How India’s Exam Crisis Is Really A Jobs Crisis
Candidates may spend years preparing, while families bear the costs of coaching, accommodation and repeated attempts. This also means losing opportunities to earn, gain work experience or develop skills. The burden is unequal, however. Better-off families can more easily finance coaching, living expenses and repeated attempts
The recent protests over examination leaks have focused attention on paper security, malpractices, institutional weaknesses and administrative failures. These are serious problems that require quick remedies. However, they also point to a larger issue. India’s examination crisis is closely tied to its employment crisis. An examination becomes highly competitive when the number of people seeking secure employment far exceeds the number of desirable jobs. A leaked paper becomes more valuable when the job at the end of the process is scarce and highly valued. This pressure has grown as India has expanded its school and higher education systems, bringing more young people with secondary, higher-secondary and university qualifications into the labour market.
The problem, however, is not simply unemployment. It is the shortage of decent, reasonably secure employment that matches the qualifications and expectations of the youth. The Economic Survey has identified quality employment as a major policy concern. The Periodic Labour Force Survey shows that youth unemployment remains high: among 15-29-year-olds, it was 17 per cent in January-March 2024, rising to 22.7 per cent among young women. Against this background, demand for government jobs remains strong. In 2024, about 30 lakh candidates competed for roughly 17,700 government posts, according to reported figures.
Why does government employment attract such intense competition? Government jobs offer security, predictable career progression and social protection. For many young people, alternatives are low-paid, informal or insecure, with limited prospects. Higher education has raised aspirations, but the labour market has not expanded opportunities at the same pace. The Economic Survey has stressed the need to bridge this education-employment gap. When alternatives are uncertain, spending years preparing for a government examination can seem like an investment in one of the few reasonably secure employment options. Recruitment examinations thus allocate scarce desirable jobs among a large pool of applicants. When secure employment is scarce, the stakes rise sharply. Candidates may spend years preparing, while families bear the costs of coaching, accommodation and repeated attempts. This also means losing opportunities to earn, gain work experience or develop skills. The burden is unequal, however. Better-off families can more easily finance coaching, living expenses and repeated attempts. A formally merit-based examination can, therefore, still depend partly on the resources candidates have before entering the examination hall. The longer recruitment takes, the greater this advantage becomes.
The same scarcity also helps explain why malpractice becomes more consequential. Scarcity does not, by itself, cause leaks or cheating. Weak security, corruption, collusion and administrative failures are the immediate causes and must be addressed directly. But scarcity increases the incentive to gain an unfair advantage. When very large numbers compete for a small number of desirable positions, the potential benefit of obtaining examination material in advance becomes greater. So does the damage when an examination is compromised. A leaked paper is, therefore, not merely an examination failure. It can undermine the process by which thousands of candidates believe they have a fair chance of improving their economic circumstances.
This competition has also created a large examination economy. Coaching institutes, publishers, online platforms and hostels provide useful services. But prolonged preparation can create a cycle: scarce jobs intensify competition, competition encourages longer preparation, longer preparation increases financial and personal investment, and that investment raises the stakes attached to each examination. A cancelled or delayed examination then becomes far more costly for candidates who may have spent years preparing.
The government, therefore, faces two tasks. First, examinations must be secure, transparent, and free from malpractice. Question papers must be protected, procedures independently monitored, and allegations of leaks or manipulation investigated quickly and credibly. Candidates must have confidence that the process is fair. Second, the time and uncertainty attached to recruitment must be reduced. Recruitment calendars should be predictable. Vacancies should be identified and advertised regularly, examination schedules followed, and results and appointments not delayed for years. Where possible, recruitment processes should be simplified so candidates do not spend years moving through multiple stages. But administrative reform can only go so far. India also needs more good-quality employment outside the government. The Economic Survey has identified manufacturing, agro-processing and the care economy as areas with employment potential, while stressing the need to bridge the education-employment gap. Asking young people to acquire more skills will not solve the problem if the economy does not create enough jobs that use those skills. Higher education has expanded the supply of educated workers. Demand for their skills must grow alongside it.
Here, we cannot ignore the social consequences. Young people who spend years preparing for examinations may delay entering the labour market, while families continue to bear the financial burden. Women may face additional constraints related to mobility, safety and family responsibilities. Candidates who fail after several attempts may enter the labour market later with less work experience, making it harder to compete for other jobs. The system can thus reinforce dependence on government recruitment. This is why the examination crisis must be seen in the wider employment context. The jobs crisis does not cause leaks or malpractice; weak security, administrative failures, corruption, and poor accountability do. However, scarce quality employment raises the stakes and makes a failed or cancelled examination far more costly.
India, therefore, needs both examination and employment reform. Examinations must be secure, predictable and credible, while the economy creates enough well-paid, reasonably secure jobs outside government so that a single examination does not determine a young person’s economic future. The deeper question is why so many young people have so much riding on one examination.
P. John J. Kennedy is former professor and dean, Christ University, Bengaluru
