CUET MCQs test intelligence, not rote learning: NITI Aayog member Gobardhan Das

NITI Aayog member Gobardhan Das has defended the MCQ-based CUET, saying it assesses intelligence and reasoning rather than rote learning or English language skills. His remarks come amid concerns over CUET's suitability for humanities and social sciences.

In Short

• Das said objective questions can assess multiple aptitudes within limited examination time
• He argued admissions must not favour students with stronger English proficiency
• He contrasted convent school language advantages with challenges faced by government students

As the debate over the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) continues to intensify, NITI Aayog member and noted academic Gobardhan Das has strongly defended the exam's multiple-choice question (MCQ) format, arguing that it is designed to assess a student's intelligence and reasoning ability rather than their capacity to memorise information.

His remarks come at a time when teachers' associations and a parliamentary panel have raised concerns that the current format may not adequately evaluate the analytical and descriptive skills essential for disciplines such as humanities and social sciences.

NITI AAYOG MEMBER BACKS MCQ-BASED UNIVERSITY ENTRANCE EXAMS

Defending the multiple-choice question (MCQ) format for university entrance examinations, including admissions to premier institutions such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), NITI Aayog member Gobardhan Das argued that universities should assess a candidate's intelligence and ability to connect concepts rather than reward rote memorisation.

Speaking on Sunday, he said well-designed MCQs effectively test reasoning skills while allowing examiners to evaluate multiple aspects of a candidate's aptitude in a limited time.

Describing CUET as an innovative reform, Das said the objective format offers an efficient and comprehensive way to assess students for higher education admissions.

LANGUAGE SHOULD NOT DETERMINE ADMISSIONS

Das also argued that entrance examinations should not disproportionately favour students with stronger English-language proficiency, particularly those from privileged educational backgrounds.

He pointed out that students from English-medium convent schools generally possess better language skills than those studying in government schools, many of whom come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Das also argued that university admissions should not hinge on a candidate's command of English. As quoted by PTI, he said institutions such as JNU are looking for students with intellectual ability rather than those who can write or speak "flowery" English. His remarks underscored the view that the MCQ format places greater emphasis on conceptual understanding and reasoning than on language proficiency or writing style.

PARLIAMENTARY PANEL RAISES CONCERNS OVER CUET

Das' remarks come against the backdrop of growing criticism of CUET since its introduction in 2022. Last month, the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports expressed reservations about the examination's design, particularly for humanities and social science disciplines.

In its report, the committee observed that multiple-choice questions are "particularly ill-suited" for subjects that depend on independent thinking, interpretation and subjective analysis.

The panel recommended a comprehensive review of both the quality of the question papers and the overall design of the examination to ensure that CUET aligns with the objectives outlined in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

CUET'S ROLE IN HIGHER EDUCATION ADMISSIONS

Introduced in 2022, the Common University Entrance Test was envisioned as a unified admission mechanism for undergraduate programmes across central and several participating universities. The exam replaced multiple university-specific entrance tests with a single, standardised assessment aimed at simplifying admissions and creating a level playing field for students nationwide.

However, while supporters argue that CUET has improved transparency and standardisation, critics contend that its heavy reliance on objective questions limits the assessment of critical thinking, creativity and written expression, particularly in disciplines where nuanced argumentation is central.

Das' remarks add to the ongoing debate over CUET, with supporters backing its standardised, objective format and critics questioning whether MCQs can adequately assess higher-order thinking, particularly in humanities and social sciences. The discussion is likely to shape future reforms in university admissions.

- Ends