India’s Real Admission Problem May Be the Number of Doors Students Must Open 

Franz Kafka’s The Trial contains one of literature’s most unsettling images of bureaucracy: a man arrives at a door that is meant for him, asks for permission to enter, and then spends his life waiting outside it. The door is open. The rules don’t make much sense. There are supposedly more gatekeepers beyond. By the time he understands that the entrance was his to begin with, it is too late. Kafka was writing about law and authority, not university admissions, but the metaphor has an uncomfortable relevance to modern education: access can become difficult not because the door is closed, but because there are too many people, procedures and interpretations standing between the student and the door.

That issue comes into the limelight with the recent debate being stirred at the Indian Institutes of Management. At a Coordination Forum of IIMs meeting on May 14, 2026, the institutes discussed the possibility of greater coordination in undergraduate entrance examinations, including a common test.The meeting also discussed a new centralized counselling mechanism for admission for MBA and other issues like fee refund and inter-IIM migration. These are ideas that are being considered, but have not yet made changes to the admission system.

The importance of the discussion is not just in the context of the IIMs. India has been increasing the number of programmes it allows students to enter its higher education institutions in the last few years. The expansion brings choice, but choice without coordination can be as much a source of friction. Depending on the institute and programme, applicants may encounter JIPMAT, JEE Main, JEE Advanced, an institute-specific aptitude test, or an existing examination such as CUET; some programmes do not require a separate entrance examination. Currently, there are now 22 IIMs in the system, but their undergraduate offerings and admission processes are not uniform. 

When Choice Becomes an Administrative Task

India’s IIM system now offers a range of undergraduate programmes, but the routes into them vary considerably. Depending on the institute and programme, students may encounter JIPMAT, JEE Main, JEE Advanced, an institute-specific aptitude test or an existing examination such as CUET. Some programmes, such as IIM Udaipur’s BBA, do not require a separate entrance examination at all. The variation is not necessarily a problem in itself: a programme in artificial intelligence and business analytics can reasonably require a different academic foundation from a general management programme. The more important question is whether every difference in the admission process has a clear academic reason.

So, the question is not should all doors be uniform. Whether or not students are being asked to learn the architecture of the building before they are allowed to enter it. If the variation in the requirements for admission to a course has a purpose, then it is actually different admission routes that reflect different academic requirements. Variation that occurs due to different management systems for the same decision is more difficult to justify. This tension can be seen in the IIM discussion that was held. 

IIM Indore contended that several tests offer several opportunities and are able to support various programme requirements and that multiple applications and admissions are an expensive process. The institute of Management of Technology, Udaipur proposed that the existing JEE, CUET and CLAT scores should be used instead of conducting an additional test and IIM Bodh Gaya, Jammu, Amritsar and Ranchi were in favour of a common entrance test.

The first step in admission reform shouldn’t be the fashionable notion of “single window”, but a much more mundane one: just what information does any institution need before it admits a student? Student should not be required to demonstrate the same capabilities over and over again due to noncoordinated institutions measuring substantially the same capabilities. When programmes are differentiated, this should be made explicit and defensible.

The Test Is Only the First Gate

The issue of getting admitted to India is even more acute after the entrance examination. Having a high score doesn’t always lead to a straightforward next step. Candidates might get offers from multiple institutes, have to face various deadlines and even pay seat booking fees before knowing which offer they will end up accepting. This issue was raised in the IIM Coordination Forum specifically in the context of a common digital counselling platform similar to the Joint Seat Allocation Authority system implemented for the admissions to the IITs.

The platform will enable candidates to control their choices in a fashion similar to “freeze”, “slide” and “float”. The IIM Mumbai was requested to build a prototype and a high-ranking official of the institute reportedly has said that the prototype was submitted to the Education Ministry by the end of July. The final ruling is yet to be made.

This is an administrative issue, but it’s a matter of fairness. A student facing multiple payments to maintain multiple possibilities begins to rely on some degree of uncertainty the family can tolerate in order to manage admissions. The same goes for application fees, travel for exams, separate institutional rules and the time it takes to digest separate institutional rules. A system may be academically merit-based, but also have unequal administrative costs on the people who are flowing through the system.

The best reform that can be is not necessarily a single “common” system

It is a natural desire to have a common entrance test. One test, one shot, one score and maybe one counselling system seems to be the solution to a clean problem. However, “clean” higher education does not last long when other academic ends come into play.

The IIM debate is already showing why. The government has called on the institutes to look into the possibility of cutting down on the multiple undergraduate entrance exams, while institutes themselves have suggested various solutions. Some prefer a common examination while others prefer to use the existing examinations, and IIM Indore has proposed an enlargement of the existing IPMAT system. The minutes also quoted the Education Ministry’s higher education secretary saying that such a big decision needs an analysis of students’ test-taking trends and socio-economic statuses.

That’s a place to think about reform. The quest for uniformity should not be the objective. It should be knowability. A learner should be able to see a programme and know what is being assessed, why it is relevant to the assessment, the cost of the assessment, what will happen if they get a result and what options will be available after they get a result. The institution does not need to have to adopt an altogether different style of bureaucracy that the applicant must learn.

Education Should Reward Preparation, Not Navigation

This is a greater irony. The entrance exam is meant to determine the readiness of the students to pursue intensive study. But the admissions process can itself be a source of another talent – the ability to follow a trail of institutions, compare admissions processes, know the deadlines, and absorb financial uncertainty.

That’s not a totally unhelpful ability. Life requires organisation. It should not, however, be an unfelt advantage in a system that professes to choose students on the basis of their academic achievement.

That is why it is worth paying attention to the IIM proposals ahead of their being made policy. They are a pointer to an issue that is addressed in a rather administrative than educational manner in Indian higher education institutes – how much complexity a student should have to absorb before education has actually started?

Kafka’s gatekeeper is frightening because the door is technically accessible. The problem is the system around it: the uncertainty, the hierarchy and waiting that make the simple act unnecessarily difficult. Higher education in India doesn’t have to be Kafkaesque and slip into the same error. It needs to provide only more doors but not ask what student is responsible for telling the others which one to go through.

The IIM discussion has brought that question into the open. A common examination may address some of the problems; a centralised counselling platform may address others. Neither, however, should become the objective in itself. The key is not starting from the convenience of institutional structures but from the real journeys of students. 

Let’s not forget, the purpose of an admission system is to open a path to education, not turn the path itself into another examination.