Merit vs Money: Who Really Gets Ahead in Indian Education? (2025)

Table of Contents

Introduction

The merit vs money debate defines the landscape of Indian education in 2025. Amid record spending on coaching, the digital learning boom, and extensive reforms, access to real opportunity hinges on who can afford elite preparatory systems, not just on natural talent or hard work. Stories from rural classrooms to metro coaching hubs reveal how privilege often outweighs merit, and how persistent gaps of caste, class, and geography continue to undermine educational equity. This comprehensive guide examines how money, social capital, and systemic bias compete with “merit,” drawing on authoritative research, in-depth reporting, and ground-level stories.

India’s Educational Divide: 2025 in Perspective

The Numbers Behind Inequality

Government data from 2025 reveals 46% of Class 10–12 students in urban India are enrolled in private schools, while the rural figure remains stuck under 20%, showing persistent gaps in facilities and results.
Private vs Public Spending: Per capita spend on a student in a premium private school can exceed ₹3 lakh annually, whereas government funding averages just ₹15,000 per child per year (IRJMETS research).
Less than 40% of marginalized students (SC/ST/OBC–rural) reach the end of secondary schooling; dropout spikes after Class 8 for girls and the poor, worsening after COVID disruptions (DrishtiIAS trend notes).

The Urban-Rural/Metro-Non-Metro Chasm

India’s megacities (Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad) concentrate the lion’s share of coaching centers, results in national exams, and feeder schools to IIT/IIM/AIIMS campuses.
In small towns and villages, school closures, unfilled teacher posts, and a lack of digital infrastructure have led to historic learning loss, as documented by ASER and MoE annual reports.

Table: Internet & Library Access by Locale (2025)

Location	Internet (%)	Library (%)
Metro/Cities	85	76
Large towns	58	54
Small towns/rural	17	22
SC/ST Focus Villages	<12	<8

Coaching Culture and Money: The Deciding Factor

$7 Billion Industry and Growing Inequity

India’s coaching market for competitive exams (engineering, medicine, law, civil services) surpassed $7 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow 11% annually (Financial Express).
High-achieving districts like Kota (Rajasthan), Hyderabad, and Delhi’s Mukherjee Nagar produce 80–90% of IIT JEE/NEET rankers; top coaching centers charge up to ₹4 lakh/year plus living expenses.
Cost barriers: Only 22% of rural and urban-poor aspirants can afford even mid-tier coaching. Digital alternatives have yet to truly democratize top-level prep, due to a lack of access and mentorship.

Table: Who Accesses Coaching? (2025)

Segment	Coaching Access (%)
Urban, upper-income	68
Urban, lower-middle	39
Rural, higher-income	44
Rural, disadvantaged	16
SC/ST girls (overall)	12

Impact of Coaching-Centric Systems

The majority of national scholarship exam winners and top-rankers in national tests have at least three years of formal coaching.
Mock-test culture heavily favors English-medium, urban students, further marginalizing rural youth and those without extra support.
“Merit” thus becomes a function of access—money buys opportunity, not just textbooks.

Read further: The Swaddle on access, privilege, and merit
See expansion in Insight Fultake: why coaching culture mushrooms

Merit vs Money: Case Studies and Firsthand Narratives

Rural Maharashtra: Dreams Versus Resources

Rani, a first-generation learner in Jalgaon, regularly walked 12 km to reach a government school. With no phone or internet at home, she borrowed village library books and relied on state scholarship schemes. Her classmate Mehak, with access to coaching via WhatsApp and in-person help, secured a top 100 NEET rank, while Rani could not clear the cutoff.

Kota, Rajasthan: A Tale of Two Students

Amit’s father, a small farmer, mortgaged his land for Kota fees; Amit couldn’t adjust, and pressure led to a mental health crisis. Meanwhile, his roommate from an urban business family had tutors, wellness counselors, and every resource possible—securing a top IIT seat.

Private School Heirarchy

Data reveal that even within private schools, elite “international” chains offer mock interviews, global curricula, and direct college admissions, creating a pipeline for global migration—affordable for less than 1% of Indian children.

Caste, Gender & Intersectional Bias

Dalit and Adivasi students remain heavily underrepresented in postgraduate research; less than 10% in both STEM and humanities PhDs in 2025 (DW report on top universities).
Survey data from AIIMS, JNU, and major universities show that more than half of SC/ST entrants report isolation, harassment, or “soft exclusion” on campus, including during placements.
Girls from marginalized backgrounds leave school at double the national average rate, with early marriage and safety concerns as leading causes.

Digital Disruption: Can Tech Bridge the Divide?

Progress

NEP 2020 and Ministry initiatives have seeded thousands of digital classrooms and distributed tablets to SC/ST/OBC students, as documented by MoE.
Ed-tech companies are piloting rural scholarship and AI-tutor programs in ten states.

Pitfalls

Only half of the distributed devices are regularly used due to poor electricity/internet and a lack of teacher support.
Urban students remain the biggest beneficiaries of high-quality digital learning, reinforcing the digital elite vs digital have-nots gap.

Policy Debates: Reservation, “Pure Merit,” and Dissent

Reservation—Still Necessary?

Data confirm that reserved category students, when given the opportunity and some social support (scholarships, mentorship), catch up and match open category performance within 2–3 years post-admission.
Backlash and resentment over reservations persist, especially in competitive exams, but experts call arguments about “pure merit” largely a myth—reflecting hidden privilege more than real achievement (The Swaddle).

Calls for Reform

Scholarship programs need redesign to target not only the poorest but also those lacking access to mentorship, information, and peer networks.
Education loans must go beyond higher-ed to cover high school, remote learning, and vocational upskilling, with lower barriers for marginalized families.
Teacher training and anti-bias mandates need far wider implementation, especially outside major metros.

International Perspective: Is India’s Struggle Unique?

While developed economies also face educational privilege gaps (consider US “legacy” and SAT-prep cycles), India’s size, social complexity, and public-spending shortfall make the merit vs money trade-off especially acute. China’s moves toward rural school investment and SAT reform show that systemic, targeted public support is feasible—and necessary.

Moving Forward: Recommendations for Real Meritocracy

Reform public funding: Invest heavily in teacher quality, infrastructure, and digital access for districts at the bottom of learning and opportunity rankings.
Support first-generation and marginalized students: Holistic scholarships (covering living, supplies, and internet) and formal mentorship programs.
Regulate coaching: Cap exploitative fees, increase transparency, and provide free or subsidized access to mock tests.
Data-driven management: Annual learning outcome surveys by geography, caste, and class to track real progress and design interventions.
Mainstream alternative admission paths: Broaden entry to colleges based on context-based portfolios—not just standardized test scores.

FAQ – Merit vs Money in Indian Education

Q1: Has education access improved for the marginalized in 2025?
It has, but progress is slow: most gaps persist in rural and SC/ST-dominated regions. Scholarships help, but rarely cover coaching or living expenses.

Q2: Is coaching essential for success?
Coaching is not essential, but in India’s current system, it offers significant advantages to those who can afford it.

Q3: How can government policy ensure genuine merit is rewarded?
By boosting rural spending, enforcing anti-bias laws, supporting first-generation students, and regulating private coaching.

Q4: Are elite students always more “meritorious” than others?
No—studies show much of their advantage is shaped by resources, networks, and parental support, not innate ability.

Q5: Can digital tools solve education inequality?
Not by themselves. Only with parallel investment in infrastructure, power, and teacher training can tech narrow the real gap.