The Long Reign of the Marksheet
For decades, the Indian higher education admissions process has been an exercise in filtering vast numbers of applicants through a seemingly objective sieve: examination scores. The logic was straightforward. With millions vying for a limited pool of seats
in desirable institutions, board exam percentages and entrance test ranks provided a simple, scalable method for selection. This created the infamous 'cut-off' culture, where a fraction of a percentage point could determine a student's future. The system was seen as a meritocratic tool, where performance on a single day could overwrite years of academic work, rewarding those who could master the examination format. This intense focus on scores led to a sprawling coaching industry and immense pressure on students, whose efforts were channelled almost exclusively toward maximising their marks.
The Rise of a 'Holistic' Approach
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has been a key driver in challenging the primacy of grades. It advocates for a more flexible, multidisciplinary, and holistic educational framework that nurtures well-rounded individuals. This has amplified calls for a 'holistic review' process in admissions, where screeners look beyond the marksheet. This approach considers a candidate's entire profile: extracurricular achievements, leadership roles, volunteer work, passion projects, and personal essays. The introduction of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) was intended to create a level playing field, reducing the reliance on varied board marking schemes and providing a single, unified platform for central university admissions. The goal is to identify not just high-scorers, but students with curiosity, critical thinking skills, and genuine initiative.
The Practical Measurement Dilemma
While the idea of rewarding initiative is appealing, its practical implementation is fraught with challenges. The first major hurdle is scale. Evaluating millions of applications holistically is a time-consuming and resource-intensive task that is difficult for large public universities to manage. The second is subjectivity. How does an admissions officer objectively compare a student's leadership in a school club with another's self-taught coding skills? This can lead to biases, where reviewers might unconsciously favour applicants who fit a certain mold. There are also significant equity concerns. Students from privileged backgrounds often have greater access to a wider range of extracurricular opportunities, from international conferences to expensive sports coaching, potentially creating a new form of disparity that replaces the tyranny of marks with a tyranny of curated résumés.
Forging a Hybrid Path Forward
The most practical path forward appears to be a hybrid model that balances objective metrics with a qualitative assessment of initiative. Many private universities in India, such as Ashoka and Shiv Nadar, have already adopted this model, using a combination of test scores, detailed application forms, personal essays, and interviews. For the wider public system, the evolution of CUET could be key. While currently a standardized test, its framework could potentially be expanded to include sections that assess aptitude beyond rote learning. The NEP's vision of an Academic Bank of Credit, which allows students to earn and transfer credits from various institutions, also points towards a more flexible system where demonstrated skills and learning—forms of initiative—can be formally recognised. This approach doesn't discard grades but contextualizes them, viewing them as one part of a student's larger story of potential and drive.
