
Over the past few months, the normalisation process in competitive examinations has become a lightning rod for controversy, sparking widespread protests and legal challenges.
From the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduates (NEET-PG), students across the country have raised serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of score adjustment methods used to balance varying levels of difficulty across different exam shifts.
Normalisation, a statistical tool designed to ensure parity between candidates attempting the same exam in multiple shifts, has been criticised for its supposedly opaque formulas and questionable execution.
While exam-conducting bodies argue that it is a necessary logistical measure, students claim it often favours a select few while penalising others, especially in fact-based exams where determining question difficulty is inherently subjective.
The issue has reached a boiling point, with student protests erupting in Prayagraj last month over the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (UPPSC) reliance on normalisation for its multi-shift exams.
In Bihar, aspirants clashed with police wielding lathis last week, while protesting the anticipated use of normalisation in the 70th Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) examination, fearing it could lead to unfair scoring.
Similarly, NEET-PG aspirants have accused the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) of using flawed normalisation formulas, leading to discrepancies in state counselling merit lists.
The dissatisfaction culminates tomorrow, December 10, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a pivotal case challenging NEET-PG’s normalisation process after deferring it six times since September. The case’s outcome could set a precedent for how competitive exams are conducted in India.
As exam authorities attempt to defend normalisation as a logistical necessity, students are left questioning the trade-offs being made — between cost efficiency and fairness, between administrative convenience and their futures.
Why is normalisation so contentious?
Normalisation is widely accepted as a statistical method to ensure fairness in multi-shift exams, and to account for variations in difficulty between question papers. It adjusts candidates’ raw scores based on the relative performance of all test-takers in each shift, typically using parameters like mean and standard deviation.
For instance, if one shift’s paper is deemed harder, the scores of candidates from that shift may be “upscaled” to ensure parity with those from an easier shift. The goal is to create a level playing field, but students and experts argue that its application in certain types of exams is inherently flawed.
According to Dr Ishika Jain, the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court case challenging NEET-PG’s normalisation process, the process disproportionately penalises students in fact-based exams.
“In fact-based exams, there’s no logical way to compare the difficulty of factual questions,” she explained, adding, “You can’t say that knowing one fact, like how malaria affects the human body, is inherently harder than knowing another fact, like how typhoid does.”
This point is echoed in the criticism that normalisation relies on subjective judgements about difficulty levels. For example, Ishika alleged that the NEET-PG normalisation method, based on the performance of the top 0.1 percentile, can unfairly skew results.
“If the top ten students in a shift perform exceptionally well, it sets a benchmark that may not reflect the actual difficulty of the exam for everyone else,” she argued.
Rakesh Jain, Founder of NEET Navigator, a prominent platform offering guidance and resources for medical aspirants preparing for the exam, provided a contrasting perspective. He acknowledged the inherent subjectivity in normalisation but defended it as a globally recognised practice necessary for managing multi-shift exams.
“No formula or process is perfect,” Rakesh said, “but that doesn’t mean we don’t implement changes. The problem lies more in poor communication and lack of transparency, especially when students are informed of changes at the last minute.”
The judiciary has increasingly stepped in to address growing dissatisfaction with exam management. In a ruling today, December 9, the Madhya Pradesh High Court criticised NEET-PG’s state merit list for being calculated using raw scores instead of normalised ones. The court directed authorities to recalculate the merit list using normalised scores and to ensure incentive marks were applied to the normalised scores, not raw ones.
Systemic flaws blown out of proportion?
Students and aspirants argue that systemic issues, including bureaucratic inefficiencies and cost-cutting measures, often exacerbate the challenges of normalisation.
“The exam bodies prioritise logistical convenience over fairness,” Ishika alleged, claiming that multi-shift exams save money but come at the cost of student morale. Rakesh, however, countered that logistical challenges are a reality in large-scale exams like NEET-PG, and single-shift exams are not always feasible.
The lack of transparency in how normalisation is implemented further fuels discontent. “Government agencies fail to communicate their intentions and processes effectively,” Rakesh said.
He pointed out that students’ frustrations are often amplified by social media, which spreads misinformation and increases anxiety.
“Most students don’t even understand how normalisation works, but they feel it’s unfair because of the noise around it,” he opined.
The path forward
Both Ishika and Rakesh agree that transparency and communication are key to restoring trust. While Ishika advocates for single-shift exams to eliminate the need for normalisation, Rakesh believes better change management is the solution.
“It’s not about whether normalisation should exist, it’s about how you introduce and explain it to students,” he said.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on NEET-PG’s normalisation practices, the debate continues.