For millions of Indian students, completing school is no longer considered the final stage of academic preparation. Instead, it has become the starting point for another round of intense competition.
After spending years preparing for board examinations, many students begin preparing again from the beginning for multiple high-pressure entrance tests.
Engineering aspirants prepare for JEE Main and JEE Advanced, medical candidates appear for NEET, and students seeking admission to central universities take CUET. Teacher recruitment exams, research fellowships and several postgraduate programmes also have their own national-level examinations. As a result, a single three-hour test often carries more weight than years of classroom performance.
The debate gained fresh attention after education entrepreneur Maheshwer Peri posted on X, arguing that India should move beyond simply making entrance examinations secure from leaks and instead question whether the country actually needs such a large number of entrance tests.
He suggested that board exam results, with 80% or above marks, could act as the minimum eligibility requirement for top institutions such as IITs and AIIMS, with entrance tests conducted only for students meeting that benchmark.
The discussion that followed his post turned into a broader debate, with several users raising arguments both in favour of and against the idea.
When board marks lost importance
For many decades, board examinations were the main pathway to higher education. However, increasing competition and differences among school boards forced institutions to look for a common selection mechanism.
CUET was introduced to create a standardised admission process for central universities, while NEET replaced multiple medical entrance examinations with a single national-level test.
Critics argue that although common entrance exams aim to create equal opportunities, they have reduced the importance of consistent school performance. They say the system has contributed to the rise of "dummy schools," where students remain enrolled formally but spend most of their time preparing at coaching centres.
Is an 80% board mark requirement fair?
JEE already follows a model somewhat similar to Peri's suggestion by requiring candidates to meet a minimum Class 12 performance criterion before admission to premier institutions.
A 75% aggregate in board exams or being among the top 20 percentile is required as an eligibility condition for JEE. Therefore, introducing a similar requirement for NEET would not be entirely new. However, an 80% benchmark would create additional challenges, especially due to differences between education boards.
A 90% score from CBSE or ICSE may not represent the same academic standard as a 90% score from boards such as Maharashtra HSC or Bihar Board. Variations in evaluation methods and marking patterns mean that boards with more lenient assessment systems could make it easier for students to cross an 80% threshold, affecting the fairness of the selection process.
There is also concern that relying heavily on board marks could allow students who benefited from easier evaluation standards to enter institutions without being fully prepared for demanding academic programmes.
Recruiters in the technical sector have often pointed out that some engineering graduates achieve high marks but struggle with fundamental concepts in their own fields.
At institutions like IITs and AIIMS, a selection system based mainly on board marks could potentially increase academic difficulties and dropout rates, replacing one challenge with another.
The NEET debate
Government medical colleges generally offer MBBS education at relatively affordable costs, often amounting to a few lakh rupees for the entire course. Private medical colleges, however, can charge fees exceeding ₹1 crore and sometimes approaching ₹1.5 crore.
Government seats usually go to candidates with stronger NEET rankings, while some private institutions admit students with lower ranks when financial ability becomes a deciding factor.
This has raised questions about whether all medical colleges should follow the same admission system when affordability already influences access to many private seats.
There is also a historical argument for allowing more institution-specific selection systems. AIIMS New Delhi and Armed Forces Medical College previously conducted their own entrance examinations and interviews for years, with fewer controversies partly because the applicant pool was smaller and more selective.
Supporters of a single national medical entrance exam, however, argue that NEET provides one of the few opportunities for talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds to compete for medical seats based on merit rather than financial resources. They believe removing NEET could increase dependence on expensive private colleges and less transparent admission systems.
The seat shortage problem
The huge gap between the number of applicants and available seats remains the biggest challenge.
In 2025, more than 1.4 crore students appeared for Class 12 board examinations across CBSE, ICSE and state boards.
Against this, IITs offer around 17,000 seats, AIIMS and related institutions have roughly 1,900 seats, and National Law Universities together provide around 3,600 seats.
No admission method—whether board marks or entrance examinations—can eliminate this basic shortage. The only difference is how the filtering process is carried out.
The same issue exists beyond engineering and medicine. CAT, for example, attracts around 2.5 million applicants while top business schools have only around 5,000 to 6,000 seats.
The coaching industry factor
The discussion around entrance examinations is closely linked to India's growing coaching industry.
The test preparation sector is estimated to be worth more than ₹58,000 crore and is expanding annually at around 15% to 20%. More than 7.1 crore students are enrolled in coaching classes across the country.
Cities such as Kota, Hyderabad, Delhi and Patna attract thousands of students every year. Families often spend several lakh rupees on coaching fees, study materials, accommodation and test series.
Students from economically weaker backgrounds often cannot access these resources and depend mainly on classroom education, raising concerns about whether entrance exams truly measure ability or also reflect access to expensive preparation.
Critics argue that this creates an unequal competitive environment.
The mental pressure associated with coaching hubs has also become a major concern. Kota has become a symbol of both academic ambition and examination stress, recording 29 student suicides in 2023, the highest figure in eight years.
Following measures such as mandatory counselling, safety measures in hostels and increased monitoring, the number dropped to 17 in 2024. The figures indicate that while exam-related pressure remains serious, focused interventions can help reduce its impact.
Debate moves beyond paper leaks
Until recently, discussions around entrance exams mainly focused on paper leaks and examination security.
After the NEET-UG controversy in 2024, Parliament passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, introducing stricter punishments for organised malpractice.
Following protests over the NEET-UG leak and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the government also announced a high-level task force led by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani to recommend technology-based reforms for conducting safer examinations.
The new law includes strict penalties, including imprisonment of up to 10 years and fines up to ₹50 lakh for individuals involved in malpractice, while organised paper leak networks can face fines of up to ₹10 crore.
However, arguments raised by people like Maheshwer Peri have shifted attention toward a larger issue: whether India has become overly dependent on high-stakes entrance examinations.
According to this viewpoint, improving exam security addresses only one part of the problem, while the larger question is whether the admission system itself needs restructuring.
What could replace the current system?
Finding an alternative remains complicated.
Some education experts believe board exam performance should receive greater importance, with entrance tests serving only as an additional screening stage.
Others argue that this could simply transfer pressure from entrance exams to board examinations while creating new concerns about differences in evaluation standards among boards.
Another proposal is to retain national-level entrance tests but redesign them to focus more on analytical skills, reasoning and problem-solving rather than memorisation, speed and coaching-based preparation.
There is broad agreement that India's current admission system requires review. However, the challenge lies in developing a model that is both fair and practical.
Maheshwer Peri's post has reignited a long-standing debate in Indian education: whether a student's future should depend mainly on performance in a single competitive examination or whether the system should give greater importance to years of academic learning and overall development.
