When the eligibility cut-off for NEET-PG was lowered to the point where candidates with negative scores became eligible for counselling, it triggered disbelief, anger, and confusion in equal measure.
For an examination designed to filter candidates for specialist medical training, the optics were unsettling.
Authorities justified the move as a practical response to thousands of vacant postgraduate medical seats. Critics called it a dilution of academic standards.
Aspirants were left asking a more basic question: how did a national exam meant to safeguard competence reach a stage where scoring below zero no longer disqualifies a candidate?
This controversy is not merely about NEET cut-offs for the admission season. It exposes deeper tensions in medical education — between seat utilisation and standards, between administrative flexibility and institutional credibility, and between legal authority and academic logic. To understand how negative scores entered the counselling room, it is necessary to examine how NEET-PG works, who defines “minimum competence”, and whether lowering benchmarks solves the problems it claims to address.
Also Read:
- Why the UGC Guidelines Risk Harming General Category Students
- When systems start standing in for learning
- The Real Harm of EdTech Isn’t Technology — It’s the Decisions We’ve Stopped Making
What is a negative score?
A negative score in NEET-PG arises from the exam’s marking scheme, where correct answers are awarded marks and incorrect answers attract penalties. When wrong answers outnumber correct ones, a candidate’s final score can fall below zero.
Negative marking was introduced with a clear pedagogical intent: to discourage random guessing and ensure that candidates demonstrate a baseline level of subject understanding. In a postgraduate entrance exam, this baseline matters because the test is not assessing curiosity or potential, but readiness for advanced medical training.
What negative marking was not designed to do was create an alternative eligibility pathway. A negative score was meant to signal insufficient mastery, not temporary underperformance.
Can Students Who Score “Zero” Actually Get Admission?
Yes — and this is where much of the confusion arises.
NEET-PG eligibility is determined through percentiles, not fixed pass marks. Percentiles rank candidates relative to one another. When cut-off percentiles are lowered sharply — even to zero — candidates with zero or negative raw scores can technically become eligible for counselling.
Eligibility, however, is not the same as admission. Candidates must still secure a seat through the counselling process, which depends on rank, category, preferences, and seat availability. Yet eligibility itself is a powerful signal. It defines who the system considers academically fit to compete for specialist training.
The legal distinction between eligibility and admission may be sound, but from an academic and ethical perspective, it raises uncomfortable questions.
Also Read:
- EdTech in the AI Age: Promise, Power, and Guardrails
- The EdTech Business Model: How Education Is Built, Sold, and Scaled
Who decides “minimum score” for NEET PG
The authority to determine eligibility criteria and minimum cut-offs lies with the National Medical Commission (NMC), working alongside the examination authority and the Union Health Ministry.
While regulators are legally empowered to modify cut-offs, the academic basis for doing so is rarely articulated publicly. There is no transparent framework explaining:
- what constitutes “minimum competence” for postgraduate medicine, or
- how far eligibility can be relaxed without undermining training quality.
This absence of clearly stated academic benchmarks creates a credibility gap. Decisions may be lawful, but they often appear ad hoc — shaped more by administrative pressures than by educational principles.
Is There Any Academic Logic to Allow Negative-Score Candidates?
Those defending cut-off relaxation argue that NEET-PG is primarily a ranking exam, not a certification test. They point out that postgraduate training itself is rigorous and that weaker candidates can be filtered out during the course.
Critics counter that postgraduate medical education is not designed to compensate for foundational gaps. It assumes prior competence. Allowing candidates who could not demonstrate even baseline knowledge shifts the burden onto faculty, institutions, and ultimately patients.
From an academic standpoint, expanding eligibility downward does not improve competence upward. It merely redefines who gets a chance — without addressing preparedness.
Are there precedent in “Other Countries” giving admission to -ve mark candidates
Globally, there are no widely recognised precedents where candidates demonstrating negative performance on a national medical entrance or licensing exam are treated as eligible for specialist training.
In systems such as those in the US, UK, and much of Europe:
- exams act as firm filters, not flexible rankers
- minimum passing standards are non-negotiable
- failure requires retaking the exam, not lowering thresholds
Where workforce shortages exist, solutions focus on increasing training capacity, alternative pathways, or supervised transitional roles — not redefining failure as eligibility.
The Headline Moment: When “Negative Marks” Entered the Counselling Room
The controversy erupted when NEET-PG cut-offs were lowered so drastically that candidates with negative raw scores became eligible for counselling. Though presented as an administrative measure to prevent seat wastage, the symbolism was striking.
For many doctors and aspirants, this moment marked a psychological break. It suggested that the system had exhausted conventional policy tools and resorted to redefining standards themselves.
The phrase “negative marks eligible” resonated because it inverted a long-standing assumption: that postgraduate medicine demands demonstrable competence, not mere participation.
How NEET-PG Was Originally Designed to Work
NEET-PG was introduced to standardise postgraduate medical admissions across institutions and states. Its core objectives were to ensure fairness, rank candidates nationally, and exclude those lacking minimum competence.
Cut-offs were meant to act as academic guardrails. Over time, however, they evolved into administrative levers — adjusted to manage vacancies rather than safeguard standards.
This shift reflects a deeper policy tension: whether entrance exams exist primarily to protect quality, or to optimise seat utilisation.
Can Vacant PG Medical Seats Justify Negative Cut-offs?
Vacant postgraduate seats are a genuine problem, but their causes are structural:
- high fees in private colleges
- unpopular non-clinical specialties
- geographic and service-bond constraints
- mismatch between aspirant preferences and system needs
Lowering eligibility thresholds treats vacancies as a supply issue rather than a design failure. It addresses symptoms without fixing underlying distortions.
Using vacant seats to justify negative cut-offs risks reducing medical education to a numbers exercise instead of a training ecosystem.
Merit, Fairness, and the Trust Deficit Among Aspirants
Repeated cut-off manipulation erodes trust among aspirants. Those who prepare with the expectation of stable benchmarks find the goalposts constantly shifting.
Even candidates who benefit from relaxation may question the legitimacy of the process they enter. Over time, such uncertainty damages morale and weakens the perceived credibility of medical qualifications.
Competitive exams rely as much on trust as on rigour. When standards appear endlessly adjustable, the exam’s moral authority diminishes.
The Bigger Question: What Is the Minimum Standard for a Future Specialist?
Ultimately, this debate goes beyond NEET-PG. It asks a fundamental question: what is the irreducible minimum we expect from someone training to become a medical specialist?
Medicine is not just another profession. Its errors have human consequences. If negative performance no longer disqualifies a candidate at entry, where — and how — is the line drawn?
Until regulators clearly articulate what cannot be compromised, decisions will continue to look reactive, even when legally defensible. Allowing negative scores into counselling may solve an administrative problem, but whether it safeguards medical education — and patient trust — remains unresolved.
Do academic institutes actually admit candidates with zero or negative marks?
Negative marks: essentially no
There are no credible examples of recognised academic or professional institutions explicitly offering admission to candidates who have demonstrated negative performance in an entrance, qualifying, or licensing exam.
Negative marking exists in many exams worldwide, but negative performance is treated as failure, not eligibility.
What about zero marks?
This needs careful distinction.
🔹 Zero marks ≠ negative marks
- Zero marks can sometimes occur due to:
- absence
- failure to answer
- very low performance
- Negative marks indicate that incorrect knowledge outweighed correct knowledge.
Globally, zero marks almost always fail minimum eligibility, especially in professional education.