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.