6 ways to tweak CUET and fulfil NEP’s promise

The best news out of this year’s Common University Entrance Test (CUET) 2023 was that the computer-based examination faced fewer technical glitches than its first iteration last year. Certain logistical aspects such as ease of applying for CUET and its affordability are commendable. There were still some issues with exam centres being very far away and test dates, but these too will likely be ironed out going ahead. The number of students who took the test increased by a decent 15-20% while the number of colleges accepting CUET scores rose to about 250 from under 100 last year.

?

The rationale behind CUET is simple: It is fairer and easier on students and colleges to have one common entrance test for admission to non-professional college courses across the country. School examination boards do not score uniformly and have varying passing rates – yet colleges treat a 90% score from two different state boards in largely the same way when considering students from admissions. This is patently unfair and something PARAKH, a new institution being set up by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), aims to address over time.

?

While there is a lot to like about the concept of CUET, there is a central aspect which also needs to be executed well for it to truly improve the quality of education in the country. That aspect is the quality of the assessment. The National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP) says “The National Testing Agency (NTA) will work to offer a high-quality common aptitude test, as well as specialised common subject exams in the sciences, humanities, languages, arts, and vocational subjects, at least twice every year. These exams shall test conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge and shall aim to eliminate the need for taking coaching for these exams.”

?

CUET, as implemented, varies in an important way from these guidelines. It is based narrowly on the Class 12 syllabus and largely has factual recall questions. A large number of students score 100 percentile or close, making the test less useful for its core purpose of helping colleges identify the right students. A single mark can make a huge difference in the career path of a student.

?

A high-quality test, in contrast, is one that tests important concepts and distinguishes between students effectively at the desired levels of performance. It would contain questions at all levels of difficulty – some that can be answered by weak students, but also others that are challenging to the best students. Further, contrary to what the University Grants Commission (UGC) hoped, creating a simple CUET test has not reduced – but instead increased – the reliance on coaching, as web searches, discussions with students or even candid owners of coaching institutes readily reveal.

?

If CUET gets established as an easy test that simply tests factual recall, it will have a strong signalling effect on coaching, preparation and even classroom teaching across the country. All of these will start focussing on lower-order skills to the exclusion of conceptual understanding and critical thinking. This is the opposite of what the country needs in this age of technology and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and also the opposite of what NEP recommends.

?

There is still time. Now that the issues related to the mechanics of test conduction have been largely addressed, it is important to focus on improving the test itself as well as the scoring process. Here are some suggestions.

?

First, for CUET to be credible, it should be a tougher, more challenging test with good quality, higher-order thinking questions while continuing to be based on the Class 12 syllabus. The paper difficulty seems to have been diluted this year – as indicated by factors such as the increased time provided for some papers and increased raw score averages. NTA has managed to set somewhat better papers for the JEE Mains and NEET examinations. NEP criticises rote learning and exhorts boards to include more questions requiring critical thinking. It would be a pity if the boards changed for the better, but CUET became a test focussed on rote questions.

?

Second, overall anonymised performance data as well as a percentage of actual CUET questions should be released by NTA every CUET round. Statistics revealing overall performance – the number of students scoring each total score for each paper version, for example – show how the test has performed, while question level performance data shows which questions were easy or difficult and specific common errors. These will help teachers and future students focus on important areas needing improvement and help develop higher-order skills as envisaged by NEP.

?

Third, tests such as CUET and NEET include choices allowing students to select some questions they can answer in place of others. This is done possibly in the belief that this reduces stress on students. However, for the sake of fairness, choice should be eliminated altogether, especially from objective, multiple-choice questions, so all students are being judged on their performance on the same items.

?

Fourth, is it fair that admission to college be based entirely on a student’s performance in a paper with only multiple choice questions? While correcting such questions is completely objective, they do not measure a student’s ability to write well, make an argument or solve a complex problem in maths, science, economics or any other subject. The ideal CUET would include a section with subjective questions as well, especially if it is the sole test for admissions.

?

Fifth, the current method of calculating student percentiles as described by NTA takes into account the differences in difficulty between papers used in different sessions, but not the differences in difficulty of individual questions. All students having the same raw score on the same paper are treated identically, which is not strictly correct. Item response theory is a very useful tool, especially for high-stakes selection tests such as CUET and should be used in drawing up the final percentile scores of students. The same analysis would also provide insights into how different questions have been performed.

?

Finally, it appears that different versions of papers of a given CUET subject today do not have any common questions. It is good practice to have a few questions in common across different forms of test papers to be able to compare them more scientifically.

?

It is necessary to build on the earlier success and acceptance of CUET and use it as a mechanism to help colleges select students in a manner that is inexpensive, equitable and low-stress while also helping raise the standards of education in the country.

?

?

Sridhar Rajagopalan is co-founder and chief learning officer of Educational Initiatives Pvt Ltd. The views expressed are personal