Advocates for the abolition of NEET in Tamil Nadu argue that the current centralized system undermines the state's long-standing efforts to provide equitable access to medical education. By relying on school-level marks, the state previously ensured that students from diverse backgrounds, including those from rural and marginalized communities, had a fair chance to pursue medical careers. Proponents of this view emphasize that a single national test cannot account for the vast differences in curriculum, language, and socio-economic support systems found across India's states.
The reliance on private coaching centers, which has surged since the introduction of NEET, is seen by many as a form of systemic inequality. Families with significant financial resources can afford expensive training, effectively turning medical school entry into a competition of economic privilege rather than academic aptitude. By returning to a state-based admission model, the government could prioritize students who have demonstrated consistent performance throughout their secondary education, rather than those who perform best on a high-stakes, one-day exam.
Furthermore, supporters argue that education is a subject where states should hold significant decision-making power. They contend that the local government is best positioned to understand the specific needs of its population and the requirements of its healthcare workforce. Removing the mandate for NEET would allow Tamil Nadu to tailor its admission criteria to better align with its public health goals and the educational realities of its students, ensuring that the medical profession remains accessible to a broader cross-section of society.