88.18%)
271420
(95.46%)
1393
(75.42%)
760569
(90.62%)
2016
482089
(89.25%)
278173
(95.35%)
1463
(82.56%)
761725
(91.37%)
2017
507038
(90.03%)
314112
(95.75%)
1688
(82.30%)
822838
(92.12%)
2018
464146
(88.15%)
318264
(95.94%)
1671
(77.50%)
784081
(91.13%)
2019
436482
(87.77%)
331225
(96.43%)
1518
(86.79%)
769225
(91.30%)
2020
375852
(88.80%)
343533
(96.57%)
824
(88.79%)
720209
(92.34%)

47
Figure 7.4. Distribution of Pass Percentage of the 12th
Std Students by Medium of
Instruction
7.4.6. Twelfth Standard Science Stream Students (Maths with Science Group and Pure
Science Only) by School Type
Table 7.11 displays 12th
std students who have studied Science Stream groups in different types
of schools and the distribution of the trend is presented in Figure 7.5. Overall, the percentage of
these students in the post-NEET period has dropped down from 43.03% to 35.94%. While
similar trend could be observed in all types of institutions - Govt., Govt. Aided and Private –
students of Govt. Aided schools show 31.22% reduction followed by that of the Govt. (26.49%)
and Private (24.88%) in the science stream. But the trend was on the upward growth in the pre-
NEET period. This indicates that the introduction of NEET has negatively impacted the student
enrolment in the Science stream. Probably, the NEET has discouraged the students from
enrolling in the Science stream in 12th
(TNSBSE) and encouraged them to migrate to CBSE.
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
Tamil
English
40.00 Other
20.00
0.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

48
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Government Aided Private
Table 7.11. No. of 12th
std Students Who have Studied Science Stream in TNSBSE
by School Type
Year Government Aided Private Total
Percentage out of
All Groups
2011 122019 77093 54763 253875 35.43 %
2012 127226 79361 65899 272486 36.02 %
2013 134740 84573 75406 294719 36.86 %
2014 131352 79124 84375 294851 35.88 %
2015 146180 89682 107895 343757 40.96 %
2016 149424 88887 118575 356886 42.81 %
2017 162292 91902 130213 384407 43.03 %
2018 145667 80926 118371 344964 40.09 %
2019 139352 79512 114880 333744 39.61 %
2020 119293 63213 97809 280315 35.94 %
Figure 7.5. Distribution of 12th
std Students Who have Studied Science Stream in
TNSBSE by School Type

49
7.4.7. Twelfth Standard Science Stream Students (Maths with Science Group and Pure
Science Only) by Medium of Education
Table 7.12 displays 12th
std students who have studied Science Stream groups in English and
Thamizh mediums. Overall, the percentage of these students in the post-NEET period has
dropped down from 43.03% to 35.94% (Table 7.11). The overall trend between English and
Thamizh medium students is presented in Figure 7.6. A similar trend could be observed in all
types of institutions, except Govt., in which, in the post-NEET period, the English medium
students size rose to 76.35% in 2020 compared to 2017, while the Thamizh medium students size
fell down by 34.1% during the same period. In all other cases, both English and Thamizh
medium students have shown negative flow in the said period with Pvt-Thamizh (-64.09%)
followed by Govt. Aided-Thamizh (-38.51%), Pvt-English (-19.02%), and Govt. Aided English
(- 10.12%). The conclusion is that the Thamizh medium students have been discouraged from
taking science stream courses, probably by the NEET and other unforeseen reasons. However,
interestingly, the Pvt-English medium students also have shown a drop in their presence in
science stream by 19.02%. It seems that, overall, all these students have been discouraged from
taking science stream in HSc (Higher Secondary) because it is, compared to CBSE, less
compatible to the NEET.
Table 7.12. No. of 12th
std Students Who have Studied Science Stream in TNSBSE by
Medium of Instruction
Year
Government Government Aided Private
Total
Tamil English Other Tamil English Other Tamil English Other
2011 115304 6371 344 59950 17074 69 12721 42042 0 253875
2012 120455 6319 452 61879 17409 73 16038 49861 0 272486
2013 127505 6798 437 66387 18164 22 18156 57250 0 294719
2014 124003 6874 475 60904 18173 47 15207 69168 0 294851
2015 137336 8333 511 67809 21835 38 18175 89713 7 343757
2016 139424 9544 456 66725 22129 33 18268 100307 0 356886
2017 150287 11408 597 68214 23663 25 16944 113269 0 384407
2018 133753 11405 509 58763 22114 49 12862 105504 5 344964
2019 125031 13877 444 56038 23444 30 10288 104583 9 333744
2020 98945 20118 230 41942 21267 4 6085 91723 1 280315

50
Figure 7.6. Distribution of 12th
std Students Who have Studied Science Stream in
TNSBSE by Medium of Instruction
7.4.8. Pass Rate of Twelfth Standard Science Stream Students (Maths with Science Group
and Pure Science Only) by School Type
Table 7.13 shows the pass rate of 12th
Std students who studied science stream in TNSBSE.
While the trend of performance in each category does not vary much and all the groups fared
well above 90% marks in the past few years, there is a marginal difference between the groups –
the Govt. students‟ average score is around 90% and that of the Govt. Aided 96% and Private
98%marks. The distribution of the frequency of percentage marks is displayed in
Figure 7.7.
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Tamil Medium English Medium Others

51
Table 7.13. Pass Rate of 12th
Std Science Stream (Maths with Science and Pure Science
Group only) students by School Type
Year Government
Government
Aided
Private Total
2011
97316
(79.75%)
71879
(93.24%)
53540
(97.77%)
222735
(87.73%)
2012
100977
(79.37%)
74228
(93.53%)
64395
(97.72%)
239600
(87.93%)
2013
111628
(82.85%)
80425
(95.10%)
74307
(98.54%)
266360
(90.38%)
2014
117251
(89.26%)
76225
(96.34%)
83353
(98.79%)
276829
(93.89%)
2015
130224
(89.08%)
86569
(96.53%)
106789
(98.98%)
323582
(94.13%)
2016
136096
(91.08%)
85892
(96.63%)
117040
(98.71%)
339028
(95.00%)
2017
147106
(90.64%)
88940
(96.78%)
128715
(98.85%)
364761
(94.89%)
2018
132085
(90.68%)
78510
(97.01%)
117444
(99.22%)
328039
(95.09%)
2019
123420
(88.57%)
76193
(95.83%)
113617
(98.91%)
313230
(93.85%)
2020
106364
(89.16%)
60997
)96.49%)
97038
(99.21%)
264399
(94.32%)

52
Figure 7.7. Distribution of Pass Rate of 12th
Std Science Stream (Maths with Science
and Pure Science Group only) students by School Type
7.4.9. Pass Rate of Twelfth Standard Science Stream Students (Maths with Science Group
and Pure Science Only) by Medium of Instruction
The performance of students of Science stream in terms of the medium of instruction by school
type (Govt./Govt. Aided/Private) are depicted in Figures 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10 respectively.
Interestingly, in the Govt. category (Figure 7.8), the Thamizh medium students have performed
slightly better than English medium students, whereas in the cases of both Govt. Aided (Figure
7.9) and Private (Figure 7.10), the performance between the English and Thamizh medium are
both same. To conclude, the performance of the English and Thamizh medium students among
the different types of schools are more or less the same. But there is a few percentage
differences between the Govt. and the Govt.Aided+Private, with the Govt. performing lower
than the other two.
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
Government
Government Aided
Private
20.00
0.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

53
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
Tamil
English
Others
20.00
0.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 7.8. Distribution of Pass Rate of Twelfth Standard Science Stream Students
(Maths with Science Group and Pure Science Only) by Medium of Instruction – Govt.
(Maths with Science Group and Pure Science Only) by Medium of Instruction – Govt.
Aided
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
Government Tamil
Government English
Government Others
10.00
0.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

54
(Maths with Science Group and Pure Science Only) by Medium of Instruction – Private
Overall, the students of all categories and in terms of their medium of instruction all performed
extremely well by scoring 90% and above.
7.4.10. Year wise MBBS Admission: pre-NEET and post-NEET period
Table 7.14displays the distribution of MBBS seats under various categories past 10 years until
2020-21. The pre-NEET and post-NEET admissions show how the flow of admissions has
changed topside down after the implementation of NEET. In the pre-NEET period, it could be
noticed that the State Board achieved majority seats, and compared to English medium students
the Tamil medium students had obtained at least a little share. Similarly, the Govt. students had
achieved a little number of seats though it was so little. However, in the post-NEET, that little
too was lost by them, resulting in further disproportionate seat sharing. The CBSE students
exponentially increased their share to several folds in the post-NEET, while the English medium
students had grown to become the largest seat holder in the Post-NEET from the status of the
second largest holder in the pre-NEET period. Until the 7.5% reservation was introduced, in
2020-21, the Govt. students were the worst affected lot by the NEET.
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
Tamil
English
Others
20.00
0.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

55
Table 7.14.MBBS Admission for the Period 2010-11 to 2020-21: pre-NEET and post-NEET
period
Academic
Year
MBBS
Seats
(Govt&SF)
Board of Education
Medium of
Instruction
Type of
Management
State
Board
CBSE Others Tamil English Govt. Private
2010-2011 2349 2332 14 3 465 1884 - -
2011-2012 2543 2533 2 8 459 2084 - -
2012-2013 2707 2692 12 3 503 2204 - -
2013-2014 3267 3251 4 12 570 2697 - -
2014-2015 3147 3140 2 5 602 2545 38 3109
2015-2016 3015 2996 2 17 510 2500 36 2979
2016-2017 3608 3544 35 29 537 3071 34 3574
2017-2018 3517 2303 1113 101 56 3461 3 3514
2018-2019 3638 2626 894 118 119 3519 5 3633
2019-2020 4202 2762 1368 72 71 4131 6 4196
2020-2021
(92.5%)
4129 2453 1604 72 82 4047 11 4118
2020-2021
(7.5%)
336 336 0 0 217 119 336 0

56
7.5. Analysis of Socio-economic and Other Demographic Adversities and Biasness in MBBS
Admissions Caused by NEET
The relation between „Socioeconomic and Other Demographic Status (SEODS)‟ and the
Common Entrance Examination (CEE) like the NEET is one of the most widely replicated
conclusions in educational research. The key „adversities‟ caused by the SEODs have been
widely reported in the literature as major determinants causing educational setbacks for the
students concerned, both in learning and assessment of learning achievement at schools and in
CEEs. While opportunities can be made available to the needy to improve their learning
achievement by making suitable interventions both in learning and assessment of achievements
at schools through various educational means and remedial actions, such possibilities are very
much remote in the one-off CEEs. Therefore, historically, CEEs have been criticised for their
biasness against the student population that faces adversities caused by their SEODS.
Several studies have established that the adversities caused to the students of low SEODS have
made them perform poorly in examinations and CEEs compared to those from high SEODS.
Contrary to this, very few literatures seem to claim that it is not. However, the Committee
observed that the major aspects which exert influences on students‟ achievement in CEEs
include „resources‟, „social capital‟ and „educational attributes‟. The „educational attributes‟
including the inputs like quality teaching and learning, quality teachers, educational
infrastructures, access to learning materials, syllabus, medium of instruction, and assessment of
achievement and its framework all play a major role in enabling students to perform well in their
studies if they are free from related adversities. The „social capital‟ refers to a social group‟s and
thus it members‟ position (caste and class) in society that influences the schooling behaviours of
the students, wherein, the lower the SEODS of the students higher will be the adversities they
face in their schooling achievement. The aspect of „resources‟ refers to the resources, that are
predominantly familial, including parent‟s income, parent‟s education, wealth, geographical stay
(location), and other related factors that influence the students‟ achievement in learning and
examinations. This means, different SEODS groups have different learning environments that
affect the students‟ academic achievement. Equitable SEODS and democratic educational
system would provide the children the required physical, social and intellectual background for
effective learning, and in that level playing field, students will face no adversities that affect their
learning and examination results.

AK-Rajan-Committee-Report-on-NEET-1.pdfs

AK-Rajan-Committee-Report-on-NEET-1.pdfs

More Related Content

Similar to AK-Rajan-Committee-Report-on-NEET-1.pdfs

Similar to AK-Rajan-Committee-Report-on-NEET-1.pdfs (20)

More from bhavenpr

More from bhavenpr (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AK-Rajan-Committee-Report-on-NEET-1.pdfs