Degrees vs Competitive Exams: Why India Needs Curriculum and Evaluation Reform
Prof. (Dr.) Manmohan Prakash,
Independent Journalist
Why is there a wide gap between academic degrees and competitive exams? Explore India’s curriculum, examination and evaluation challenges and possible reforms.
Today, the entire process of education, employment and career building in India has become highly competitive. Whether it is admission to premier higher educational institutions or securing employment in the public and private sectors, examinations and their evaluation methods play a decisive role at every stage. In such a situation, a natural question arises: if the ultimate objective of both conventional academic education and competitive selection processes is to assess an individual’s knowledge, merit and capabilities, why is there such a wide difference between their curricula, examination patterns and evaluation standards?
After completing 10+2, students seeking admission to medical, engineering, agriculture, dairy technology, arts, science, commerce, management, law, education, sports and various integrated programmes often have to secure a place on the merit lists of competitive entrance examinations. Similarly, after graduation, candidates seeking higher education, research opportunities or employment may have to appear for subject-specific or institution-specific entrance examinations.
In addition, candidates aspiring for employment in the public sector must undergo selection processes conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, State Public Service Commissions, banking institutions, the Railways, the Staff Selection Commission and various other departments. Each of these examinations has its own syllabus, examination format and evaluation standards, and candidates must compete for a place on the respective merit lists.
This system may be justified in its own context, but the fundamental question remains: if the objective of both systems is to assess an individual’s capabilities, why does such a substantial difference exist between them?
Because of this disparity, students have to prepare in one manner to obtain an academic degree, while they are required to adopt an entirely different strategy when preparing for admission to prestigious institutions or for employment. This dual system has created several problems.
On the one hand, the limitations of conventional educational institutions have contributed to the rapid growth of a parallel private coaching system, thereby widening the gap in opportunities between students with adequate financial resources and those with limited means. On the other hand, preparing simultaneously for two different systems places considerable mental pressure on students and their parents. In some cases, the adverse consequences of this pressure are reflected in depression, frustration and suicidal tendencies.
Generally, the difference between academic and competitive examinations is justified on the grounds that academic examinations are intended to assess students’ knowledge of a prescribed curriculum. In this system, all students who attain the minimum qualifying standard can be declared successful. Competitive examinations, by contrast, are designed to select suitable candidates from a large pool of applicants for a limited number of opportunities. Therefore, such examinations tend to assess comparative performance, time management, logical ability, analytical thinking, problem-solving skills and decision-making capacity.
The three-stage structure of the civil services examination—comprising the Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and Personality Test—as well as the inclusion of physical efficiency or physical fitness tests in defence, paramilitary and police services, reflects this approach.
The real problem does not lie in having two different systems; rather, it lies in the lack of effective academic coordination between them. Our conventional education system is still largely based on information accumulation and examination-oriented learning. At the school level, adequate attention is not always given to the development of career-oriented thinking, logical reasoning and problem-solving skills. Similarly, at the college level, curricula have not yet incorporated, to the desired extent, the practical requirements of industry, research institutions and competitive examinations.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has recognised this challenge and emphasised conceptual understanding, critical thinking, creativity and application-based learning instead of rote learning. In the same direction, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has promoted Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and the Learning Outcomes-based Curriculum Framework (LOCF), with the objective of linking academic degrees not merely with theoretical knowledge but also with skills, scientific temper and the ability to solve practical problems.
However, an important question remains: are all universities and educational institutions implementing these reforms with the required seriousness? And are students actually receiving the intended benefits of institutional autonomy?
The solution does not lie in making all examinations identical. Rather, it lies in establishing a logical and practical relationship between academic education and selection processes. In school and college examinations, greater emphasis should be placed on case studies, authentic project work, analytical questions, data interpretation, experimental activities and problem-solving exercises instead of relying predominantly on memory-based questions.
Where the semester system is in place, a component of assessment can incorporate objective and competitive-style questions. Under the annual system, mid-year examinations and continuous assessment can also be made more effective and aligned, where appropriate, with the skills assessed through competitive examinations.
At the same time, logical reasoning, language and communication skills, data analysis, digital literacy and a practical understanding of contemporary issues should become integral components of the curriculum. Alongside the conventional three-hour final written examination, there is a need to strengthen continuous and comprehensive assessment.
However, it must be ensured that continuous assessment does not become merely a formal exercise. Nor should teachers be placed under an obligatory requirement to pass all students in the name of continuous evaluation. A meaningful and rigorous continuous assessment system can encourage regular attendance and greater participation in classroom learning while providing a more comprehensive picture of a student’s abilities.
In my view, there should not be such a wide gap between the structure and objectives of academic degree examinations and competitive examinations that the two appear contradictory rather than complementary. If the distance between the learning outcomes of academic education and the practical requirements of competitive examinations is reduced, students will no longer have to depend on separate educational worlds—schools, colleges and coaching institutions—to achieve broadly related objectives.
Such a reform would not only improve the quality of education and promote equality of opportunity, but could also reduce young people’s dependence on coaching institutions, lessen the financial burden on families and help mitigate the unnecessary pressure and stress associated with preparing for two substantially different examination systems.
