Last-minute change in KEAM standardisation sparks protests
A number of students have lodged complaints with the government, claiming that the normalisation method used this year was unfair and illogical.
Last year, State higher secondary students had suffered due to the flawed standardisation process by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations (CEE), which conducts KEAM. This year, however, CBSE and ICSE students are facing the brunt of it.
The Unaided Schools Protection Council (USPC), an umbrella body of private schools, has moved the High Court against the new standardisation method. 'It is extremely discriminatory and illogical. Taking the subject topper's mark as a benchmark for standardisation is unfair,' said Jouhar M., USPC Malappuram district president.
Several students affected by the new methodology too are joining the case. T. Fida from Chathamangalam, Kozhikode, and Devanarayanan from Ponnad, Alappuzha, are among them.
The government decision has evoked widespread criticism for changing the rules on the eve of the announcement of the results. 'The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has finished,' said Devanarayanan in a complaint to Higher Education Minister R. Bindu, quoting a Supreme Court judgement.
The change in the weightage of higher secondary marks for mathematics, physics and chemistry from 1:1:1 formula to 5:3:2 has also been criticised. 'Having better weightage for mathematics may be good for engineering courses. But the implementation of the new rule after the examination is ridiculously unfair,' said higher education expert C. Mohammed Ajmal.
He said the CEE had a moral obligation to inform the students about such changes in advance. 'If they had done so, it would have allowed students to tailor their studies and make informed decisions about where to focus,' said Mr. Ajmal.
He also criticised the government for changing the rules 'in the game's injury time'. 'None can agree to this change irrespective of whether they are logical or no,' he said, warning that people seeking legal remedy would further delay and complicate the admissions through KEAM.
While other entrance examinations, such as JEE, have progressed with their admission processes, KEAM has been delayed. The standardisation issue is expected to cause further delays in the process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Behind the dispute over the Kerala Engineering and Architecture Examination (KEAM) merit list
The results of the Kerala Engineering, Architecture and Medical Entrance Examination 2025 (KEAM-2025), published early this month, have led to a legal battle between applicants from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and state board streams. On Wednesday (July 16), the Supreme Court heard the matter. According to an official notification, 86,549 candidates appeared for the KEAM engineering examination this year. Around 67,505 students have been included in the rank list. Here is what has happened. On July 1, the commissioner of the entrance examination published the rank list for engineering and architecture admissions. This was done an hour after amending the prospectus that was first published back in February, with regard to the criteria for calculating marks. The amendment reportedly ensured better representation of students who studied in state board-affiliated schools in the rank list. However, the CBSE students then approached the Kerala High Court, which cancelled the rank list and asked the state to prepare a fresh list according to the previous norms in the prospectus. The government appealed in the court, but a division bench of the HC rejected it, resulting in the publication of a new rank list based on the previous prospectus norms. On Tuesday, state board students approached the Supreme Court, challenging the revised rank list. Rationale behind the changed calculation When the prospectus was published on February 19, it said the 10+2 marks of Maths, Physics and Chemistry will be accounted for in the ratio of 1:1:1. Both the marks obtained in the entrance examination and the 10+2 board examination will be considered in a 50/50 scheme for admissions. However, on July 1, the government tweaked the formula so that the Maths, Physics, and Chemistry marks would be in the ratio of 5:3:2, instead of the earlier ratio used since 2011. The government was of the view that the amendment will rectify a disparity caused by the existing formula, which left the Kerala board students in a disadvantaged position. It claimed the new norms will give a level playing field for students from both boards. This was also deemed necessary because a section of the state board students hail from lower and middle-class backgrounds and study at public schools. Therefore, after the prospectus was published in February, the government formed a standardisation review committee on April 9 to study the formula used to calculate standardised/normalised marks and suggest amendments. After examining the recommendations, the government decided to amend the formula for preparing the KEAM-2025 rank list, in a bid to remove disparity between students from the two boards. Impact on the results When the rank list was prepared after amending the formula, state board students performed well. The top 5,000 ranks included 2,539 students from the Kerala board, and 2,220 were from the CBSE. This slight edge for state board students was attributed to the last-minute change in the marks formula. In KEAM-2024, as many as 2,785 students in the first 5,000 ranks were from the CBSE stream, and 2,034 were from the state board. This year, when the first list was published, 55 students were from CBSE and 43 from Kerala board in the top 100 rankings. After the revised list, this changed to 79 and 21, respectively. In the past too, when performance in the entrance examination was the sole criterion for the rank list, a major chunk of the top rank holders were from the CBSE stream. The government was of the view that if the practice continued, only the students who can afford the costly coaching for entrance exams would figure in the list. What courts held When the CBSE students legally challenged the prospectus revision, the High Court said, 'It appears that somebody looked at the results and found that the students from the Kerala stream have not done fairly good, and to satisfy the constituency, such a mala fide decision in an arbitrary manner has been taken to change the prospectus one hour before the publication of the result. Such an exercise of power is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and cannot be countenanced on any ground. Rules of the game cannot be changed midway, once the game has begun.'' Aggrieved over the High Court verdict, the Kerala board students approached the Supreme Court, which did not stay the revised rank list. The court said it did not want to create a sense of 'uncertainty' among students.' The BTech admission process is slated for completion by August 14. The court also served notices to the state commissioner for the entrance examination and has listed the matter for next month.
The Print
8 hours ago
- The Print
Punjab govt must take Centre into confidence on new anti-sacrilege bill
If the bill is referred to the Union government, then it would be another year before it finally becomes an Act. Earlier governments — the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition government and the Congress government headed by Captain Amarinder Singh — had also brought similar bills which were found to be insufficient to meet the demands of the situation and hence junked. It might take about six months for the committee to send the bill back to the Assembly for clearing and then to the governor for approval. The Aam Aadmi Party–led Punjab government has tabled the Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scripture(s) Bill, 2025 which was discussed in the Assembly on Tuesday amidst ruckus and then referred to a select committee. A complex issue The new anti-sacrilege bill is said to have taken note of the shortcomings of the earlier bills and is hence more comprehensive, secular, and sufficiently stringent to be a deterrence for sacrilege offences considered very serious in the state. Meanwhile, 42-year-old Gurjeet Singh Khalsa, supposedly a non-political activist, has been staging a protest on top of a BSNL mobile tower in Punjab's Samana since October 2024 demanding an anti-sacrilege law. Though not widely reported in the mainstream media, such protests should be handled deftly by the government, lest it rakes up discontents of the past. In fact, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), under Sections 298, 299, and 300, already provides stringent punishments for religious offences. Punjab government as well as the activists who are protesting for a new law against sacrilege of religious texts are of the view that the provisions of the current Union laws are not stringent enough. Incidentally, the bill inadvertently equates the Bhagavad Gita with the holy books of other faiths, which may trigger a controversy. The bill could be amended to also include other religious texts considered holy by a vast majority of Hindus and/or be worded appropriately to capture the essence of all holy books of all faiths without naming any of them. Needless to say, the issue is a complex one. Going by the text of the present bill, albeit a short one, there are sufficient indications to suggest that adequate care has been taken to make the acts of sacrilege a serious offence inviting harsh punishments. But it is not clear why these provisions could not be added to the existing Sections of the BNS. After all, the BNS is an all-India law that applies equally to all states and all faiths. The AAP-led Punjab government appears to have not consulted the Union government or had any discussions with the Union Law Ministry on this issue. What should be of concern are the possibilities of other states following suit and enacting separate laws to suit the political environment of respective states citing the Punjab bill as a precedent. In a federal setup, the Constitution allows states to enact sufficient laws to maintain law and order and preserve religious harmony through stringent punishments for offences involving religious practices, texts, icons, and symbols. There have been instances of religious books being vandalised, places of worship desecrated, and statues of widely revered socio-political leaders popular among certain communities damaged. Also read: Stop telling South Indians to learn Hindi. In Hyderabad, languages coexist without imposition Extra caution Another aspect of concern should be the misuse of any law, however sincere the intentions of the lawmakers might be. The anti-sacrilege bill may have good intentions, but there is hardly any guarantee that such a law will not become a tool for miscreants wanting to drive a wedge between communities and followers of different faiths in the state. In a politically volatile border state where religious fault lines have been exploited by extreme elements bent on hurting the unity and integrity of the country, the state government needs to be extra vigilant and take the Union government into confidence at every stage. The argument that such laws will strengthen the law and order machinery of the state government and act as an effective deterrence against crimes is understandable. But in a state which witnessed the nightmare of radicalisation on religious lines to the extent of separatism, violent uprising against the Union government, and misuse of the holiest of holy Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple, which was followed by the assasination of a former prime minister, the government needs to exercise extra caution in dealing with issues related to faith. The state government also needs to be vigilant enough to frustrate insidious attempts by pro-Khalistan elements who could create socio-religious conflicts. Besides sacrilege of holy books, the bill could also include any attempt to vandalise national symbols like the flag and the Indian Constitution. Religious issues are highly emotive and sensitive, and hence need extra careful handling especially in a state where the religion-politics mix is much stronger compared to other states. Seshadri Chari is the former editor of 'Organiser'. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
How is China leading the green energy sector?
China installed more wind turbines and solar panels in 2024 than every other nation combined. This statistic alone underlines how China has sped ahead in the global green energy race, cornering the entirety of the renewable supply chain due to firm control over the extraction of key raw materials such as polysilicon and lithium. China also asserts dominance over the manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. China's renewable energy revolution is the result of decades of strategic state planning and massive investments in innovation. Starting with modest pilot projects in the early 2000s, Beijing is now leading in solar panel and battery production. In 2024 alone, China allocated a remarkable $940 billion into the renewable energy sector, according to U.K.-based research organisation Carbon Brief, from an initial investment of $10.7 billion in 2006. In comparison, India's renewable energy sector received a combined total investment of $3.4 billion in 2024-25 as per the Council on Energy, Environment, and Water, highlighting the stark gap. Turning crisis into opportunity Apart from climate goals, what mainly inspired China's green revolution was a mounting crisis of extremely high levels of air pollution, coupled with concerns about energy insecurity. By the early 2000s, the country's reliance on coal had made its cities nearly unliveable, resulting in air pollution so bad in Beijing and Shanghai that it was visible from space and had garnered global attention. Importantly, growing public awareness about the adverse affects of air pollution played a key role in pressuring the government to act. Moreover, surging electricity demand left parts of the nation teetering on the edge of blackouts. Also, increasing dependence on foreign oil triggered concerns over energy security. China's oil imports are largely dependent on West Asia and sensitive shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz and the South China Sea. Therefore, what began as a survival strategy quickly evolved into a platform for national ambition. In less than two decades, China transitioned from an environmental underdog to a clean-energy driven superpower. The turning point came with the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010), which elevated renewable energy to a national strategic priority. The passage of the Renewable Energy Law in 2005 created legal backing for this vision, offering grid access guarantees and price incentives for wind and solar producers, particularly private enterprises that received generous government subsidies. The state poured billions into infrastructure and R&D, while provinces like Gansu, Inner Mongolia, and Jiangsu were identified as early testing grounds for wind and solar farms, in keeping with the Chinese economic practice of starting with pilot projects before scaling up. The role of SOEs State-owned Enterprises (SOEs) and banks had a key role to play in executing plans that were led by China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA). Public sector banks provided heavy loans, while industrial giants like State Grid, Huaneng, and Genertec brought wind farms and solar parks online at record speed. As SOEs, these firms didn't face the financial limitations of the private sector. The speed was enabled by a blend of state coordination and market dynamism. While the policy push ensured demand at home, the sheer manufacturing scale drove down prices abroad. From the start, Beijing had a global vision for its ambitions, using programmes such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to push green trade, whether through the export of solar panels, construction of hydropower stations in Africa or building wind farms in Latin America. 'The undertaking of major national projects, quickly integrating funds, technology, and policy resources, and achieving scale effects that private enterprises cannot achieve, that is what led to this growth achieved by SOEs,' explains Li Menghui, representative of Genertec. SOEs translated national climate policy into large-scale action, deploying wind farms, solar parks, and high-voltage transmission lines in remote regions. Due to the substantial support provided by the central government in the form of mandates, low-interest credit, and political backing, these companies could move more quickly and take significantly greater risks to innovate than their private counterparts globally. SOEs were also deployed to focus on niche industries, allowing them to use their vast investments in the development and enhancement of a particular technology. Specialised SOEs were not only involved in building domestic energy infrastructure but also served as ambassadors of China's green agenda abroad. SOEsaccount for 55% of global renewable energy investment, as per Bloomberg Finance. China's SOEs turned clean energy into a tool of statecraft, aligning economic development with global dominance in renewable energy. Without them, China's rapid leap from fossil-fuel giant to renewable superpower with global influence would not have been possible. Lessons learnt China's green energy push wasn't without bumps along the way. For instance, in the mid-2010s, wind and solar installations outpaced the ability of the national grid to absorb their output. This led to the curtailment of energy, especially in northern provinces such as Inner Mongolia, Jilin, and Gansu where wind power curtailment was as high as 20% in 2014. These bottlenecks revealed a critical gap in transmission infrastructure. Although the creation of renewable energy projects was rapid, other aspects of national infrastructure could not keep up with the growth. Beijing responded through heavy investments in ultra-high voltage transmission lines and more focus on better integrating renewables into the national grid. Over a decade, State Grid doubled its investment from $33.31 billion in 2010 to $88.7 billion this year, according to Reuters. Another problem was haphazard subsidy policies to SOEs that encouraged wasteful expansion, without adequate oversight. The vast expansion of projects encouraged a build-at-all-costs mentality, leading to redundant projects and inefficiencies across the sector. To correct those issues, Beijing tightened oversight mechanisms and emphasised planning that favoured efficiency and grid-readiness over capacity. One lesson for Beijing was that in the race for renewable development, speed could not trump structure and organisation. Global influence With a sprawling global network spanning 61 countries and a web of joint ventures, with local state-owned enterprises, from Angola to Hungary to Bangladesh, China's geopolitical presence in the sector has become deeply entrenched. The current focus is on ensuring dominance in the next wave of clean energy technologies. With support guaranteed by the state to firms such as Longi, Goldwing, and CATL, production costs have been slashed due to market dominance, leading to vertical integration and economies of scale. The next wave of advancement in renewable technology will arrive in the form of AI-powered smart grids, green hydrogen, and next-generation nuclear technologies like thorium reactors, all of which Beijing has set its eyes on with the same formula of aggressive state investment, breakneck deployment, and focus on the export of technology and influence. The world now faces a bifurcated energy landscape, as the U.S. and its allies scramble to pump billions into reshoring clean energy industries through mechanisms like the Inflation Reduction Act. The key difference between Chinese SOEs and Western private enterprises is the ability of the Chinese state to mobilise large-scale manufacturing capabilities and properly utilise their vast scale. This enables low-cost, high-speed deployment of renewable tech, while the West grapples with higher costs, slower implementation, and far more complex political considerations on the adoption of green energy within each of their countries. The contest of the future, ultimately, will not be about panels or turbines or climate targets but who sets the rules of the global energy game. Will the future of climate tech follow Beijing's centralised, scale-driven blueprint, or will any other player be able to innovate fast enough and demonstrate a credible counter-model to offer to the world? Kabir Jeet Singh is a student and writer based in Beijing, with a deep interest in global economics, energy policy, and China's ascent.
