When nineteen sixteen-year-olds achieve academic perfection simultaneously, the first reaction is applause. The second, if honesty is allowed, is curiosity. Because while excellence is inspiring, mass perfection — especially in theory subjects — has always been a rare phenomenon in serious education systems. Are we witnessing academic excellence, or the slow erosion of evaluation itself?
Let me say this clearly, without ambiguity and without malice — the children deserve appreciation. Their effort, discipline, late nights, and family support are real. No one in their right mind would snatch that away. But education is not judged only by applause; it is judged by credibility. And credibility begins where honesty survives scrutiny.
The problem does not start with the students. It starts with how we set the question papers and how we evaluate.
For decades, even within the limitations of a marks-based system, there existed a basic academic understanding: numericals may allow perfection; theory rarely does. Language, social sciences, grammar-based subjects are not machines. They involve interpretation, expression, structure, coherence, vocabulary, and judgment. Even the most brilliant answer leaves room for refinement. That is not a flaw — that is the very nature of the humanities.
So when we see 100 percent marks and that too repeated nineteen times — we are compelled to pause. Not to accuse, but to ask. Because a system that does not allow questioning has already failed the purpose of education.
Evaluation is not meant to flatter; it is meant to differentiate. It must distinguish between excellent and exceptional, between near-perfect and perfect. The moment that distinction disappears, marks lose meaning. A 95 and a 100 begin to look the same. A topper and an average high-scorer merge into one headline-friendly statistic.
These astronomical scores are overwhelmingly associated with private institutions and coaching centres. Again, this is not a blanket indictment. It is an observable pattern.
Why does this happen? Private institutions and coaching centres function in a competitive marketplace. Results are not just outcomes; they are advertisements. Banners, hoardings, newspaper clippings, social media posts — “Our student scored 500/500” sells admissions far better than “Our students learned well.” Marks become brand capital. Teaching, therefore, gradually shifts from concept-building to answer-shaping. Students are trained not to understand broadly, but to write narrowly — exactly what the examiner expects, exactly how the examiner expects it. Pre-boards are conducted not to identify gaps, but to eliminate variance. The same notes, the same phrases, the same structures are drilled into every child.
When answers begin to look alike, evaluation becomes mechanical. And when evaluation becomes mechanical, leniency passes unnoticed.
Examiners are also human and from the same society. They operate within a system where “good results” are celebrated and “low scoring” is questioned. In such an environment, the temptation to be generous — especially in theory subjects — becomes systemic, not personal.
We start believing our own hype.
A child scoring 100 percent across all subjects may begin to believe they have mastered everything. Parents begin to believe their child is invincible. Schools begin to believe their methods are flawless. Society begins to believe we have finally “fixed” education. And then reality intervenes. The same students struggle in higher classes where answers are not predictable. They falter in competitive exams where objective rigor replaces descriptive comfort. They face difficulty in articulating ideas independently, because for years they were trained to reproduce, not to reason.
The damage is subtle, but deep.
Our society, already obsessed with numbers, fuels this crisis. We ask children, “How much did you score?” not “What did you learn?” We compare siblings, neighbors, cousins — turning education into a silent race where the finish line keeps moving but the meaning keeps shrinking.
Marks become social currency. And in such a society, institutions that produce higher numbers — regardless of depth — are rewarded.
This is where the JKBOSE evaluation system must introspect. Not defensively, not politically, but academically. Moderation is not generosity. Standardization is not fairness. Credibility is courage — the courage to say that perfection is rare, and that it should remain rare.
A system that produces occasional toppers is healthy. A system that produces mass perfection is suspect.
Education must prepare students for complexity, not comfort. For uncertainty, not certainty. For lifelong learning, not short-term applause.
The question is not whether today’s students are brilliant. Many of them are.
The real question is: are we being honest with them? Because the cruelest thing we can do to a child is not to fail them — it is to tell them they are perfect when they are still learning.
And when 500/500 becomes routine, education stops being a journey — and turns into a well-designed illusion.
The author is a Columnist and Education advocate. ikkzikbal@gmail.com.
