Errors found in Hindi version of IIT-JEE

Last week, several mistakes that would allow a clever student to achieve 93 marks without applying his mind were reported to be in the Indian Institute of Technology Joint Entrance Examination (IIT-JEE) paper, now, more errors have been discovered in the Hindi version of the IIT-JEE 2010 paper.

Students who have been affected by the purported mistakes were mainly from the central belt regions of India such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan.

According to sources, the Hindi version of the paper contained wrong instructions that may cause a student around 48 marks in the Paper II. The instructions printed for Section IV in the English version paper read: “For each question in Section IV, you will be awarded two marks for each row in which you have darkened the bubble(s) corresponding to the correct answer. Thus, each question in this section carries a maximum of 8 marks. There are no negative marks awarded for incorrect answer(s) in this section.”

On the contrary, the instructions for Section IV in the Hindi version paper said that three marks would be awarded to the student if the bubble corresponding to the correct answer is darkened and zero marks if no bubble is darkened. It also said that there wouldn’t be any negative marking for wrong answers.

The English paper clearly said that each question in Section IV was for eight marks. However, the Hindi version states that each question is of three marks. This means that a student giving the Hindi version of the paper works for six questions worth 18 marks whereas they actually have to be worth 48 marks.

Due to the wrong instruction, many students admitted that they did not attempt the questions in Section IV as they thought the questions carried lesser weightage as compared to questions in other sections.

Also, as all IIT-JEE examinees have to juggle between time and marks scored, they might believe that Section IV carries 18 marks only and concentrate more of their time on other sections.

IIT Madras, which was responsible for conducting the paper this year, has again refuted all claims of this error in the paper.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.