KEAM 2025 results row: Don’t do it now, warned expert panel; Kerala Govt just ignored red flag

The state government, which amended at the eleventh hour the prospectus of KEAM 2025 (Kerala Engineering, Architecture, and Medical courses) only to be set aside by the High Court single bench and division bench, ignored the suggestions and concerns raised in the meetings of the Standardisation Review Committee (SRC). The report in possession of Onmanorama shows that there was clear dissent in the five-member committee, which was constituted on April 9.

The SRC was constituted with Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE) Arun S Nair as the convenor, former VC, CUSAT, Sankaran PG, Somesh Kumar from Department of Mathematics, IIT Kharagpur, Senior Technical Officer, Statistical Quality Controller and Operations, Statistical Institute, Bangalore, E V Gijo, and Sivakumar K S (Rtd) Research Officer, SCERT as other members.

The committee held four meetings and it was repeatedly told that implementing the new method this year would not be scientifically appropriate as a more comprehensive study is required to make an authoritative comparison with the current method. It was also noted that the formula was tested using a very limited sample, and the parameters used in the formula were derived from that sample itself.

In the third meeting of the committee, the results obtained through the new standardisation as well as those obtained using the current method were presented to the committee. It was found that the new method exhibits greater outlier sensitivity and therefore, precise and scientifically sound provisions must be established to appropriately handle both the lowest and the highest marks.

"Although the average difference between the marks before and after standardisation appears to be lower in the new method compared to the existing one which at first glance seems more acceptable, the committee opined that more authoritative studies and validations are necessary before this can be accepted as a definitive advantage," the report notes. Arun S Nair, CEE, then requested the committee members to examine the methods of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and assess the applicability of those methods in Kerala.

The committee members again concluded that it would be appropriate to maintain the status quo until the advantages of the new method are proven with authoritative evidence. In the fourth meeting, a proposal was discussed to revise the existing 50:50 weightage ratio currently applied between the normalized entrance examination marks and the total marks/grades obtained in the qualifying examination in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry to a new ratio of 60:40 (entrance score 60 and qualifying score 40). While three members agreed to it, one member expressed dissent.

It was also decided that data from the past five years of various boards, instead of 10 years, could be considered for calculating the global mean and the impact of this should be studied in detail. It was also suggested that the committee should study this matter further and adding the raw Class XII marks directly to the entrance exam marks as done in some other states is not scientifically appropriate.

The report shows that the committee wanted detailed studies before introducing a new formula. It must be ensured that any new formula is demonstrably better than the current one. "As it needs more time, the committee concluded that implementing a new formula this year is not feasible," says the report.

In spite of these objections raised by the committee members, the Higher Education department issued an order on July 1 based on the letter of Arun S Nair and the report of the committee amending the prospectus.

The High Court division bench, which upheld the single bench order on Thursday, noted that the report of the committee would make it explicit that introducing a new formula would be possible only after a thorough and detailed study.

A reading of the report of the committee, which was relied on by the Advocate General, would not in any manner support the decision now taken by the state government for adopting an entirely different standardisation procedure, the court noted.