India has declared war on examination fraud. Paper leaks will invite harsher prison terms. Organized cheating syndicates will face tougher penalties. Probes will be faster. Special courts will deliver swifter justice. Parliament has concluded that if examinations resemble a crime thriller, perhaps criminal law should play a larger role.

What if paper leaks aren’t the disease? What if the examination itself is?

Every year, millions of students devote their adolescence to preparing for an exam that lasts a few hours but determines their career trajectory of the next 40 years. With childhood spent at coaching centres and sleep treated as optional, curiosity ends up as collateral damage. Then we act surprised if a question paper gets leaked. High-stakes systems tend to create high-stakes crime.

India’s coaching industry thrives on career anxiety and it exists because of our admission system. Its annual revenues are estimated at ₹60,000 crore and expected to keep growing. Families spend over ₹50,000 per month on coaching and some of them take loans for what is essentially a lottery.

Artificial intelligence (AI) now gives India space to undertake its most radical educational reforms since 1947 by revising the country’s examination philosophy.

The first idea is simple. The panel headed by Infosys chairman Nandan Nilekani should begin by recommending that candidates be given multiple shots at every competitive exam.

Students seeking admission to institutes of specialization should be able to take secure computer-based exams every month, with their best score automatically taken for ranking. AI-driven proctoring, encrypted question banks and adaptive test protocols make it feasible. Multiple attempts reduce incentives for paper leaks because no single exam is the be-all and end-all.

Second, abolish identical question papers. Every candidate should receive uniquely AI-randomized questions drawn from a validated and hack-proof question bank, calibrated to identical difficulty levels. If every paper is different, buying a leaked paper is roughly as useful as stealing a lottery ticket after the winning number has changed.

Third, stop pretending memory equals intelligence. Large language models can already outperform humans on countless knowledge tests. Our exams should evolve accordingly. Instead of asking students to memorize formulas available on every smartphone, test how they solve unfamiliar problems, evaluate AI-generated answers, detect hallucinations, interpret data and collaborate responsibly with intelligent systems.

Tomorrow’s engineer will operate in a world of AI and must be able to discern where and how it goes wrong.

Fourth, create an ‘academic credit passport.’ Students would accumulate scores across multiple exams, projects, internships, hackathons, research work, community service and practical assessments over a certain time span. Universities would then evaluate a student’s portfolio rather than performance on one dramatic Sunday morning.

Fifth, ask AI to detect talent, not just cheating. Examination systems can generate behavioural data. How students approach difficult questions, how quickly they recover from errors and whether they consistently improve, for example. Critically, how they reason. If used ethically and transparently, AI could identify resilience, creativity and learning ability, which are what matter.

Sixth, and this will horrify the coaching industry, grant universities greater autonomy. Why should every engineering college need identical admission criteria? Some institutions could emphasize innovation, others entrepreneurship, research potential or practical aptitude.

With every institution using the same entrance exam, preparing for it requires fitting into a common mould. While this conformity suits the manufacturing of, say, screws, it doesn’t foster the differentiation of human talent, which is likely to grow in importance. If these reforms gradually demolish the Kota business model of coaching, it would be an outcome that favours India’s economy.

If exams could be taken round the year, every question set is unique, admissions go by broader criteria, reasoning is evaluated over memorization and universities seek diverse strengths, coaching centres would have to perform an extraordinary transformation. Instead of teaching examination tricks, they might actually have to teach.

This disruption has another advantage: mental health. An exam that goes wrong can turn a candidate’s whole family anxious, but with multiple attempts available, failure serves as feedback. Families would stop treating rankings like readings of blood pressure, while the youth would rediscover hobbies and pursuits that make them well-rounded individuals. Teachers would also recover the freedom to educate instead of rehearsing expected questions.

India’s amendments that strengthen anti-cheating laws are necessary because organized paper leaks threaten public trust and deserve severe punishment. But policing yesterday’s examination system will not solve tomorrow’s education challenge.

Catching cheats and cracking down on the leaked-paper market is less important than designing an exam system that would make cheating commercially pointless, coaching monopolies obsolete and curiosity more valuable than memory.

It’s time for India to set up an admission system that is intelligent enough to survive the age of AI.

The author is co-founder of the non-profit Medici Institute for Innovation. X: @MuneerMuh

India has declared war on examination fraud. Paper leaks will invite harsher prison terms. Organized cheating syndicates will face tougher penalties. Probes will be faster. Special courts will deliver swifter justice. Parliament has concluded that if examinations resemble a crime thriller, perhaps criminal law should play a larger role.

What if paper leaks aren’t the disease? What if the examination itself is?

Every year, millions of students devote their adolescence to preparing for an exam that lasts a few hours but determines their career trajectory of the next 40 years. With childhood spent at coaching centres and sleep treated as optional, curiosity ends up as collateral damage. Then we act surprised if a question paper gets leaked. High-stakes systems tend to create high-stakes crime.

India’s coaching industry thrives on career anxiety and it exists because of our admission system. Its annual revenues are estimated at ₹60,000 crore and expected to keep growing. Families spend over ₹50,000 per month on coaching and some of them take loans for what is essentially a lottery.

Artificial intelligence (AI) now gives India space to undertake its most radical educational reforms since 1947 by revising the country’s examination philosophy.

The first idea is simple. The panel headed by Infosys chairman Nandan Nilekani should begin by recommending that candidates be given multiple shots at every competitive exam.

Students seeking admission to institutes of specialization should be able to take secure computer-based exams every month, with their best score automatically taken for ranking. AI-driven proctoring, encrypted question banks and adaptive test protocols make it feasible. Multiple attempts reduce incentives for paper leaks because no single exam is the be-all and end-all.

Second, abolish identical question papers. Every candidate should receive uniquely AI-randomized questions drawn from a validated and hack-proof question bank, calibrated to identical difficulty levels. If every paper is different, buying a leaked paper is roughly as useful as stealing a lottery ticket after the winning number has changed.

Third, stop pretending memory equals intelligence. Large language models can already outperform humans on countless knowledge tests. Our exams should evolve accordingly. Instead of asking students to memorize formulas available on every smartphone, test how they solve unfamiliar problems, evaluate AI-generated answers, detect hallucinations, interpret data and collaborate responsibly with intelligent systems.

Tomorrow’s engineer will operate in a world of AI and must be able to discern where and how it goes wrong.

Fourth, create an ‘academic credit passport.’ Students would accumulate scores across multiple exams, projects, internships, hackathons, research work, community service and practical assessments over a certain time span. Universities would then evaluate a student’s portfolio rather than performance on one dramatic Sunday morning.

Fifth, ask AI to detect talent, not just cheating. Examination systems can generate behavioural data. How students approach difficult questions, how quickly they recover from errors and whether they consistently improve, for example. Critically, how they reason. If used ethically and transparently, AI could identify resilience, creativity and learning ability, which are what matter.

Sixth, and this will horrify the coaching industry, grant universities greater autonomy. Why should every engineering college need identical admission criteria? Some institutions could emphasize innovation, others entrepreneurship, research potential or practical aptitude.

With every institution using the same entrance exam, preparing for it requires fitting into a common mould. While this conformity suits the manufacturing of, say, screws, it doesn’t foster the differentiation of human talent, which is likely to grow in importance. If these reforms gradually demolish the Kota business model of coaching, it would be an outcome that favours India’s economy.

If exams could be taken round the year, every question set is unique, admissions go by broader criteria, reasoning is evaluated over memorization and universities seek diverse strengths, coaching centres would have to perform an extraordinary transformation. Instead of teaching examination tricks, they might actually have to teach.

This disruption has another advantage: mental health. An exam that goes wrong can turn a candidate’s whole family anxious, but with multiple attempts available, failure serves as feedback. Families would stop treating rankings like readings of blood pressure, while the youth would rediscover hobbies and pursuits that make them well-rounded individuals. Teachers would also recover the freedom to educate instead of rehearsing expected questions.

India’s amendments that strengthen anti-cheating laws are necessary because organized paper leaks threaten public trust and deserve severe punishment. But policing yesterday’s examination system will not solve tomorrow’s education challenge.

Catching cheats and cracking down on the leaked-paper market is less important than designing an exam system that would make cheating commercially pointless, coaching monopolies obsolete and curiosity more valuable than memory.

It’s time for India to set up an admission system that is intelligent enough to survive the age of AI.

The author is co-founder of the non-profit Medici Institute for Innovation. X: @MuneerMuh