Disclaimer: All views expressed here are in nature of an academic debate only
There is an upper age limit imposed by the exam committee of a certain national level entrance exam. Last year, this limit was challenged by a couple of students who had crossed the age limit. A court judgment was passed in favor of the students and they were allowed to appear for the exam. However, there have been media reports which claim that the judgment notwithstanding, the age limit rule might still be enforced this year.
This article aims to explore the need for such a rule. The contrary opinion has not been discussed here. Valid opinions against the one expressed here are welcome.
There are literally thousands of students who have just completed their school education and look forward to enter the education system in some of the premier institutions of this country. The average age of such aspirants would be in the 17-19 year range. Although there may be candidates who have completed 20 years of age, the numbers who would fall in this category would be minuscule.
Suppose the age limit is removed - what could happen? What is a large number of 20+ (age) candidates appear and crack the examination? With the merit-system in place, what if none (or a few) 12th pass outs get admissions? Wouldn't it be unfair for the younger aspirants?
In absence of an age limit (and no bar on number of attempts), what is to prevent a candidate from repeatedly trying his (her) luck till (s)he cracks the exam?
While there may be legitimate reasons as to why an older candidate wishes to join the course, these must be taken on a case to case basis. Certain strict rules regarding the eligibility of candidates over a certain age can be added as exceptions to the age rule. One condition could be the number of attempts that such a candidate is allowed.
While no system is perfect, it is worth thinking about the rationale behind certain rules and how to deal with genuine cases where the rule reduces one's chances at a good future.
There is an upper age limit imposed by the exam committee of a certain national level entrance exam. Last year, this limit was challenged by a couple of students who had crossed the age limit. A court judgment was passed in favor of the students and they were allowed to appear for the exam. However, there have been media reports which claim that the judgment notwithstanding, the age limit rule might still be enforced this year.
This article aims to explore the need for such a rule. The contrary opinion has not been discussed here. Valid opinions against the one expressed here are welcome.
There are literally thousands of students who have just completed their school education and look forward to enter the education system in some of the premier institutions of this country. The average age of such aspirants would be in the 17-19 year range. Although there may be candidates who have completed 20 years of age, the numbers who would fall in this category would be minuscule.
Suppose the age limit is removed - what could happen? What is a large number of 20+ (age) candidates appear and crack the examination? With the merit-system in place, what if none (or a few) 12th pass outs get admissions? Wouldn't it be unfair for the younger aspirants?
In absence of an age limit (and no bar on number of attempts), what is to prevent a candidate from repeatedly trying his (her) luck till (s)he cracks the exam?
While there may be legitimate reasons as to why an older candidate wishes to join the course, these must be taken on a case to case basis. Certain strict rules regarding the eligibility of candidates over a certain age can be added as exceptions to the age rule. One condition could be the number of attempts that such a candidate is allowed.
While no system is perfect, it is worth thinking about the rationale behind certain rules and how to deal with genuine cases where the rule reduces one's chances at a good future.
