The new CBSE on‑screen marking system (OSM) promised transparency and speed, but the results left thousands feeling blindsided. Many fear that an abrupt change in valuation has unfairly disrupted their efforts. In this atmosphere of shock and confusion, it is fair to ask: why have our scores shifted so dramatically, and whom does the system truly serve?
After receiving my class 12 results, I struggled to accept what the marks meant for my future. The pressure surrounding admissions, rising cut-offs, eligibility rules, and comparisons slowly affected my mental state. What began as academic disappointment gradually turned into emotional exhaustion and hopelessness.
Board exam scores determine college admissions, so when marks dipped under the OSM regime, many of us panicked.
This article is not an attempt to defend low marks. Rather, it is a question many quietly ask: “What has gone wrong with our education system?”
This is not about just one student or one result. It is about the growing number of students silently carrying pressure, fear, comparison, and uncertainty while trying to survive within an increasingly competitive educational system.
For generations, we were told schools should create thinkers and innovators. Today, many students feel they are trapped in a relentless race for marks and ranks. Students complain that they are judged not by creativity or understanding but by a few digits on a marksheet.
Earlier this year, CBSE switched from traditional paper‑based valuation to OSM. Examiners now sit at computers and grade digitally scanned answer scripts instead of handling physical papers.
Within days of the class 12 results being announced, social media flooded with student complaints. Many said their scores were far below expectations. Students flagged blurred scans, missing pages, and even answers left unchecked – factors they fear could cost them.
For students, the stress is real: board exam marks determine college admissions, scholarships, and even self‑esteem.
CBSE’s own statistics show a clear disturbance in the results. The overall class 12 pass rate slid to 85.2% in 2026, down from 88.4% in 2025. The sudden drop has shaken the confidence of students. Many who had prepared under the previous pattern and expected top scores found themselves with mid‑high percentages instead.
One striking effect of OSM has been the plunge in centum scores (100/100). Nationwide, only 96 students scored a centum in Physics this year. Physics was traditionally tougher; yet it had 274 centums in 2025.
It is hard to believe that the students became significantly weaker in one year. Instead, many noted that the valuation became markedly stricter. This dramatic shift raises valid questions. When a national valuation system changes so abruptly, should students bear the brunt of the transition? Critics argue that no reasonable educator would expect all students to instantly adapt to a tougher marking scheme. Instead of measuring student learning, the first year of OSM has felt, to many, like a calibration error: a sudden curve downward in scores.
The unexpectedly low scores are causing collateral damage. Thousands of students wrote in reevaluation requests, only to discover wrongly marked questions or skipped sections.
The crisis deepens when we consider India’s college admission rules. Under current regulations, to sit for JEE Advanced (the second stage of IIT admissions), a general‑category student must have at least 75% in class 12 or be in the top 20 percentile of their board.
Imagine a student who ranks in the top 0.5% nationwide on JEE (Main) but scores below 75% in boards. Even though JEE tests Science and Mathematics skills directly, this student will be deemed ineligible for IIT counselling.
In other words, the system claims that entrance exams determine merit, but then it says board marks alone determine college admission eligibility. This contradiction leaves students feeling betrayed. One minute they are celebrating a top JEE rank, the next they fear losing it because of a strict marking regime. Under OSM, this problem is exacerbated. Countless students, having survived the long grind of national exams, now face the injustice that hard work can be nullified by one rigid cutoff.
Another concern is the uneven playing field created by different boards. All students across the country compete for the same college seats and scholarships, but they don’t take the same exams. In many state boards, teachers award near‑perfect marks for experiments or projects, and overall scores often run higher.
This imbalance is stark in high‑stakes entrances: when counseling lists come out, a handful of boards consistently have cutoffs above 99% for sought‑after programmes. Students from less forgiving boards see those cutoffs and despair: the bar seems insurmountable.
Behind these numbers and policies are students under tremendous pressure. When marks alone begin to define a child’s future, the emotional toll can be devastating. This chronic pressure was building long before OSM – the pursuit of medical or engineering seats has always been intense. But the recent upheaval has exacerbated it. Students narrated stories of teachers spending months teaching formulae, only for half the answer to go unchecked on screen. Some say they spend sleepless nights worrying that a technical glitch will cost them.
This crisis does not call for blaming individuals. It is not the teachers’ fault that the valuation system changed, nor is it entirely the board’s fault for trying reform. Rather, it is a signal that major transitions need careful handling and dialogue. Many educators believe that sudden, blanket implementation of OSM was rushed and half‑ready, and that such major reforms should be piloted with student feedback, not imposed overnight.
The government and CBSE have noted the outcry and pledged reviews. One immediate suggestion gaining support is a transitional policy fix for admissions. This would acknowledge that a single board exam in 2026 may not reflect the student’s true ability, given the upheaval.
The OSM system, once perfected, might indeed reduce human error and enable uniformity across India. But no technological reform should come at the cost of student well‑being. Student groups are already raising their voice, demanding that CBSE publish a detailed breakdown of score changes by subject and question type. Parents’ forums have begun examining whether board exam patterns and college admission rules are still in sync with educational goals. The message across these forums is that reform requires communication and compassion.
OSM must be accompanied by confidence-building measures: ensuring every student can access scanned scripts for review, quickly fixing scanning errors, and being open to official grace or scaling if needed.
Every reform takes time. Parents, educators, and officials must work together to ensure that the solution is as fair as the reform was intended to be. That means not only fixing the current crisis, but also learning from it.
In the end, we must return to the central questions on the purpose of education. Is it simply to sort students by a grading curve, or to foster learning and confidence? Are we building an education system for learning, or a competition where students feel there are no survivors?
Aswin DT and Amala Jestina are CBSE class 12 students from Tamil Nadu.
