During the last hearing concerning the irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2024 on July 8, the Supreme Court had directed the union government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) to assess the extent of the damages caused by the exam paper leak/breach. Additionally, the court instructed the NTA to identify if the beneficiaries of the breach could be distinguished from the honest candidates. Just two days later, on July 10, the NTA and the Ministry of Education (MoE) filed affidavits in the Supreme Court, which included an analysis report signed by IIT Madras.

The union government’s decision to assign the analysis task to IIT Madras has sparked allegations of quid pro quo. Critics suspect that the institute might be repaying a favour to the government following the mishap during the JEE (Advanced) in 2017. This choice also raises questions about potential anomalies and conflict of interest, as IIT Madras, being the organizing institute for JEE (Advanced) 2024, was a member of the governing body of NTA. Such concerns cast doubt on the objectivity and impartiality of the reports produced by IIT Madras for the government and NTA.

It must be noted that in the report by IIT Madras, submitted along with the affidavit by MoE clearly mentions that the analysis was not conducted by an IIT Madras team by themselves, rather, the analysis was performed by the NTA team which was only verified by the IIT Madras team. This is significant because this allows for NTA to cherry pick parameters and representations of the data in order to downplay the possibilities of widespread malpractices which would tarnish its reputation.

Moreover, in the IIT Madras report, it is mentioned that Python was used for data processing, PostgreSQL for data storage, and Metabase for analysis. However, the report fails to explain the methodology or the logic behind the selection of each parameter used in their analysis. There is no detailed explanation of the criteria or the reasoning for choosing specific parameters to represent in the report, nor how these parameters would effectively indicate whether there is widespread or localized malpractice. This lack of transparency in their methodology raises doubts about the validity of their conclusions regarding the integrity of the exam process.

Affidavit by Ministry of Education

The report states that the marks distribution follows a bell-shaped curve, indicating no abnormality. The NTA reasons that, given there are only 1.1 lakh seats, they analysed the data of the top 1.4 lakh students. However, half of these seats are in private colleges where any qualified candidate (more than 12 lakh in total) can secure admission with sufficient funds. Therefore, individuals aiming merely to qualify for NEET might also engage in malpractice, and they could fall anywhere within the rank ranges up to around 12 lakhs. The assumption that malpractices occurred exclusively within the top 5% or that everyone who engaged in malpractice ended up in the top 5% is unfounded. In fact, data (Annexure A1, page 21-23 of NTA affidavit) from Bihar reveals that candidates who obtained the question paper before the exam scored different marks, many of which are not within the top 1.4 lakh range. Consequently, it is not possible to determine if malpractice occurred by merely examining the curve. If the candidates who engaged in malpractices scored varying marks, and rise in marks due to malpractice is evenly distributed across different ranges, that would still produce a bell curve. Hence, the current analysis fails to account for the potential widespread nature of malpractice.

The NTA claims that the lack of a localized increase in toppers at specific exam centres is evidence against widespread malpractice in the exam. However, this argument is flawed. If malpractice is widespread and affects most exam centres, localized analysis will fail to detect anomalies because the issue is systemic. The NTA is not attempting to investigate potential systemic malpractice that could impact the entire exam. Instead, they are using the absence of localized malpractice using absence of localized inflation to argue against widespread malpractice. This approach ignores the possibility that mark inflation and other irregularities could be occurring uniformly across all centres, indicating a systemic rather than localized issue.

Tables 6 and 7 in the report present centre-wise rank lists, highlighting the centres with the maximum toppers. Table 6 shows data for 2024, while Table 7 shows data for 2023. They compare data of different centres from two different years and focus on the fact that in both cases, only two students from each centre made it to the top 100 ranks. They use this as an argument to deny localized malpractice, claiming that “if there was localized malpractice, then this number would have been much larger.” This is a baseless assertion because localized malpractice could also result in an increase in the number of people who qualified or achieved higher ranks than they would have without malpractice, and not necessarily only in the top ranks. The assumption that anyone engaging in malpractice would end up in the top rank list is flawed.

Here, the report emphasizes that this year there are only two students from each centre in the top 100, just as there were last year, indicating no localized malpractice. It is to be observed that here, where there is no increase in the number of toppers, they present it is evidence for lack of localized malpractice. However, in the case of an increase in the number of toppers, instead of investigating the possibility of a malpractice, they simply downplay the significance of the increase and move on. For example, in Table 1, the number candidates from Bengaluru to reach top 100 ranks increased from 1 in 2023 to 5 in 2024, which is a staggering 400% increase in Bengaluru alone. However, the NTA merely commented that this was the maximum increase seen in this category downplaying its significance and moved on to claim that this data does not indicate abnormality instead of investigating this significant increase in the number of toppers there. This raises doubts on the consistency of metrics used by the NTA to indicate malpractices.

It is unclear what magnitude of increase or decrease in the number of toppers in which category is deemed normal and how NTA and IIT Madras arrived at these standards. Importantly, when implying that the increase from 2023 to 2024 is not abnormal, it is essential to compare this with the increase from 2022 to 2023 and the previous years. However, IIT Madras did not consider the data of toppers from NEET 2022 in these tables. Without this comparison, the qualitative claim of the increase being normal enough to dismiss the possibility of malpractice is unsubstantiated.

Plotting the data in table 16, which is the only table in which data from 2022 is included, it is clearly seen that there is a huge abnormal mark inflation in 2024. In the report, NTA maintains that the increase in the number of toppers in individual centres and cities is not inexplicably abnormal. This logically suggests that more centres contributed to toppers in 2024 compared to 2023. There should also be a significant increase in the number of centres producing toppers in 2024 that never had toppers in previous years. As mentioned above, NTA had dismissed localized malpractice citing the lack of increase in toppers across years. If we follow the NTA’s logic that an increasing number of students from certain centres can indicate alleged malpractice, then the NTA should actually scrutinize data on centres or cities that never had toppers in previous years but suddenly have toppers in 2024. According to their own logic, this would be a better metric to identify potential centres where malpractice could have occurred. However, they do not provide this data. Instead, they are cherry-picking data that suggests consistency between this year and previous years, thereby claiming that there is no malpractice.

Moreover, NTA simply attributes this increase in the marks obtained by students to 25% reduction in syllabus.  However, this analysis cannot determine whether the inflation is due to the syllabus reduction, a decrease in exam difficulty, or malpractice. The NTA’s justification that a 25% syllabus reduction caused this significant mark inflation is unfounded and appears to be a misleading explanation, which IIT Madras has unfortunately endorsed.

There are two primary issues: mark inflation and malpractices. While this document is ostensibly commissioned to investigate malpractices, it tacitly downplays the mark inflation that has occurred, dismissing it as normal and simply attributing it to the increase in the number of candidates and the reduction in the syllabus.

Affidavit by NTA

The following graph indicates a significant increase in the number of students scoring higher marks in 2024 compared to 2023. This is evident from the higher tail extending towards higher scores.

NTA has only considered the data for the years 2023 and 2024 and claims that the increase in the number of toppers from 2023 to 2024 is “not significantly higher in number” than previous years. When claiming that the increase in number of toppers from 2023 to 2024 is not significant, it is essential to contextualise this claim historically with data of number of toppers from previous years, which the NTA has conveniently not done.

NTA explains that out of the 67 candidates who initially scored full marks, 6 of them got that score because of grace marks, which was later redacted and a retest was held for those candidates. As none of them scored 720 in the retest, the number of toppers is now 61. Further, it states that, out of the 61, 44 candidates went from scoring 715 to 720, on account of the revision of answer key, and hence the “actual” candidates with full marks are only 17.

Forty-four candidates ended up getting full marks after selecting an answer which is accepted as correct according to the NTA, causing a revision in the answer key. However, NTA, weaponising its own fault of providing two correct options to a question, is trying to create a false difference between “actual” toppers and other toppers, to downplay the mark inflation this year as evident with 61 toppers with full marks.

Moreover, the report attributes the increase in number of high scorers to 25% reduction in syllabus. This argument of NTA must be justified by demonstrating that students across different percentiles—those at the bottom, middle, and top sections of the performance curve—are scoring higher. If the exam is indeed easier due to the reduced syllabus, this ease should be reflected uniformly across all performance levels, resulting in a noticeable shift of the entire distribution towards higher scores. However, an examination of the data curve reveals that this is not the case. The lower end of the distribution shows little to no change in candidate performance, while there is a significant increase in marks among the top performers. Particularly, the number of students achieving very high scores has risen markedly compared to previous years.

Further, to claim that the exam was easier due to the reduction of the syllabus, the NTA in their affidavit (page 19) states that because the syllabus was reduced and the time remained the same, the question paper was much more “balanced”. However, despite the reduction in the syllabus, the number of questions students had to answer remained unchanged, and the time allotted was the same as in previous years. Hence, the NTA’s framing in the affidavit which suggests that the exam became easier due to more time, is misleading.

The NTA claims that “difficult and time-consuming chapters like P Block in chemistry and conceptual chapters in biology were deleted.” This statement reflects a strategic wordplay. They characterize chapters like p-Block, from which questions are often memory-based making them easier to attempt, as “difficult and time-consuming,” while characterizing unspecified chapters in biology as “conceptual,” implying that they were difficult as well. This renders the narrative that the exam was much easier due to syllabus reduction. Notably, the affidavit does not mention the physics syllabus reduction, wherein many of the subtopics that were removed still continues to be relevant for a comprehensive conceptual understanding of the chapters they were a part of. For instance, the fundamental concepts of average speed and average velocity are the subtopics “cut down” in the Class 11 Physics chapter introducing Kinematics. Moreover, many of the subtopics removed historically did not carry as much weightage in NEET. These considerations challenge the claim that the syllabus reduction made the exam significantly easier.

The NTA states that the syllabus reduction made the paper “balanced, ensuring accessibility for students from diverse backgrounds,” implying that the easier question paper enabled better performance from these students. This assertion raises significant concerns about the nature, intent, and attitude of NEET towards marginalized students in general. By claiming that reducing the syllabus and burden has helped marginalized students, the NTA implicitly admits that NEET has been unduly burdensome for these students in previous years.

Additionally, the NTA claims that the 2024 NEET-UG question paper was made easier to provide students from various geographical and socio-economic backgrounds an equal opportunity to succeed. They argue that this move was intended to discourage the growing dependency on coaching institutions. The NTA must substantiate its claim by providing information on the steps consciously taken to reduce the burden on marginalized students, and how this was reflected in the question paper. Further, it is important to analyse the data showing the proportion of students from marginalized backgrounds who secured admission into government colleges (ranks above 50,000) in 2024 compared to the previous years to assess the impact of these steps.

However, this claim is contradicted by NTA’s data showing that most of the top 60,000 rankers, who qualify for government medical seats, come from cities with extensive coaching facilities. In the report, IIT Madras argues that cities like Sikar, Kota, and Kottayam lead in the number of toppers within the top 1000 ranks due to “these places having many coaching classes”. The report inadvertently acts as an advertisement for coaching centres. Strikingly, when the NTA presents that the top cities producing the highest number of NEET rankers are those with many coaching classes, the NTA is essentially admitting that the ability to access and afford coaching classes is crucial for cracking NEET and achieving top ranks. This highlights a systemic bias within the NEET system that favours wealthier candidates and undermines the claim of improved accessibility for marginalized students.

The data analysis conducted by the NTA only examined whether students in these centres secured enough marks for “admission to medical colleges of primary importance,” which in our understanding refers to government colleges. This raises a doubt as to why NTA does not seem to deem worthy of consideration the possibility of students seeking to gain admission to private colleges engaging in malpractices. NEET initially promised to curb the exorbitant fees of private medical colleges, a promise yet to be fulfilled. The 50^th percentile cut-off to clear NEET ensures that individuals who can afford such high fees can surpass those with higher marks and still become doctors. While NEET was supposed to champion merit, it has failed to address the commercialization of medical education, which benefits the wealthy over those with higher scores. Now, even in their analysis of NEET malpractice, the NTA’s approach seems to exclude the wealthy from their scrutiny.

Instances of malpractices 

The case of malpractice in Godhra (page 34-36) highlights significant vulnerabilities in the NEET examination process. In Godhra, the deputy superintendent of examination conspired with students to manipulate OMR sheets. The deputy superintendent in this case was a school teacher at the examination centre who was responsible for sealing and returning the OMR sheets to the NTA and had the opportunity to fill in correct answers on blank OMR sheets left by the candidates (page 82-83). His involvement underscores how internal personnel can subvert security protocols despite the NTA’s measures to prevent malpractices.

The only reason the incident in Godhra came to light is because district officials discovered the plan and acted in advance to foil it. The Godhra case reveals a significant gap in the NTA’s oversight and security measures, suggesting that undetected malpractices could be happening elsewhere across the country without the knowledge of local authorities. This uncertainty further undermines the credibility of the NTA’s claims regarding the sanctity and integrity of the examination process.

The Godhra incident reveals systemic issues within the NTA’s protocols demonstrating that the perpetrators can be among the entrusted personnel. If malpractices occur at such systemic scales, then the current analysis by the NTA and IIT Madras, which is based on the assumption that malpractice can only occur through individual students cheating, will not be able to detect them. The analysis does not consider the issue of internal corruption within the system itself. There is an imperative need for mechanisms to be in place to protect the integrity of the exam from internal manipulation at administrative levels.

Moreover, the NTA’s affidavit mentions a paper leak in Patna, where individuals obtained the question paper before the exam. However, in the affidavit, it has not been explained how the question paper was leaked despite stringent security protocols, raising doubts about the effectiveness of NTA’s security measures. In the Patna case, it is crucial to note that the NTA still does not know how the question paper was leaked, as the matter is still under CBI investigation. Without understanding how this particular leak happened and determining whether similar leaks occurred elsewhere, the NTA cannot confidently claim that issues at these centres does not have “wide spread ramifications of impactable magnitude.” Without identifying and addressing the root cause of the leak, it is impossible to evaluate whether the exam process has suffered systemic failure or not.

In the last hearing, the Honourable Chief Justice of India asked whether the timing of the leaked question paper in Patna allowed enough time for it to spread across the country or if it was limited to a case of localized malpractice. In response, the NTA’s affidavit failed to address this crucial question. Evidence showed that candidates were tutored with the leaked question paper and provided with solutions, indicating that there was sufficient time to generate the answers, teach the students, and prepare them for the exam. However, the affidavit does not mention any of these instances or details. It also omits how the question paper was transferred to those generating the solutions, whether through electronic means or otherwise. This lack of information leaves significant gaps in understanding the extent and mechanics of the malpractice, further questioning the integrity of the examination process.

The way ahead

On page 74 of the affidavit, the NTA shames candidates who went to court for a re-examination, arguing that their scores are too low and insinuating that their motivation for calling for a reexam is to get another attempt. This begs the question who are the ‘right’ petitioners in the eyes of the NTA? Candidates who already scored high marks are unlikely to want the current exam scrapped, as they stand to gain from their existing scores. Only those who did not score highly would ask for a re-exam, as they are the ones most affected by any widespread malpractice. The NTA’s stance effectively silences any opposition or calls for a re-exam by dismissing petitioners based on their performance. This is a contrived way for the NTA to avoid accountability. The call for a re-NEET is about the NTA’s performance in terms of transparency and fairness as an examination conducting authority, and not about the petitioners’ performance. It is essential to focus on the integrity of the examination process rather than discrediting those who raise legitimate concerns.

Finally, students have been put through a lot already due to the stress caused by NEET this year and its failings. We request the NTA to not further exacerbate the misery of the students and their families by selectively choosing and presenting data and silencing student concerns. We demand that the NTA be transparent and make its data public for social audit so that we as a society can assist students in finding the truth and some long overdue relief.

The post If malpractice is widespread, across most exam centres, localised analysis will fail to detect anomalies: NTA’s flawed defence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Soon the news of 67 candidates securing AIR 1 with a perfect score of 720/720 and the high mark inflation this year caused worry to the students as this meant that the cut-offs would be sky high. Moreover, the claim that a few students were found to have scored 718/720 and 719/720 (which are impossible to get in NEET, as the marking scheme only awards +4 for right answer, -1 for the wrong answer and 0 if the question is not attended) causing confusion and suspicion among students. Further, the posts which circulated showing a few students with roll numbers close by to one another having a perfect score of 720/720, implying that they all possibly attended the exam from the same centre, only made matters worse.

Apprehensive students and parents took to social media to voice their concerns over the validity of the results. This prompted the NTA to issue a clarification on X (formerly Twitter). In their statement, the NTA explained that they had received few representations and court cases from candidates who raised concerns over the loss of time during the examination conducted on May 5, 2024. To address these issues, the NTA implemented a normalisation formula, devised and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment dated June 13, 2018. Addition of marks by this formula resulted in the unexpected scores of 718 and 719. However, this explanation did not satisfy many, who continued to question the integrity of the results and the rationale behind the normalization process. The incident has sparked a broader conversation about the transparency and reliability of high-stakes examinations in India.

In response to this, the NTA released yet another clarification through a press release on June 6. In that, the NTA claimed that the increase in number of candidates from 20,38,596 in 2023 to 23,33,297 in 2024 (an increase of 14%) “naturally” led to an increase in the number of high scorers. However, when we look at the number of toppers (AIR 1) from just 2 in 2023 to a whopping 67 in 2024, which is much higher than the 14% increase in the number of candidates. NTA also stated that among the 67 toppers with perfect scores, 44 of them got 720 due to revision in one answer key of Physics and 6 candidates got 720 due to compensatory marks awarded for loss of time. This still leaves us with 17 candidates who scored 720, which cannot entirely be attributed to the 14% increase in the number of candidates.

Regardless of the explanations, such mark inflation of unprecedented magnitude has a grave impact on the morale of students and tutors. For them, this means that even a very high score in a competitive exam like NEET, that demands tremendous efforts on their part to achieve, does not guarantee a decent result, which not only leaves them in a highly precarious state but also undermines their trust in the examination (and the education) system. Hence, the NTA must acknowledge the gravity of the issue instead of trying to write it off as a trivial consequence of increase in the number of candidates.

The judgement referred by the NTA for giving compensatory marks was for the case of Disha Panchal vs Union of India where the Supreme Court addressed issues with the conduct of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018. Due to technical glitches and mismanagement, many candidates faced difficulties, such as login failures and interruptions, leading to significant time loss during the exam. The Court ordered the application of a normalisation formula to adjust scores for affected candidates. There are multiple issues with using this judgment and its normalization formula for an exam like NEET. 

Online Vs Offline

The first major difference between the CLAT 2018 and the NEET 2024 exam is the mode of administration. The CLAT 2018 exam was conducted online, in which the students log into a system that meticulously tracks their activity. This system records the exact login time and technical glitches which allows the organising agency to determine with precision the exact amount of time lost by each student during the exam.

In contrast, the NEET exam was conducted in offline mode, making it impossible to accurately determine and compensate for any disruptions or time lost during the examination process. This fundamental difference in the mode of exam and data tracking facilities has significant implications for how the issue of time loss should be addressed and rectified in these different high-stakes exams.

In the press release, NTA mentioned that to address the concerns raised by the candidates regarding loss of examination time, factual reports of the functionaries and CCTV footages from the concerned exam centres were used to ascertain the time lost and with this data, the students were compensated using the formula devised and used for the CLAT 2018 case. Using CCTV footages to determine the time lost cannot be considered a valid replacement to the online logs which recorded the time lost to the second. The uncertainties introduced by this method of using CCTV footage to determine the time lost undermines the revered objective nature of the NEET exam itself.

In competitive exams like NEET, the discriminant at play between candidates of equal or similar subject mastery is often simply time management during the exam. It is a scenario in which time has the potential to almost convert into a rise in rank. In NEET, even a small difference in mark can result in a large difference in rank. Hence, not being precise and meticulous about time lost or compensatory marks is unfair to all the candidates and seriously brings into question the fairness of the exam.

Grievance Redressal

The second notable difference pertains to the grievance redressal mechanism established during the CLAT 2018 proceedings in the Supreme Court. On May 25, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an interim order that set up a grievance redressal committee composed of several judges and professors. This committee was tasked with examining every single complaint received from the candidates regarding the exam.

Moreover, the Supreme Court mandated the creation of a dedicated email account for students to submit their grievances. This email address was shared on the official CLAT website, ensuring that every candidate had ample time and opportunity to report any issues that they had encountered during the exam, particularly concerning lost time due to technical problems. 

The students were given a specific period to lodge their complaints. The grievance committee was then responsible for reviewing the complaints, assessing the validity of the grievances, and providing appropriate recommendations or decisions to the Supreme Court within a specified timeframe. This meticulous process ensured a thorough examination of all concerns, which contrasts sharply with the current handling of grievances in the case of NEET where no such open grievance redressal mechanism was set up to ensure the opportunity for all candidates to raise complaints on the conduct of the exam. Notably, in the press release, NTA informed that 1563 candidates, out of the 23 lakh candidates who appeared for NEET, were compensated.

In the case of CLAT 2018, the committee concluded in their report that the majority of the issues with the exam stemmed from the online nature of the exam. They found that many students experienced difficulties with the initial login process, and multiple login attempts further exacerbated the system’s performance issues. The report highlighted significant software and hardware inefficiencies that magnified these problems. The organizing agency’s failure to provide adequate and efficient software and computers was a critical factor contributing to these interruptions. Additionally, power failures at various centers caused further loss of time and disrupted the students’ concentration, impeding their smooth performance during this high-stakes test.

These findings underscore that the issues faced during CLAT 2018 were primarily due to its online mode of administration. In contrast, NEET 2024, conducted in an offline mode, presented a completely different set of challenges that differs fundamentally from those in an online setting.

Suggestions by the Committee

The committee proposed two potential courses of action to the Supreme Court. The first option was to cancel the entire test and reconduct it. However, the committee did not recommend this due to the significant logistical challenges. Instead, the committee favored a second approach, which was ultimately accepted. This method involved compensating students with additional marks to account for the time lost due to technical issues. The committee acknowledged that it lacked the expertise to devise an appropriate formula for this compensation. Therefore, they recommended that the Supreme Court appoint a competent statistician to develop a fair formula for awarding extra marks to the affected candidates.

The committee also recommended that, since an initial rank list had already been published, the updated rank list with normalized marks should not affect the existing rankings. To accommodate these additional entrants, an equal number of supernumerary seats were to be created on an ad hoc basis, ensuring that the students who were initially ranked did not lose their positions. The Supreme Court stated that it accepted this uncustomary practice as they did not want the students to suffer due to additional delay and went on to allow the creation of supernumerary seats for the candidates with revised scores to get admission.

In contrast, there was no initial rank list prior to the normalization in NEET 2024. The only rank list released included the updated scores of affected candidates. This lack of an initial ranking list and the subsequent release of a revised rank list without clear explanation about the normalization process has led to suspicion about whose marks have been adjusted and by how much. Unlike the CLAT case, where even supernumerary seats were introduced to maintain fairness, the NEET process appears opaque, leaving students unsure of how their scores were calculated and how the normalization impacted their ranks.

 Normalization formula for CLAT 2018

The entire normalization procedure rests on having the time lost by each candidate in seconds accurately which was possible in the online mode as the precise log in and log out times were recorded by the system.

Since they know the number questions attempted by the students and know how many of it were correct and incorrect, they compute the total original score out of all attempted questions.

They define the quantity Answering Efficiency as the following:

They then compute the number of additional questions the candidate would have attempted had there been no time loss using:

The number of additional questions so obtained is rounded to the nearest whole number, e.g. if we get 14.31, it is rounded to 14 (as apparent in the image above) and if we get 14.52, it is rounded to 15.

Now, they add this to the actual number of questions attempted to get the revised total number of questions attempted i.e, the total number of questions that the candidate would have attempted had there been no time loss.

To calculate the revised number of correctly and wrongly answered questions, they linearly extrapolate the ratio of correct and incorrect answers to the actual number of questions attempted onto the revised number of total questions attempted.

Both the revised number of right and wrong answers are rounded off to the nearest whole numbers. From the revised number of correct and wrong answers thus obtained, the normalized scores are calculated as per the exam’s marking scheme.

NTA, in the press release, claimed that it was due to the implementation of formula devised for the CLAT 2018 case, that two candidates got 718 and 719 marks respectively. However, according to the CLAT 2018 normalization procedure, the formula is used to compute the revised number of questioned answered correctly and wrongly (which are whole numbers) onto which the examination’s existing marking scheme is applied on. In NEET, the revised number of correct answers would be awarded +4 each and the revised number of wrong answers -1 each. Hence, while the normalized scores would be different from the original scores, the formula application does not explain the impossible scores such as 718 or 719, which is not allowed by the marking scheme. So even if NTA implemented this formula devised for the CLAT 2018 case, no candidate should be getting 719 or 718 marks. This raises the question of whether NTA actually implemented this formula and if so, whether it was implemented properly without errors. This discrepancy demands that NTA be transparent about the formula they used for revised scores and the rationale behind the method of adaptation of the formula in all intermediate steps in the process of normalization for public scrutiny.

We would like to note here that the procedure for normalization is not a simple awarding of certain number of marks for each minute lost commonly to all students affected. Rather, it factors in the accuracy rate (the ratio of actual number of right answers to the number of questions attempted) of each candidate in calculating their compensation. This is akin to the (sometimes controversial) application of the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern rule in cricket which factors in the run rate of the team to compute the revised target in a match interrupted by rain. Applying a simplified DLS method in a high-stakes competitive exam that decides the future of students requires careful deliberations and considerations. To ensure that the limitation of this system does not affect students, it is advisable to accommodate the candidates who gained eligibility with revised marks by creation of additional seats.

Moreover, based on the committee’s report, the Supreme Court recognized that, given the precise login and logout times recorded for each candidate, it was possible to accurately determine the actual time each candidate had available during the exam. This online data allowed for an exact calculation of the time lost by each student due to technical issues. As discussed earlier, this is not applicable for NEET, which is an offline exam.

In conclusion, the NTA has not provided a transparent and public explanation for the use of this specific formula for NEET, an offline exam. The ambiguity in the way in which this formula was applied raises concerns. There was no grievance redressal mechanism in place for all the candidates to utilize to represent the difficulties they faced. These, along with the sudden, rushed release of the NEET results on the night of the election counting day further exacerbates concerns about transparency and accountability. This situation has understandably led to widespread apprehension and frustration among students and parents who are now unsure of the fairness of the exam. NTA must come forward to explain the rationale behind its decisions and answer all the questions of the public.

Sulochan R is a PhD candidate in Science Education at Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR, Mumbai.

Pranav Jeevan P is a PhD candidate in Artificial Intelligence at IIT Bombay.

The post Scrutinising the procedure for awarding compensatory marks in NEET 2024 appeared first on SabrangIndia.