Increasing reliance on the NET may inadvertently limit the scope of research in India. Research thrives on diversity of thought, methodology, and perspective. Standardized tests such as the NET, which prioritize memorization over critical thinking, may produce scholars who are adept at passing exams but cannot push the boundaries of knowledge. This narrowing of inquiry may limit innovation and the development of original ideas, both of which are crucial for progress in academic fields. The use of the National Eligibility Test (NET) as the primary criterion for PhD admissions is limiting the scope of academic inquiry and critical thinking.
The National Eligibility Test also known as UGC NET or NTA-UGC-NET is an examination to determine eligibility for college and university level lecturerships and for the award of Junior Research Fellowships to Indian nationals. It aims to ensure minimum standards for entrants into the teaching professions and research. On behalf of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the National Testing Agency (NTA) conducts tests to determine the eligibility of Indian citizens in Indian universities and colleges for eligibility for Assistant Professorship or for Junior Research Fellowship and Assistant Professorship eligibility only. The National Eligibility Test (NET), traditionally used for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Assistant Professorship eligibility, has now become a major criterion for PhD admissions in India. This change has sparked considerable debate within the academic community due to concerns about whether the test is suitable for identifying genuine research potential. The NET is a multiple-choice question (MCQ) based test that primarily assesses lower-order cognitive abilities such as memory and recall. These abilities are useful in some contexts but fall short in assessing the critical thinking, creativity, and analytical skills required for doctoral level research.
PhD research demands creativity to present complex ideas, critical analysis of existing knowledge, and contribution of original insights, especially in subjects such as literature, social sciences, and humanities. The NET’s focus on factual recall and trivial questions undermines candidates’ ability to develop nuanced arguments and their ability to engage with broader theoretical concepts. Marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by reliance on NET scores. These students often face systemic barriers, such as limited access to resources and high-cost coaching, which is increasingly becoming necessary to pass the NET. As a result, talented individuals from these backgrounds may be excluded from PhD programs despite their intellectual ability.
The centralization of PhD admissions through the NET threatens the autonomy of higher education institutions. Traditionally, universities have the freedom to select candidates based on their research proposals, interviews, and discipline-specific tests. This autonomy allows institutions to recruit candidates who fit their specific needs. Centralising admissions through a one-size-fits-all approach risks eroding the diversity and innovation critical to high-quality academic research, just as the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) has already raised concerns about the erosion of institutional autonomy in India’s higher education system.
The NET system does not prepare students for the rigours of doctoral research. PhD candidates are expected to provide original insights, publish in peer-reviewed journals, and engage in scholarly discourse—the exodus of gifted students to foreign institutions for PhD programmes can be attributed to the limitations of the domestic system, where the emphasis on standardised testing is seen as stifling creativity and critical thinking. The growing reliance on the NET may inadvertently limit the scope of research in India. Research thrives on diversity of thought, methodology and perspective. Standardized tests like the NET, which prioritize memorization over critical thinking, may produce scholars who are adept at passing tests but cannot push the boundaries of knowledge. This narrowing of inquiry can limit innovation and the development of original ideas, both of which are vital to progress in academic fields.
Many top universities in the United States and Canada use a holistic approach to PhD admissions. This includes a detailed review of the candidate’s research proposal, personal statement, letters of recommendation, and academic history. In Germany, students can enter PhD programs directly from undergraduate studies, provided they demonstrate exceptional research potential and academic performance.) Encouraging candidates with diverse academic backgrounds to apply to PhD programs. Applicants are evaluated based on their ability to bring different perspectives to research, which is seen as valuable for interdisciplinary study. In countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, universities collaborate with industry partners to ensure that PhD candidates are working on research projects with real-world applications. The National University of Singapore (NUS) offers performance-based fellowships to students who show strong research promise through their academic records, interviews, and publications.
India’s global aspirations in education and research require a more holistic approach to PhD admissions—one that values creativity, critical thinking, and the ability to contribute to academic research. By adopting a comprehensive admissions process, India can retain its talented minds, ensure inclusive access to higher education, and remain globally competitive in academic research. To remain competitive on the global stage, India must adopt a holistic admissions process that encourages innovation, creativity, and diverse perspectives in research.
