Parliamentary Committee Seeks Review of CUET’s Multiple-Choice Format for Humanities

A parliamentary committee has recommended a thorough review of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET), arguing that its multiple-choice question (MCQ) format fails to assess the core competencies required in humanities and social science subjects. In a report submitted to Rajya Sabha Chairman C. P. Radhakrishnan on Tuesday, the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports, headed by Rajya Sabha MP Digvijaya Singh, stated that the exam's design is “poorly suited” for disciplines such as history, sociology, political science, and literature.

The committee observed that humanities subjects are fundamentally built around independent reasoning, subjective interpretation, and the ability to construct coherent arguments—skills that cannot be adequately measured through a tick-the-right-box format. It has therefore urged the government to reassess both the quality of CUET question papers and the overall architecture of the exam, to ensure it aligns with the objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasises critical thinking and holistic learning.

CUET was introduced in the 2022–23 academic session with the aim of creating a level playing field for undergraduate aspirants from various school boards, each with differing marking standards. Prior to its rollout, admissions to central universities often relied heavily on Class 12 board marks, leading to significant disparities. The test was designed as a common yardstick to evaluate all applicants uniformly. However, the committee’s latest report suggests that this single-assessment model may not be equally effective across all fields of study.

While an MCQ-based test might reasonably gauge a student’s grasp of formulas and factual knowledge in science or commerce, the panel contends that subjects like philosophy, literature, or political science demand an evaluation of a student’s capacity for original thought, interpretation, and argumentation. The committee noted that these essential abilities are not assessed by a four-option format, potentially disadvantaging students pursuing humanities disciplines.

Beyond the format, the report also raises a structural concern: CUET’s role as the sole entrance route for undergraduate admissions may conflict with the legislative mandates of certain universities. It specifically cites the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Act, which historically aimed to ensure socio-economic and regional diversity through its admission process. The panel warned that a centralised test might lack the flexibility needed to uphold such institution-specific objectives and indicated that it would continue to deliberate on this matter.

This is not the committee’s first observation on CUET. The current document, the 381st Action Taken Report, follows up on recommendations made in its 364th Report on Demands for Grants for 2025–26 concerning the Department of Higher Education. In its response, included in the same report, the government stated that it has “duly noted” the committee’s observations and has asked the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the National Testing Agency (NTA), the bodies responsible for conducting CUET, to take note of the concerns.

The government also highlighted that CUET now provides a single application window, enabling students to apply once and sit a single exam to be considered by multiple universities. It pointed out that the exam has grown rapidly, becoming the second-largest examination in the country within just two years, with over 13.5 lakh applicants in 2025. The panel’s recommendations, if accepted, may lead to significant changes in how undergraduate admissions are conducted, particularly for humanities programmes, as the government and testing agencies consider ways to better evaluate subjective and analytical skills.