.png?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
During the most recent hearing regarding the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test - Undergraduate (NEET-UG) irregularities on July 8, the Supreme Court directed the Centre and the National Testing Agency (NTA), the body responsible for conducting the exam, to assess whether the breach impacted the entire examination, and further directed it to identify if the beneficiaries of the breach can be separated from the honest candidates.
Within a span of two days, on July 10, an affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras, concluding that the mark distribution indicated that there were no abnormalities witnessed in this examination, which was conducted on May 5 for more than 24 lakh students.
In light of this, a tweet on the social media platform X by user Vivek Thakur (@VivekThakurVT) mentioned a series of links to a blog authored by Professor Dheeraj Sanghi, a former professor at IIT Kanpur, and Vice-Chancellor at JK Lakshmipat University in Rajasthan. In the blog, Professor Sanghi explores his hypothesis regarding why IIT Madras has supported NTA by releasing data that supports their position. It may be noted that Vivek Thakur is the Managing Director of Scholars Den, a coaching institute, and an alumnus of IIT Kharagpur.
A few, including Thakur, have characterised this as a reciprocal "quid-pro-quo" gesture, suggesting that the institute is repaying a favour to the Centre following the JEE (Advanced) mishap in 2017.
EdexLive in an exclusive conversation with Professor Sanghi, unearthed the details of the 2017 issue and analysed how accurate the data is according to the report.
Can you simplify how the judgement given back in 2017 was not justified? How does it relate to the ongoing National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) case?
For a few questions in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) paper of 2017, grace marks were awarded to a particular demographic of students who had attempted it. This was termed as 'unfair' by several other students, as they deemed the question "vague" and hence, they had not attempted it. A few had approached the Supreme Court seeking a dissolution of the rank list.
In a separate incident, the Hindi version of the paper had typographical errors yet, even students who attempted the question in English, their preferred language, were awarded marks.
Professor Sanghi argues that if there was a method for the institute to assess students' preferred language and award marks accordingly, why was it not implemented at that time?
When the issue was brought to court, the Attorney General representing the case described the task of grading these 2,50,000 students as impossible and extremely demanding. However, Professor Sanghi commented on the matter, stating, "It is simply a matter of changing the key and running the software, which should not take long to produce the results."
Now, one may enquire as to how the 2017 case and the current NEET UG case are related. To this, Professor Sanghi said, "At that time, IIT Madras was not the sole body making decisions. There was a committee constituted for the purpose, which included academicians and directors of institutes. I have been a part of similar committees where partisan opinions floated around. They would say that importance should be paid to what the judges of the Supreme Court would understand rather than fair marks."
Highlighting the significance of having experts who understand the intricacies of the exam, he informed EdexLive that the committee's primary objective is to simplify the process and ensure fairness for the students, and nothing more, and this also applies to the NEET exam, where the fairness of the examination should be of paramount importance.
Was the NEET UG IIT Madras report compiled in haste?
Submitted in a span of two days, it may be contended that the report had failed to include important details. According to Professor Sanghi, "The report does not appear to be hurried but there are other factors."
One aspect of the report appeared to be quite controversial, also highlighted by several X users is the "bell-shaped curve"
"There is no possible discrepancy with the structure of the graph or the shape of the curve but my question is how can one decipher if the students did not benefit by using undue methods? Why is that clarification not provided?" interrogates the former IIT Kanpur professor.
Given the size of the data, that is 1.4 lakh, if a large number of students were awarded 10 or 20 marks, within a particular category of distribution of scores, there would be an imperceptible difference, not noticeable at all, contends Dr Sanghi.
Another point put forth by him was that, "There may be no problem with the shape of the curve, but it tells you nothing. It does not address the contention of people — whether it was just a handful of candidates awarded the extra score, or if they scored via other means."
To such possible debatable points, Dr Sanghi puts forth his opinion on how the issue could have been addressed.
"A long-tail graph could have been more accurate in such cases. The marks in a typical university exam would look bell-shaped because of the normal distribution of scores, but when it comes to entrance exams, they are essentially represented by long-tail curves," he suggested.
The table released shows a rise in numbers (in 2024) of people who scored 700-720. Can a 25% reduction in syllabus be a valid reason?
"It is potentially right but there is no valid proof of such a statement. What could possibly be the proof of it? If the marks are higher due to a possible reduction in the syllabus, then the marks should increase at each percentile," stated Dr Sanghi.
He contends that although people are trying to draw their conclusions from the data, but, "neither IIT's stance nor the people who are trying to disprove it, is correct".
However, he suggests that there might be a way to find out if the syllabus reduction had particularly profited the students.
He asserted, "If students had gained an advantage due to this, marks should increase in every percentile. Hence, a percentage rise in scores in every percentile should be depicted. Now this year, marks are higher, but how much higher? Now, that kind of analysis hasn't been attempted in the report," he alleged.
Further, he said that the scores at different percentiles for the years should be compared to conclude if this was a reason for the abrupt rise in marks.
Were there no abnormalities in the exam, as claimed by the report "manufactured" by IIT Madras?
As per Dr Sanghi, there are instances where clear anomalies were reported, the first instance was the emergence of six toppers from a single centre, which was hidden under the garb of grace marks.
Expressing his disagreement, he claims, "The way the NTA has dealt with the entire issue is questionable. If there is an indication of rank inflation, then they must show valid proof of it, rather than including inconclusive data.
Highlighting IIT Madras's report which is currently unavailable to the public, except for snippets of it, he also shed light on the elusiveness of the process.
He further added that the NTA should be more transparent in its methods. "If the NTA had diligently released all the necessary data to the public, then such a case would not have arisen."
"A few students can file a case in a court, but what about the others who cannot? Is it not the government's responsibility to ensure justice for them as well?" exclaims Dr Sanghi. "My gut feeling says that there is corruption, or there must be severe mismanagement in several of these bodies associated with conducting such large-scale examinations," he said while expressing his distrust over the entire issue.
The Supreme Court, on July 18, will presume its hearing on the petitions submitted regarding the anomalies in the NEET-UG examination.
For more information watch this video here:
Do you have any other opinion on the report submitted by IIT Madras? Let us know in the comment sections or write to edexlive@newindianexpress.com
