The Supreme Court’s recent observation on the NEET-PG exam, advocating for it to be held in a single sitting due to potential variations in difficulty across multiple papers, resonates deeply with long-standing reflections I've had on fairness and standardization in critical assessment systems. It’s a powerful judicial statement underscoring a fundamental principle of equity Hold NEET-PG exam in one sitting; two papers can vary in difficulty: Supreme Court | India News - Times of India.
The very notion that a candidate's fate could be influenced by the specific set of questions they receive, rather than their sheer knowledge and ability, is antithetical to a truly meritocratic system. How can we honestly compare and rank thousands of aspiring medical professionals if their initial challenge wasn't truly identical?
This immediate concern about exam fairness immediately brings me back to conversations I initiated years ago about leveraging technology to ensure truly unbiased and standardized evaluation. As far back as 2009, I had envisioned an "Interactive Interview Tool" (IIT). The core idea was to utilize technology to create a uniform, transparent, and fair interview process, stripping away the inconsistencies and subjective biases inherent in traditional, human-led methods. The drive behind this concept was identical to what the Supreme Court now highlights for NEET-PG: to guarantee every candidate competes on a genuinely level playing field.
More recently, my thoughts have gravitated towards the transformative potential of "Digital Twins" – virtual, highly accurate replicas of real-world systems. Imagine if we were to apply this powerful concept to examination environments. A 'digital twin' of an exam, meticulously designed and simulated, could ensure that every variable—from question bank distribution and difficulty scaling to the logistical delivery of the test—is precisely controlled and perfectly replicated across all instances. This could inherently address the Supreme Court’s concern by design, eliminating the possibility of disparate experiences and ensuring a truly standardized assessment, whether in one sitting or across multiple, perfectly synchronized phases.
It's striking how relevant these earlier insights still are. The challenge of achieving absolute fairness in large-scale assessments isn't new, but the technological advancements available to us today offer unprecedented opportunities to overcome it. We possess the tools—AI, IoT, advanced simulation—to move beyond the limitations that lead to variations in exam difficulty.
The Supreme Court’s call for a single sitting is a crucial step towards acknowledging and rectifying these systemic issues. However, the spirit of true standardization must permeate every facet of the examination process. It transcends mere timing; it demands the elimination of any conceivable variation that could, even subtly, impact a candidate's future based on factors beyond their genuine merit.
This isn't just about administrative efficiency; it is about upholding the integrity of our educational and professional pathways, guaranteeing that every deserving individual is afforded an equitable chance to pursue their aspirations.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
No comments:
Post a Comment