Why the Education Ministry Is Right to Push NTA — and Why Exam Reform Must Accelerate

I woke up the morning I read that the education ministry had pressed the National Testing Agency (NTA) over the slow pace of exam reforms and felt that familiar mixture of frustration and, oddly, vindication. Frustration because the NEET-UG paper leak and subsequent delays in CUET processing are painful reminders of a system that moves too slowly when lives and careers hang in the balance. Vindication because many of us have been warning for years that incremental tinkering won't fix structural problems.

Reports and timelines in multiple education outlets underscore why the ministry is pushing. The atmosphere around national exams is noisy and anxious — candidate numbers have ballooned, logistics are vast, and the stakes are enormous. I saw the same themes articulated across the press and exam portals I follow closely — from coverage of NEET controversies to CUET scheduling headaches (Mahamedia News, Career Mantrana).

What’s at stake

• Fairness: Every paper leak, every delayed result, chips away at students' faith in meritocracy.
• Equity: Transitioning to computer‑based tests (CBT) can advantage those with resources unless we deliberately bridge the digital divide.
• Credibility: The reputation of our institutions — and of the NTA itself — is on the line.

When the Education Ministry presses for faster reform it is not bureaucratic grandstanding. It’s a signal that the tolerances for risk, delay, and opacity have shrunk. The public rightly expects both immediate repairs (tightened security, transparent investigations) and durable change (process redesign, technology adoption, better timelines).

What I’ve been saying — years ago

I have written about these shifts before, and in this moment those posts feel eerily prescient. I flagged the likely move of NEET to CBT and the need to give students practice on mobile-based mock tests in several of my earlier posts (see my note on "Test Score History" where I shared the ET report on a possible CBT transition Test Score History). I also published a practical primer — "How to Beat NEET‑UG — 2025" — that stressed mock tests, multilingual access, and low-friction digital practice for students who cannot afford coaching How to Beat NEET‑UG – 2025. And I argued that AI and simple mobile-first tools can democratize preparation long before policy catches up (AI assistant / My-Teacher writing).

The core idea I want to underline here — and it’s worth repeating because it matters — is this: take a moment to notice that I brought up these suggestions years ago. I had already predicted the move to CBT, warned of the security and access issues, and proposed low-cost, mobile-friendly mock-testing solutions. Seeing how events have unfolded, I feel both validated and urgently motivated to press those ideas again — they remain practical and necessary.

What reform needs to look like (not an academic wish list)

This is pragmatic, not aspirational. If the ministry wants results, these are the concrete priorities I would press for now:

• Rapid, public roadmap: NTA must publish a clear transition timeline for CBT adoption, center allocation, and result turnaround times, so students and states can plan (Career Mantrana has chronicled many of these scheduling pressures).

• Pilot, scale, support: Launch staggered pilots in diverse geographies (urban, rural, tribal) with parallel support — mobile test centers, supervised ICT labs — before scaling nationwide.

• Mock‑test explosion: Fund and endorse free, multilingual mock-test access for all aspirants. I built one such capability years ago; platforms that let teachers produce and students attempt mock CBTs on phones will reduce anxiety and level the field (see my service ideas at My-Teacher writing).

• Transparent inquiry with white‑space publication: Classify genuinely sensitive details about breaches, but publish the recommendations and timelines. Citizens deserve to know the fixes being implemented.

• Single national calendar & fee transparency: Synchronize AIQ/state counselling calendars and demand pre-counselling fee disclosures by institutions to limit seat‑blocking and confusion — an issue courts have flagged repeatedly.

• Independent verification: An external technical audit of NTA systems and processes, with periodic public reporting.

• Bridge the digital divide: Invest in supervised test centers, battery-powered arrangements, and last-mile connectivity so CBT doesn’t become CBT‑for‑those‑who‑can‑afford‑it.

• Anti‑malpractice tech + human audits: Use randomized question‑banks, biometric checks, proctoring (with privacy safeguards), and ex post audits of results and centers.

A note on pace and politics

Bureaucracies are rightfully cautious about big changes, but when entire cohorts wait for decisions, caution becomes harm. Reformers must balance security and scalability — and they must be accountable. The ministry pressing NTA is a necessary push: it forces timelines, transparency, and clarity. But the ministry must also equip NTA with the resources and political cover to execute.

Final reflection

My practical bias is to act where impact is fastest. Free, mobile‑first mock testing, simple teacher training, and transparent timetables cost little and can relieve immediate student anxiety. Structural reforms (CBT infrastructure, question‑bank redesign, synchronized calendars) cost more and take longer — but they must start now.

I’ve written repeatedly about these ideas and solutions. The pathway I described earlier — practice at scale, low friction access, multilingual support, and smarter use of AI — is not theoretical. It’s implementable and urgent. Today’s pressure on the NTA is the momentum we needed. My hope is that momentum converts into speed, fairness, and measurable results for the millions of students who depend on these exams.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh