SELECTION RATES IN CLAT – EXAGGERATION Vs. REALITY

Abstract

The most controversial as well as a major deciding factor in any edtech industry is results. However, not every coaching institute give authentic results. Some in the heat of competing can give fake results or misleading claims. Some can resort to spreading false results if they fail to acquire genuine results. This article explores its harmful effects, legal implications and good practices that should be followed.

Introduction

Many coaching centres advertise incredibly high selection rates (“90% pass”, “hundreds of admissions”, etc.) to lure students. But often, those numbers are exaggerated, selectively presented, or outright misleading. For aspirants, this creates false hope, can lead to overpaying, and distorts the real risk of failure. Some coaching centres even fail to disclose the batch/ID students are enrolled in, which shows irresponsibility. This is not just limited to CLAT but other law entrances like AILET and MHCET as well. Sometimes, institutes claim results just because that student took a small help or used their materials.

How Institutes Falsify Selection Rates

Here are some of the common tactics used by coaching institutes to inflate their “success / selection” claims:

• Selective Data Presentation: Institutes may only highlight students who were genuinely successful, ignoring how many didn’t make it.
• Ambiguous Attribution: They showcase a student’s rank or admission, but don’t clarify which course or batch the student was enrolled in. For example, successful candidates might have taken a short camp courses or a free test series, but the ads imply they were full-time students.
• Guarantees: Claims of “100% selection” or “guaranteed admission” are sometimes made, even though no exam or coaching can guarantee results.

These practices mislead prospective students about their true chances, pushing them into paying large fees without proper reason.

Regulatory and Legal Framework: What the Law Says

These practices are not just immoral but not legal as well. Here are legal implications of this issue:

Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) Guidelines

Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in the Coaching Sector (2024) have been issued to curb exactly these misleading practices by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)

Key rules include:

• No false claims like “guaranteed selection / job / admission.”
• Advertisement must disclose rank, name, course opted by the successful candidate, duration of that course, and whether it was paid or free.
• Disclaimers / important info must be in the same font size as the claims in the ad.
• Institutes cannot use student photos, testimonials, or names without written consent after selection.
• Misrepresenting faculty credentials is prohibited.

Violations are subject to action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Such legal enforcements have occurred recently even though not exactly in law exam.

Why Such Falsified Metrics Are Harmful

These falsified claims are very harmful for students. Some of the reasons include

• Financial & Emotional Cost: Students pay large coaching fees hoping for admission  when the advertised “selection rate” is inflated, many are caught unprepared or disillusioned.
• Distorted Decision‑Making: Overstated claims can make students pick a coaching centre based on false data, rather than quality of teaching, faculty, or real track record.
• Unfair Competition: Honest coaching centres lose out when “success mills” use inflated claims to attract a majority.
• Consumer Rights Violation: Such ads violate students’ rights to truthful information; in legal terms, they amount to unfair trade practices or deceptive trade.
• False admissions: Students get influenced by fake metrics coming into an institute which they don’t later find much good or helpful

What Students Should Do: A Pro‑active Approach

Here are some actionable steps for students to protect themselves:

1. Ask for Verifiable Data

Students must request detailed statistics like how many students applied, how many got selected, from which batches and also ask for rank lists, or at least anonymized data showing success across all students, not just a few “top performers.”

2. Check Consent for Testimonials

If a coaching centre uses a topper’s name or photo, ask if they obtained written consent after the student’s success. According to guidelines, this is required.

3. Read the Fine Print / Disclaimers

Make sure to read smallest details as they could help separate genuine claims from misleading advertisements

4. Know Your Rights

You can file a complaint with CCPA if you believe a coaching centre is making misleading ads.

5.Be Skeptical of Guarantees

No legitimate coaching can truly “guarantee” selection in a competitive exam because many factors are beyond their control. Treat such claims critically.

6. NEVER make results sole criteria of choosing any institute
   Always talk to Alumni, take demo classes, speak to teachers, research about the institute before choosing. Do not rely on advertisements or social media claims.

What Coaching Institutes Should Do: Ethical & Legal Best Practices

To be both compliant and credible, coaching centres should:

• Display real, verifiable data for selections (including course type, batch, paid vs free).
• Before using any student’s photo or testimonial, get written permission, as mandated by CCPA.
• Don’t make “guaranteed selection” or “100% pass” claims unless backed with solid, audited data.
• Disclaimers must be as visible and legible as the main claim; avoid using small fonts.
• Many false claims come from aggressive sales strategies. Training and standardizing claims can help reduce risk.
• As per CCPA guidelines, coaching centres should converge with the National Consumer Helpline for better redressal mechanisms.

If an institute violates these guidelines or law, they may face:

• Penalties by CCPA: As seen in recent cases, heavy fines can be imposed and matter can even demand litigation.
• Consumer Complaints: Students can file cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for unfair trade practices, deficiency of service, or misleading advertisements.
• Reputational Damage: Students and parents would always check the reality and once truth is out, institute can facereputational damage.

Conclusion

The problem of falsified “selection rates” is not just a marketing issue, it’s a consumer protection concern. Students deserve realistic, verifiable data to make informed decisions, and coaching institutes must market themselves responsibly and transparently. The new legal and regulatory regime, especially CCPA’s guidelines marks a strong step in the right direction. For students, awareness and skepticism are your first line of defense. For coaching institutes, ethical advertising isn’t just good practice, it’s the law.