After a series of controversies surrounding national entrance tests, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has set up a task force led by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani to recommend technology-driven and structural change for the National Testing Agency (NTA). The panel has been tasked with making one of the world's largest examination systems more secure and transparent to ensure every candidate gets a fair chance.
Other countries facing similar challenges have adopted very different models to balance fairness, security and accessibility.
While China relies on one of the world's most tightly controlled national examinations, the US spreads admission-related decisions across universities rather than depending on a single government-run examination. Brazil combines a national examination with a centralised digital admissions platform. Australia largely bases university admissions on school performance that is converted into a nationally comparable rank.
While these exams, too, have limitations, they offer valuable lessons to India as it works towards rebuilding confidence in high-stakes examinations.
China: A national examination run like a security operation
Few countries take examination security as seriously as China. Every June, more than 13 million students sit the Gaokao, the National College Entrance Examination, which is a high-stakes, 2-to-4-day academic test and the primary route to undergraduate education.
The Ministry of Education sets the overall framework, while provincial authorities conduct the examination, evaluate answer sheets, decide cut-offs and allocate seats.
What sets the Gaokao apart is the scale of coordination behind it. Months before the examination, education authorities work with police, cybersecurity agencies, local governments, transport departments, telecom regulators and power utilities to ensure smooth conduct. Examination centres become restricted zones, traffic is regulated around venues and public transport is adjusted to help candidates arrive on time.
According to the State Council of China, candidates undergo multiple rounds of identity checks and security screening before entering examination halls. Electronic devices are banned, signal jammers are deployed and many centres use AI-enabled surveillance to detect suspicious behaviour. Authorities also monitor online platforms for organised cheating, while offenders face severe penalties, including imprisonment under China's Criminal Law.
This highly centralised model has uniform security protocols, a well-defined chain of command and close coordination between government agencies which make it easier to prevent and respond to security threats at scale.
The system, however, has its drawbacks. Years of preparation hinge on a single examination conducted over a few days, placing enormous pressure on students. Heavy dependence on a single score also means that any major disruption could affect millions of candidates. Regional differences in university admissions continue to persist because leading institutions allocate varying numbers of seats to different provinces.
For India, the biggest lesson is to view examination security as a whole-of-government responsibility. Closer coordination between education authorities, police, district administrations, cyber agencies and telecom regulators could significantly strengthen examination-day security without making admissions even more dependent on one test.
United States: Multiple tests and decentralised admissions
The US has taken almost the opposite approach to China, spreading admissions decisions across tests, schools and universities instead of relying on one national examination. There is no government-run entrance test for university admissions.
While standardised tests such as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and American College Testing (ACT) remain widely used, they are only one part of the admissions process. Universities set their own criteria, deciding whether test scores are mandatory, optional or not considered at all. High school grades, essays, recommendation letters and extracurricular achievements often carry significant weight.
Students can also take the SAT or ACT several times a year and submit their best scores. The SAT has further strengthened security by moving to a digital adaptive format, where students receive different but statistically equivalent question sets, making large-scale paper leaks far less effective.
This model allows for flexibility, and a poor performance on one day does not define a student's future. Candidates can retake the test, improve their scores and apply to multiple universities with different admission requirements. Because admissions decisions are decentralised, disruption at one test centre or cancellation of a test date is unlikely to derail the entire admissions cycle.
However, admission requirements differ from one university to another, making the process complex and sometimes confusing. Multiple attempts and expensive coaching can also favour wealthier students, while greater reliance on essays, recommendations and extracurricular activities has raised questions about transparency and consistency.
For India, the US experience highlights the value of reducing dependence on a single examination date. Holding multiple examination sessions, using statistically equivalent question papers and allowing candidates to improve their scores could make the system more resilient, ensuring that one operational failure does not jeopardise the future of millions of students.
Australia: A common rank without one national entrance examination
According to Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre (QTAC), university admissions in Australia are based largely on a student's performance during the final years of school. Each state and territory has its own assessment system, with results converted into the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR), a nationally comparable ranking used by universities.
The ATAR is a percentile rank that allows universities to compare students from different state education systems. Admissions are coordinated through state-based centres, while individual universities set their own entry requirements. Some courses, including medicine and law, may also require interviews, portfolios or aptitude tests.
This model rewards consistent academic performance rather than one high-pressure examination. States retain control over school assessments, while statistical moderation ensures results remain broadly comparable across the country. Universities also have the flexibility to consider additional criteria where needed.
The system, however, depends on strong public confidence in school assessments. Differences in marking standards must be carefully moderated, and internal assessments can be vulnerable to inconsistent marking or grade inflation. It also works in Australia because the school education system is relatively uniform, making it harder to replicate in countries with wider disparities in educational quality.
A similar model may not be feasible across India, given the wide variation in school boards and learning outcomes. However, combining moderated board examination scores with entrance-test performance for selected courses could reduce dependence on a single examination while preserving national standards.
Germany: Centralise only where scarcity requires it
Germany offers another contrasting model where admission to higher education primarily depends on the Abitur, the school-leaving qualification awarded after secondary education. According to study-in-germany.com, backed by the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space, for many university programmes, this credential alone establishes eligibility, while individual universities manage admissions independently.
Central coordination is used only where competition for seats significantly exceeds supply. This applies particularly to courses such as medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and veterinary medicine. Admissions for these nationally restricted programmes are coordinated through Hochschulstart, a central platform that matches applicants with available seats while universities continue to define their own admission requirements within the broader framework.
This selective approach spreads administrative responsibility across institutions while ensuring that scarce seats are allocated through a transparent national mechanism. Universities retain substantial autonomy over most programmes, thereby reducing the burden on a single central examination authority.
Germany's approach shows that engineering, medical, university entrance, fellowship and recruitment examinations vary widely in scale, complexity and risk. Therefore, instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all model, India could consider separate institutions, security protocols and audit mechanisms tailored to the specific needs of different categories of examinations.
Brazil: Separate the examination from seat allocation
Brazil has drawn a clearer line between conducting examinations and allocating university seats. Students seeking admission to higher education take the Exame Nacional do Ensino Médio (Enem), a nationwide examination conducted by the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research (INEP). Their scores can then be used to apply to hundreds of public universities through the Unified Selection System (Sisu), a centralised digital admissions platform.
Candidates submit their preferred institutions and courses, while Sisu allocates seats based on examination scores, preferences, seat availability and reservation policies. During the admissions process, applicants can also track changing cut-offs before the final allotment.
The model shows that a single examination score can be used to apply to multiple institutions, reducing the need for separate entrance tests. The digital platform also makes the admission process more transparent by clearly showing how cut-offs change and seats are allocated. However, the system depends on robust digital infrastructure, reliable databases, transparent algorithms and strong cybersecurity, as any technical failure can disrupt admissions nationwide.
Brazil's model highlights the value of clearly separating examinations from admissions. India has already moved in this direction for several major entrance tests like Neet-UG, JEE Main, CUET-UG, which are conducted by NTA but counselling or admission is carried out by different agencies. Strengthening this separation through distinct governance, technology systems and audit mechanisms could improve accountability and reduce operational risks.
The experiences of China, the US, Australia, Germany and Brazil show that trust in examinations is built not just through tighter security, but through better institutional design. Clear accountability, distributed responsibilities, transparent governance and multiple pathways to admission all help make examination systems more resilient. The challenge before the
Nandan Nilekani-led task force goes far beyond preventing the next paper leak. The task force must therefore decide not only how technology can strengthen the NTA, but also whether India's examination system should continue to place so much responsibility and risk in one agency and one examination day.
 "From Gaokao to SAT: What India can learn from global examination systems")
