When Merit Comes from the Desert: Let the MDCAT Result Speak | Sajjad Ahmed

The recent MDCAT results in Sindh have opened an important conversation—not merely about an examination, but about merit, opportunity, and our attitude towards talent emerging from places that are often overlooked.

The Medical and Dental College Admission Test 2026, conducted through Sukkur IBA’s testing services, produced an unusual and striking merit pattern. Out of 33,336 candidates who appeared across Sindh, 16,507 were declared successful, giving an overall success rate of 49.5 per cent.

The highest score was 179 out of 180. What attracted the greatest public attention, however, was the geographical distribution of the highest achievers. No candidate from Karachi appeared among the top 20, while five students from Tharparkar secured positions in that list. Twelve students from Tharparkar were also among the top 50.

Instead of celebrating this remarkable achievement, sections of the public discourse have immediately turned towards suspicion and allegations against the testing institution.

Questions about examination transparency are legitimate in any high-stakes test, and every credible testing organization should be prepared to answer them through evidence, documentation, audits, and an appropriate grievance mechanism.

But there is a fundamental difference between asking for verification and declaring a result questionable simply because it does not conform to our expectations.

The fact that Karachi produced no candidate in the top 20 cannot, by itself, establish irregularity. Nor can the presence of five students from Tharparkar prove anything beyond what the result itself demonstrates: those students performed exceptionally well in this particular examination.

Indeed, perhaps the more important question is why we find it difficult to accept excellence when it comes from a less privileged district.

Tharparkar is frequently discussed in Pakistan through the vocabulary of deprivation, drought, poverty, and lack of opportunity. Yet the MDCAT result has offered another image of the district: talented young people capable of competing at the highest level when given an equal examination platform.

Their success should not become a reason for suspicion. It should become a reason for investigation of a different kind—an investigation into how many talented children across rural Sindh remain undiscovered.

This is where Sukkur IBA deserves a fair assessment.

Sukkur IBA has developed a substantial institutional identity in testing, education, and merit-based selection. Its testing services have been entrusted with major public examinations in Sindh, and its official website has publicly posted the MDCAT 2026 answer keys, provisional results, and final-result announcements.

The institution should certainly welcome independent scrutiny. In fact, transparency strengthens rather than weakens an examination system.

If candidates or parents have concrete complaints, the appropriate response is to examine CCTV records, attendance records, OMR sheets, answer keys, scanning procedures, and other relevant evidence.

Such demands have already been raised publicly following the 2026 result, including calls for an independent review.

But scrutiny must remain scrutiny. It should not become a verdict before evidence is examined.

There is another misconception that deserves correction. A university’s credibility cannot be established simply by comparing one international ranking number with another. Different ranking organizations measure different things.

NED University, for example, has a long and distinguished engineering tradition and is currently ranked 1501+ in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2026, while its QS Asia 2026 ranking is 478.

Sukkur IBA’s current QS profile, meanwhile, lists it at 1501+ in the QS Sustainability Ranking 2026.

Therefore, the argument should not be that Sukkur IBA is “better than NED” because of a particular ranking. That would oversimplify the evidence.

NED is an established engineering university; Sukkur IBA has built its own reputation, particularly in business, technology, education, and testing. Their institutional missions and areas of strength are not identical.

The stronger argument is simpler: Sukkur IBA should be judged by evidence, not by geography.

If its MDCAT process has been conducted according to the approved procedures, then the results should be accepted unless credible evidence demonstrates otherwise.

If there are genuine procedural questions, they should be investigated transparently. Either way, the students themselves should not become collateral damage in an institutional controversy.

Most importantly, let us not make the mistake of believing that academic excellence belongs exclusively to metropolitan Pakistan.

A student from Karachi has every right to succeed. A student from Lahore, Hyderabad, or Islamabad has every right to succeed. But so does a student from Mithi, Nagarparkar, Islamkot, or any other remote corner of Sindh.

Merit has no postcode.

The extraordinary performance of Tharparkar’s students should therefore be treated not as an embarrassment to Karachi nor as proof of anyone’s superiority, but as a reminder that Pakistan’s intellectual potential is far wider than its major cities.

If the MDCAT result is challenged, let the evidence decide.

If the examination process is questioned, let an impartial review answer the questions.

But until credible evidence establishes otherwise, the achievement of students from Tharparkar deserves what every high-scoring candidate deserves: recognition, respect, and congratulations.

And Sukkur IBA deserves the same principle that it is being asked to apply to thousands of candidates—a fair assessment based on evidence.