Candidates outside a JEE Advanced 2017 centre in Sanpada, Navi Mumbai. Photo Credits: Purnangshu Paul
Approximately 2,20,000 qualified to take the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Advanced 2017 today, May 21. Paper I of JEE Advanced 2017 was successfully conducted by the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) across the country. JEE Advanced 2017 candidates say difficulty level of Paper I was average, Chemistry was the easiest.
JEE Advanced 2017 Paper I: Candidates’ speak
PaGaLGuY spoke to candidates at a centre at Navi Mumbai. Bharat from Vashi, Navi Mumbai, said, “Physics was slightly difficult for me as I left majority of the topics. Overall my paper went alright.”
Gaurav Dudhe, Mumbai, said, “Paper I was good, and easy, but Mathematics was difficult for me, I could not figure out the correct approach to solve those questions. Luckily, nothing was out of syllabus, it was only a little trickier then JEE Main 2017.”
JEE Advanced 2017: Candidates review Paper I
Another candidate from Navi Mumbai, Sparsh Rawat, said, “Paper I was easy, but the questions were lengthy. Inquisitive type questions had no negative marking so I attempted all of them. There was partial marking for some questions, but calculations were lengthy. Chemistry was time saving, Mathematics had theory questions, and Physics, I don’t from where to start.”
Paper I of JEE Advanced 2017 was of 54 questions, 183 marks, where Chemistry sections were the easiest, Physics and Mathematics were lengthy. There were a total of 10 sets for Paper I of JEE Advanced 2017.
Lachiket Irlekar from Navi Mumbai said, “Chemistry was easy. There were table type questions, with only one correct answer that took extra time. I attempted questions worth 100 out of 183 marks.” Irlekar continued, “I find Physics difficult, so I did not prepare well for it.”
Sashat Chahu, Mumbai, said, “ Mathematics was difficult. I did not prepare well for the exam, I will not score good, and I will not even secure a seat in the IITs. Since I qualified, I came to take JEE Advanced 2017, I am hoping that Paper II will be better.”
With inputs from Megha Mehta, and Purnangshu Paul