IIT-M analysis said that marks distribution followed a bell-shaped curve, typical for any large-scale exam and suggested no abnormalities.
Published Jul 16, 2024 | 1:00 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 16, 2024 | 1:23 PM
NEET. (Representational image)
The IIT-Madras report absolving the NEET-UG of any abnormalities has come in for severe criticism from experts, who questioned its accuracy.
In a fresh affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Education included the report on 10 July, a day before the apex court was to hear a batch of petitions challenging the test that could make or mar the future of several students. The hearing was later deferred to 18 July.
However, the postponement of the hearing did not deter experts from challenging the IIT-M findings.
The IIT-M analysis
The IIT-M analysis indicated that marks distribution followed a bell-shaped curve, typical for any large-scale examination and suggested no abnormalities. It also ruled out the contention that a few students in select examination centres received undue benefits.
The Chennai-based institute analysed the results of 2023 and 2024 to identify any abnormal patterns. The focus was on the top 1.4 lakh ranks, given that the total number of seats across the country was around 1.1 lakh.
The granular analysis was conducted to detect any malpractices or unusual benefits to students at specific exam centres or cities. It revealed no evidence of mass malpractice or any localised benefits leading to abnormal scores.
It indicated that there was no large-scale wrongdoing, or specific centres or cities showing unusually high ranks.
The report noted an overall increase in marks, particularly in the range of 550 to 720. This increase was consistent across various cities and centres and was attributed to a 25 percent reduction in the syllabus, the report said.
Moreover, high-scoring candidates were distributed across multiple cities and centres, reducing the likelihood of malpractice, it added.
Speaking to South First, RTI activist Dr Vivek Pandey said the study analysed 1.4 lakh students.
“In any study, researchers budget for a margin of error of at least one percent. Here, given the large numbers, the margin would include around 1,400 students. These students can still get into colleges. The question is not about the number of students who flunked the exam, but the sanctity of the examination which has been compromised,” he said.
“Also, NEET is the sole entrance exam for MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and nursing courses. However, IIT-M used only 1.4 lakh data points, considering there were 1.1 lakh MBBS seats. This implies that the government undervalues AYUSH and nursing, potentially allowing malpractice in these fields,” Dr. Pandey added.
“The National Testing Agency-assigned city coordinators have been arrested in one state, and a school principal was arrested in another. Arrests related to the leak have occurred in over five states so far, with confessions proving that the exam leak happened offline and other media,” he pointed out.
“Twenty-four lakh families are completely disturbed by this leak and the scam affecting their children’s futures. The alarming data of rank inflation in NEET-UG this year — despite the government claiming the leak was on a very small scale — is troubling. Imagine how many undeserving doctors will replace deserving ones if this exam is not cancelled. Remember, this fraud will directly or indirectly affect all of us when it enters the healthcare system,” Dr Pandey warned.
A former professor at IIT-Kanpur, Dheeraj Sanghi, said that IIT-M’s main claim was the bell curve similar to any entrance exam. “However, it’s not quite a bell curve,” he opined.
“Have they done a sensitivity analysis? What if 5,000 students had received 20 marks less or more? Would the bell curve or the distribution still be similar? If the distribution remains similar, then the claim that two similar-looking curves mean there is no anomaly is untenable,” Sanghi said.
IIT-M also claimed that it had done a similar study at different levels of granularity, even down to the level of individual centres, and had not seen any anomalous behaviour.
“However, what do they mean by anomalous behaviour? For example, six people getting 720 marks at a single centre seems very anomalous to me. I wonder what kind of analysis was done,” he asked.
He also pointed out the IIT-M’s claim of marked inflation, most likely due to an easier paper, after a 25 percent reduction in the syllabus.
“But the analysis does not indicate anything related to marked inflation. The right way to analyse this would be to compare the marks for the 99th percentile last year and this year, as well as the 90th, 80th, 70th, and 50th percentiles for both years,” he opined.
“We could then determine the inflation at each level. If the inflation at each level is consistent, say two percent every time or around 1.9 percent to 1.8 percent on average, then we could attribute the marks inflation to the easier paper,” he said.
Sanghi said that the NTA should release the data to the public, concealing the students’ personal information, so that anyone can analyse it. There seems to be a hurried approach. We should be able to do a thorough analysis to find out if there is any problem,” he suggested.
Managing Director of ‘Scholars Den’ Vivek Thakur stated in an X post that the IIT-M followed the NTA’s lead. He felt that one government agency was trying to protect another.
“The hypothesis: Nothing went wrong, no paper leak, no mass malpractice. Data Analysis: show the data supporting the above hypothesis, hide the data against it—don’t release complete data. IIT-M will toe the NTA line—one government agency trying to save the other one,” he said.
He posed further questions to the government: “Why did 27 students from five different states take the exam in Godhra, Gujarat? No parent would allow their kids to do this unless there was considerable confidence in the wrongdoers’ record,” he said.
“Why is there a significant increase in high scores in the 650-720 marks range, a phenomenon never seen before in NEET or any other exam of similar stature? Why is Sanjeev Mukhiya, the alleged mastermind behind the leak, absconding since 6 May, though the matter came to light after the furore over the result on 4 June,” he asked.
Further, he said that there were four possible factors for the general inflation of marks in a competitive exam: An easy paper, more time, less syllabus, and better preparation.
With just a 10-16 percent reduction in the syllabus and all other factors remaining almost constant, why is there a huge shift in scores only towards the top? The upward shift should be more visible for low scorers.
“With extremely poor management of exam centres — 47 percent lacking mandatory CCTV cameras, centres in remote locations, and mostly left at the mercy of school staff—can malpractices be ruled out,” he wondered.
“How are students who failed in Board exams topping NEET, considering NEET is an exam closely aligned with the Board syllabus? Why didn’t the NTA provide the exam paper to the Bihar Economic Offences Unit (EOU) for 45 days to match it with the burnt remains of the leaked paper,” he questioned.
(Edited by Majnu Babu)
(South First is now on WhatsApp and Telegram)
