A university in Bihar, India, caused a stir after awarding a student an astonishing 257 marks out of 100 in a postgraduate exam but still denying her promotion. This incident occurred at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University during the announcement of the third-semester results for the academic year 2023-25.

While around 8,000 students passed their exams out of approximately 9,000 who took them, over 100 students were left waiting for their results due to issues with internal marking from their colleges. The university attributed the unusual scoring to mistakes made during data entry in Excel sheets while preparing the results. Professor Ram Kumar, the exam controller, acknowledged that errors had been identified and corrected after complaints were raised. He assured that measures would be taken to ensure more careful verification of results in future examinations.

Students from various streams including Hindi, English, and Science expressed concerns about repeated errors in grading and claimed that they had experienced unjust failures by narrow margins. The situation highlights ongoing challenges within the university's examination processes and has sparked significant outrage among students and parents alike.

Original article (bihar) (india)

The article about the university in Bihar, India, awarding a student 257 marks out of 100 but denying her promotion, provides limited value to an average individual. In terms of actionability, the article does not offer concrete steps or guidance that readers can take. It merely reports on an incident and quotes a professor acknowledging mistakes made during data entry. There is no actionable advice or recommendations for readers to improve their own academic performance or address similar issues.

From an educational depth perspective, the article lacks substance beyond surface-level facts. It does not provide explanations of causes, consequences, or systems related to the incident. The reader is not equipped with any meaningful knowledge or understanding of the topic beyond knowing that errors occurred during data entry.

The subject matter has personal relevance only for students who may have experienced similar issues with grading and promotion at universities in India. However, even for these individuals, the article does not provide any practical guidance or advice on how to address such issues.

In terms of public service function, the article does not provide access to official statements, safety protocols, emergency contacts, or resources that readers can use. It appears to exist primarily as a news report rather than a public service announcement.

The practicality of recommendations is non-existent in this article. There are no steps or guidance provided that readers can realistically follow.

The potential for long-term impact and sustainability is also limited. The article reports on a single incident and does not encourage behaviors or policies with lasting positive effects.

From an emotional impact perspective, the article may elicit frustration and disappointment from readers who have experienced similar issues with grading and promotion. However, it does not support positive emotional responses like resilience or hope.

Finally, it appears that this article was written primarily to generate clicks rather than to inform or educate readers. The sensational headline and lack of meaningful new information suggest that its purpose is more focused on engagement than providing value to readers.

Overall, while this article may be interesting as a news report about an unusual incident at a university in India, it provides little practical value to individual readers beyond mere curiosity about what happened in this specific case.

The text begins with a statement that awards a student 257 marks out of 100 in a postgraduate exam, which immediately raises eyebrows. The use of the word "astonishing" to describe this feat implies that such high marks are unusual or even exceptional, setting up a tone of surprise and perhaps even skepticism. This framing already suggests that the university's grading system is being questioned, and the reader is primed to expect controversy.

The text then attributes the unusual scoring to mistakes made during data entry in Excel sheets while preparing the results. The phrase "mistakes made during data entry" downplays the severity of the error and implies that it was an isolated incident rather than a systemic problem. This language manipulation reduces the culpability of those responsible for creating and implementing the grading system, deflecting attention from potential institutional failures.

Professor Ram Kumar's acknowledgment that errors had been identified and corrected after complaints were raised is presented as evidence of accountability, but it also reinforces the idea that mistakes are inevitable and can be easily rectified. This framing masks deeper issues with internal marking processes and creates an impression that problems can be solved through simple corrections rather than addressing underlying structural flaws.

Students from various streams expressed concerns about repeated errors in grading, claiming they had experienced unjust failures by narrow margins. The use of phrases like "unjust failures" emphasizes their emotional distress and creates sympathy for their plight. However, this framing also implies that students are overly sensitive or prone to exaggeration, subtly shifting blame away from systemic issues.

The situation highlights ongoing challenges within the university's examination processes, sparking significant outrage among students and parents alike. The word "outrage" conveys strong emotions but also trivializes legitimate concerns by implying they are unreasonable or excessive. This linguistic choice further deflects attention from genuine issues with grading systems.

The university attributed these challenges to mistakes made during data entry in Excel sheets while preparing results (emphasis mine). Here again we see language manipulation where instead of saying "our internal marking process has failed us", it says "we made some mistakes". By not taking responsibility for their own process they avoid accountability for any future mistakes.

When Professor Ram Kumar assured measures would be taken to ensure more careful verification of results in future examinations (emphasis mine), he reinforced his institution's commitment to improvement but shifted focus away from past errors towards future promises. This narrative control allows him to maintain credibility without addressing existing problems directly.

Students' claims about repeated errors in grading have been dismissed as mere complaints rather than legitimate grievances against systemic flaws within Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University's examination processes (emphasis mine). By downplaying students' concerns as mere complaints we see how language can manipulate public perception towards favoring institutions over individuals who have been wronged by those institutions

The input text is rich in emotions, which are skillfully woven throughout the narrative to convey a sense of outrage, frustration, and disappointment. One of the most prominent emotions expressed is anger, which is evident in the phrase "caused a stir" (emphasis added). This phrase sets the tone for the rest of the article, indicating that something has gone seriously wrong at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University. The use of strong action words like "awarding," "denying," and "stir" creates a sense of tension and conflict, drawing the reader's attention to the issue at hand.

The university's decision to award a student 257 marks out of 100 but still deny her promotion sparks outrage among students and parents alike. The phrase "astonishing 257 marks out of 100" itself conveys a sense of incredulity and surprise, highlighting the absurdity of the situation. The use of words like "stir," "outrage," and "concerns" emphasizes the strength of emotions involved.

The text also expresses frustration through phrases like "issues with internal marking from their colleges" and "mistakes made during data entry in Excel sheets." These phrases convey a sense of incompetence or carelessness on behalf of university officials, further fueling anger and disappointment among students.

Another emotion present in the text is sadness or disappointment. When Professor Ram Kumar acknowledges that errors had been identified and corrected after complaints were raised, it highlights that many students have experienced unjust failures by narrow margins. This admission creates a sense of empathy for those affected by these errors.

The writer uses emotional language to create sympathy for students who have been unfairly treated by university officials. By highlighting their concerns, frustrations, and disappointments, the writer encourages readers to share these feelings. The goal here is not only to inform readers about what happened but also to elicit an emotional response from them.

To persuade readers emotionally, the writer employs several techniques. One such technique is repetition – repeating key phrases like "issues with internal marking from their colleges" emphasizes their significance and highlights ongoing challenges within university examination processes.

Another tool used here is comparison – when Professor Ram Kumar assures that measures will be taken to ensure more careful verification results in future examinations compared to previous ones implies improvement but does not fully address past mistakes.

Furthermore, exaggeration – describing over 100 students waiting for results due to issues with internal marking as being left waiting makes it sound more severe than it actually might be serves as another persuasive device used by writers here.

Emotional manipulation can limit clear thinking if not recognized by readers; knowing where emotions are used helps maintain control over how one understands what they read; this awareness enables critical evaluation rather than being swayed solely by emotional appeals