Critics of the call for a complete system rebuild warn that such a radical approach could cause massive disruption to the academic calendar and create unnecessary chaos for students. They argue that while addressing paper leaks is essential, dismantling the existing infrastructure entirely ignores the logistical complexities of conducting exams for millions of candidates simultaneously. Instead of a total overhaul, these voices suggest that targeted, incremental improvements to security and surveillance would be more effective and less risky.
There is also concern that politicizing the issue of examination integrity might lead to reactionary policies that do not actually solve the root causes of the problem. Skeptics point out that the National Testing Agency has successfully managed large-scale exams for years, and that isolated incidents should be handled through legal and administrative accountability rather than a complete institutional teardown. They fear that a total rebuild could lead to a period of instability where students are left without a clear path forward for their admissions.
Furthermore, some experts argue that the focus should remain on strengthening the existing legal framework to ensure that those responsible for leaks face swift and severe punishment. By focusing on enforcement and deterrence, the government can address the criminal element without sacrificing the stability of the entire education system. This perspective emphasizes that continuity and refinement are often more practical than attempting to reinvent a complex national system under pressure.