A parliamentary panel has expressed serious reservations about the design of the Common University Entrance Test for undergraduate programmes (CUET-UG), specifically flagging the multiple-choice question (MCQ) format for humanities subjects. The committee noted that it remains unconvinced about the effectiveness of CUET as a universal admission mechanism for UG programmes across disciplines.
Concerns Over MCQ Format
The panel questioned whether the MCQ format can adequately assess the analytical and critical thinking skills required for humanities courses. It argued that such a format may favor rote learning over deeper understanding, potentially undermining the quality of higher education.
Effectiveness as Universal Admission Test
The committee also raised doubts about the feasibility of a single entrance exam serving diverse academic fields. It highlighted that disciplines like humanities, social sciences, and languages require different evaluation methods compared to science or commerce streams.
Further, the panel recommended a review of the exam structure to ensure it aligns with the pedagogical needs of various subjects. It suggested exploring alternative assessment models, including descriptive or essay-type questions, for humanities and allied fields.
The development comes amid ongoing debates about the National Testing Agency's (NTA) role in conducting the CUET. The parliamentary panel's observations are expected to influence future policy decisions regarding the exam's design and implementation.
