January 17, 2026 01:26 PM IST First published on: Jan 17, 2026 at 01:26 PM ISTThe recent debate around the slashing of NEET-PG cut-offs to as low as minus 40 marks has ignited a media storm. While similar measures have been undertaken in previous years to fill vacant seats, this year the move has triggered unusually intense reactions. Critics argue that a disproportionate number of these vacancies exist in private medical colleges and that lowering cut-offs risks allowing students with inadequate foundational understanding to enter postgraduate training.A zero percentile would, in theory, mean that all students qualify, making mere appearance in the exam the only prerequisite for entering specialisation. What is particularly shocking is the revelation that such a percentile corresponds to a score of minus 40 marks. This understandably raises serious questions about the quality of medical education itself, apart from other things. Rhetoric such as “Will now be operated on by doctors who scored –40” making rounds on television debates and social media, has amplified the anxiety, often slipping into crude simplifications.AdvertisementOne of our surgery professors used to say, only half-jokingly, that doctors are “glorified masons”. The remark carried an important truth. Medicine is as much a craft as it is a science. With the current examination pattern, whether university exams centred on 10–20 marker questions or NEET-PG dominated by recall-based MCQs, can we seriously claim that these tests are reliable judges of clinical competence? Experience, observation, repetition, and years of supervised practice are what make good doctors.This is not an argument against knowledge, nor is it an endorsement of the recent relaxation of cut-offs. If merit truly had to be safeguarded through a screening test, then arguably no candidate below the 50th percentile should be allowed to qualify. The controversy must also be situated within the broader chaos of the past few years in how NEET-PG has unfolded. Constantly changing counselling schedules, abrupt introduction of newer schemes, and poor accountability have inevitably raised questions about the seriousness and validity of the NEET-PG system itself.Personally, I have never been a strong proponent of NEET-PG. When the patient is supposed to be at the centre of medical education, why should MCQs displace bedside judgement so completely? The same dichotomy once seen at the undergraduate level has now fully penetrated postgraduate preparation. Students are forced to choose between studying for university exams and studying for NEET simply because the two are starkly different in pattern and emphasis. Coaching platforms like Marrow and Prepladder, which have capitalised on this divide, have further entrenched it. Students have become increasingly oblivious to coursework, fully aware that institutional teaching and internal marks hold little practical value. The irony is striking. We now produce candidates who can ace complex MCQs yet struggle with basic clinical distinctions. Interns from my medical school often have difficulty differentiating between upper and lower respiratory tract infections, or prescribing paracetamol syrup to infants.AdvertisementThis is where the proposed NEXT examination holds promise, but only if implemented with sincerity and a vision. An assessment model closer to the USMLE, incorporating longitudinal evaluation, practical examinations, OSCEs, and clinical reasoning, could be transformative. A more comprehensive framework, where each phase of undergraduate training contributes meaningfully, may offer a more balanced and defensible notion of merit.most readWhile the increase in postgraduate seats is a welcome development, it must be backed by reforms that ensure quality across medical colleges. Reforms to improve regulation are equally urgent. Many institutions continue to struggle with faculty shortages, poor infrastructure, and compromised training quality. This necessitates stronger oversight and stricter provisions.It is also worth acknowledging that a significant number of postgraduate seats, particularly in non-clinical and traditionally “unglamorous” branches, remain vacant. These are largely non-clinical and paraclinical disciplines such as anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, microbiology, and pathology, which form the foundational base for more complex clinical specialties. Leaving aside monetary considerations, these predominantly research- and laboratory-oriented branches have not been preferred by students largely due to chronic gaps in infrastructure, limited laboratory facilities, inadequate research funding, and unclear academic career pathways in many medical colleges. Recent efforts by the National Medical Commission to integrate research into the undergraduate curriculum are, therefore, welcome.The present controversy should not be reduced to outrage over numbers. It should instead catalyse a deeper examination of what we value, how we assess it, and whether our current systems truly serve patients, students, or the profession at large.Gupta is a doctor and writer