Standardised tests and the pathology of the education industry
ENOUGH has already been said and written about the scams related to standardised tests like NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) and NET (National Eligibility Test) that shape the life trajectory of the young. The anguish of students and their parents and the political protest against the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA) indicate the way these tests have occupied central space in the educational landscape of the country. Yet, amid the uproar, what seems to be missing is the courage to question the very rationale of such tests and reflect on the damage that the simultaneous growth of the coaching industry has caused to the mental/aesthetic/cultural development of the young mind. Never forget that this gigantic money-making enterprise continues to tempt the anxiety-ridden parents through its promise of transforming their children into one-dimensional ‘exam warriors’ gifted with the appropriate ‘strategy’ needed for ‘cracking’ these tests and eventually achieving what this neurotically competitive society regards as ‘success’ — a doctor/engineer with a lucrative ‘package’.
It is high time we accepted the fact that the multiple-choice question (MCQ)-centric standardised tests cannot evaluate a student’s academic depth, critical thinking and creative imagination. Any sensible academic who has engaged with teaching and research would agree that there need not necessarily be any correlation between one’s academic interest and one’s ability to identify the ‘correct answer’ from a set of four/five options and tick it quickly on the OMR sheet. While academic knowledge or creatively nuanced critical thinking requires the time to reflect and go deeper into an issue or entertain ambiguities and pose new questions, MCQ-centric standardised tests demand rote learning or internalisation of some sort of strategy to instantly identify the ‘correct answer’ without much thought. In fact, it needs endless drilling or a highly mechanised routine of solving an endless series of MCQs through all sorts of mock tests. While academic knowledge or creative thinking demands the company of great teachers and pedagogues, standardised tests require coaching strategists. Think of, for instance, an exam like NEET. Can it really evaluate whether a young aspirant has the aptitude or inclination to pursue a career in medical sciences and become a doctor? Possibly, a doctor needs the following faculties: the intense power of observation, the delicate art of relating to the patient — not just his/her bodily symptoms, but psychic and existential states of being — and above all, the patience to explore new frontiers of knowledge in medical sciences. But then, a standardised test like NEET — a set of 180 questions in physics, chemistry and biology to be answered in 200 minutes — has nothing to do with the qualities that a potential doctor needs. In a way, it is like a lottery — a device to eliminate lakhs of young aspirants instantly rather than a serious attempt to choose those who are really inclined to the call of the medical vocation.
Likewise, an exam like NET is utterly shallow and by no means capable of evaluating one’s research interests in foundational knowledge systems like natural sciences and humanities or teaching abilities/pedagogic visions. To take a simple illustration, if because of the very nature of MCQs, you are required to memorise a specific definition, the date of a particular historical event, or, for that matter, the year of publication of sociologist Max Weber’s book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, it does by no means indicate that you have engaged with serious social science texts, understood the nuanced philosophic debates or acquired the ability to bring new research findings in your teaching practices. The irony is that a ‘machine’ like the NTA has no creative surplus; it can only manufacture all sorts of ‘fact-centric/objective questions’ with one and only one ‘correct answer’ in order to device the quick process of elimination.
Moreover, with the normalisation and sanctification of such standardised tests, we are creating a restless, anxiety-ridden and unhappy generation. For them, there is no joy in learning and no creative experimentation. Instead, as a significant part of their formative years is spent in shopping around coaching centres and learning the war strategy for cracking these tests, everything loses its academic/philosophic depth. Physics is what the Kota factory regards as ‘worth learning’; or, for that matter, history is what the fancy IAS coaching centre regards as valuable. It is doubtful whether this sort of orientation to education can really produce good doctors, brilliant engineers or great teachers/researchers. Yes, these tests manufacture tales of failure. But then, the ‘success stories’ are by no means promising. In a way, corruption and malpractices are deeply ingrained in the coaching industry, which is worth Rs 1 lakh crore.
Quite often, a question is asked: Is there any alternative, particularly when lakhs of students want to become doctors/engineers/IAS officers/university teachers? Or, is there any other way of eliminating people? Alternatives to exams like NEET and NET can evolve only if we are honest and bold enough to realise that what prevails is wrong, academically as well as ethically. Only then can we acquire the courage to question the idea of ‘one nation, one exam’ and think of a largely decentralised process of selection or giving relative autonomy to colleges/universities/academic institutions to evolve their own ways of designing thoughtful/imaginative/research-oriented exams or entrance tests. And this alone can make coaching centres irrelevant and bring some sanity to the culture of learning.
Are the techno-managers of the NTA capable of understanding this basic truth?
