NEET is not so neat; dr Raj Bahadur

DR Raj Bahadur

The purpose of the competitive examination stands defeated when one has to fill the seats in a medical college with all and sundry, rather than the best candidates under the guise of 50th/40th percentile.

DR Raj Bahadur
Vice-Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot

Quality is a measure of excellence or the state of being free from deficiencies and significant variations. It is brought about by strict and consistent commitments to certain standards that achieve uniformity. The medical profession, in this context, deserves a human resource which does not compromise the quality healthcare. It has been enshrined in the "Hippocrates Oath" that there should be "non-malfeasance", ie "to do no harm". To ensure it, the society expects that a medical professional should be well versed with the latest knowledge and skill.

When it comes to taking care of human life, the knowledge of medicine should be excellent in quality. In addition, more important is the inculcation of the quality of compassion.

While the principle that education must not be a commodity that can be purchased without merit is a sound one, the stark reality of the medical education bazaar in our country has dangerous repercussions.

The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) has been designed after extensive churning to improve the quality of any new entrant to the medical profession. The efforts of the MCI, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Government of India) and the Supreme Court are laudable as they have brought all aspiring medical candidates under one ambit of NEET. Since NEET 2017 was a first experience, the lesson learnt from it would further help improve its scope in identifying the good quality of students.

An analysis of the data, depicted by the CBSE which conducts the NEET, to underline the issue of quality of the new entrants into medical profession reflects the healthcare delivery of the country.

According to this data (see box), 11,38,890 candidates were registered for NEET-2017. Of these, as many as 10,90,085 appeared in NEET. Among these, 6,11,739 candidates were declared qualified on the basis of minimum qualifying criteria of NEET-UG 2017 (50/40th percentile). It was further observed that 5,43,473 candidates had qualifying the criteria as 50th percentile with marks ranging from 697 to 131 out of the total 720. While in the cohort of 40th percentile among various categories the marks range between 130 and 107 out of 720. (Candidates with over 130 marks in case of reserved category were considered against general category, wherever eligible). 

From these figures, it is evident that in the group of 50th percentile, candidates securing as high as 96.8% marks and getting as low as 18.2% marks were eligible for admission to the MBBS course. This group had as many as 5,43,473 candidates. Similarly, in the group of 40th percentile, the maximum marks obtained were 18.05% of total and the low was 14.8 %. These were the 68,266 candidates.

In the year 2016, a total of 8,02,594 candidates were registered, of whom 7,31,223 appeared in the NEET examination (see box). Of these, 4,09,477 candidates were declared as NEET qualified on the basis of the minimum qualifying criteria of NEET-UG 2016 (50/40th percentile). It was further observed that as many as 1,71,329 candidates had the qualifying criteria as 50th percentile with marks range between 685 and 145 out of the total 720 marks. While in the cohort of 40th percentile among various categories, the marks ranged between 678 and 118 out of the total 720. From these figures, it is evident that in the group of 50th percentile, candidates securing as high as 95.1% marks and as low as 20.1% marks were eligible for admission to the MBBS course. This group had as many as 1,71,329 candidates. Similarly, in the group of 40th percentile, the maximum marks obtained were 94.1% and lowest were 16.3% marks and these were 2,38,148 candidates. Here the candidates were considered in their respective categories as compared to the data reflected in NEET 2017, where the candidates of reserved categories were shown to be considered in general category. 

 The statistics in the above box reveal that for the academic year 2017-18, the candidates securing 18.2 per cent marks, ie131 out of 720 in the general category and 14.8 per cent marks, ie 107 out of 720 was eligible for admission. Similarly, in the academic year 2016-17, the candidates securing 20.1 per cent marks, ie 145 out of 720 in the general category and 16.3 per cent marks, ie 118 out of 720 were eligible for admission.

NEET, which is a competitive eligibility examination, has allowed the admissions of candidates who were lower in ranks, which probably would have never ever been admitted in medical schools in pre-NEET days. The one who loses out for admission following NEET, is often the weakest student in terms of money and influence, whose only asset may be merit, that probably does not count much in our country.

The very purpose of the competitive examination stands defeated, when one has to fill the required number of seats in a medical college with all and sundry, rather than best available candidates under the guise of 50th/40th percentile. 

A capacity in the MBBS course in the country should be deemed to be eligible, irrespective of the percentile secured in the NEET examination. t this juncture, it appears that to ensure that the admissions of only meritorious candidates are ensured, only three times the sanctioned intake capacity in the MBBS course in the country should be deemed to be eligible, irrespective of the percentile secured in the NEET examination. 

The government, in order to provide sufficient number of doctors in the healthcare delivery, is apparently matching the WHO norms by adopting a two-pronged strategy to increase the number of seats and simultaneously reducing the eligibility merit in the qualifying examination in both UG and PG courses. 

The feedback taken from meritorious students, who had forsaken the seats in private institutions despite having a higher merit position, indicates that they could not afford the fee structure of private institutions and deemed universities. Therefore, a method may be devised to cap the fee of the private institutions/private universities/deemed universities so that the government is not compelled to lower the eligibility score. 

Hence, in order to justify the  decision of increasing the number of medical seats in the country to strengthen healthcare delivery, we must look for other avenues like the opening of new government/government-aided medical colleges with affordable fee structures (as has been recently adopted by Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh), rather than lowering the qualifying merit of NEET to fill the medical seats.