NEW DELHI: Many candidates who appeared for the physical education paper continue to face the fallout of a major discrepancy — the removal of an “optional” section on sports, contrary to what the official syllabus had promised in the CUET-UG 2025. With corrective action from the National Testing Agency ( NTA ), multiple candidates have reported losing out on top choices in central universities due to lower percentile scores in the physical education paper.
As per the official CUET-UG syllabus, Unit III — “Theoretical Aspects of Games, Sports and Yogic Practices” — was to include questions from a single sport, based on the candidate’s selection. However, the actual paper asked questions from multiple sports without offering any choice, blindsiding students who had prepared selectively as per the guidelines.
The TOI had highlighted the issue in its July 1 report where it was stated that the official syllabus uploaded by NTA states that candidates should, while naming the sports, opt for ‘one of your choice’ for Unit 3. However, candidates reported that the questions were mandatory with no option. When asked, NTA did not address the syllabus deviation directly. Instead, it stated: ‘For physical education, the panel of subject experts decided not to provide options in Unit 3, as offering choices across 15 different sections was deemed impractical… Questions included in the paper were fundamental in nature… No undue advantage was given to any candidate during the conduct of the examination.’” The response didn’t explain why this change wasn’t notified in advance.
Despite representations through emails, social media, and the grievance portal, the NTA has remained silent. “We were promised a choice. Instead, the paper included volleyball, javelin, and other sports we hadn’t prepared for. Now our percentile is low, and counselling is almost over,” said a candidate from Rajasthan eyeing a BSc in physical education.
The issue is evident in the exam paper itself. For instance, Question 6 in Set 1 asked: “In FIVB World and Official competitions for seniors, if a team has more than 12 players recorded in the score sheet, how many Liberos are mandatory in the team list?” — a question from volleyball rules, even though many aspirants had chosen entirely different sports.
Similarly, Question 24 asked: “Which of the following is the correct throwing angle for Javelin in athletics field events?” — again, from a sport-specific section that was not supposed to appear unless selected by the candidate.
As CUET follows normalisation and merit-based seat allocation, even minor score drops have cost candidates seats in top universities. “This isn’t about poor preparation. It’s a breach of trust. You can’t deviate from the syllabus without prior notice,” said a Delhi-based teacher.
Candidates had flagged the issue on June 30 itself, with several taking to Reddit and other forums to post screenshots and protest the change. “The paper included random sports without giving us a choice. It’s clearly unfair,” one user wrote.
With most central universities concluding first-round counselling and no provision for re-evaluation, students say they feel cheated. “We missed the BPEd cutoff at BHU. There’s no grace marks mechanism. And NTA hasn’t even acknowledged the issue,” said a candidate from Varanasi.
The episode adds to CUET-UG 2025’s mounting list of controversies — from biometric failures to erratic centre changes. But for physical education aspirants, the NTA’s silence has been the most damaging response of all.New Delhi: Many candidates who appeared for the physical education paper continue to face the fallout of a major discrepancy — the removal of an “optional” section on sports, contrary to what the official syllabus had promised in the CUET-UG 2025. With corrective action from the National Testing Agency (NTA), multiple candidates have reported losing out on top choices in central universities due to lower percentile scores in the physical education paper.
As per the official CUET-UG syllabus, Unit III — “Theoretical Aspects of Games, Sports and Yogic Practices” — was to include questions from a single sport, based on the candidate’s selection. However, the actual paper asked questions from multiple sports without offering any choice, blindsiding students who had prepared selectively as per the guidelines.
The TOI had highlighted the issue in its July 1 report where it was stated that the official syllabus uploaded by NTA states that candidates should, while naming the sports, opt for ‘one of your choice’ for Unit 3. However, candidates reported that the questions were mandatory with no option. When asked, NTA did not address the syllabus deviation directly. Instead, it stated: ‘For physical education, the panel of subject experts decided not to provide options in Unit 3, as offering choices across 15 different sections was deemed impractical… Questions included in the paper were fundamental in nature… No undue advantage was given to any candidate during the conduct of the examination.’” The response didn’t explain why this change wasn’t notified in advance.
Despite representations through emails, social media, and the grievance portal, the NTA has remained silent. “We were promised a choice. Instead, the paper included volleyball, javelin, and other sports we hadn’t prepared for. Now our percentile is low, and counselling is almost over,” said a candidate from Rajasthan eyeing a BSc in physical education.
The issue is evident in the exam paper itself. For instance, Question 6 in Set 1 asked: “In FIVB World and Official competitions for seniors, if a team has more than 12 players recorded in the score sheet, how many Liberos are mandatory in the team list?” — a question from volleyball rules, even though many aspirants had chosen entirely different sports.
Similarly, Question 24 asked: “Which of the following is the correct throwing angle for Javelin in athletics field events?” — again, from a sport-specific section that was not supposed to appear unless selected by the candidate.
As CUET follows normalisation and merit-based seat allocation, even minor score drops have cost candidates seats in top universities. “This isn’t about poor preparation. It’s a breach of trust. You can’t deviate from the syllabus without prior notice,” said a Delhi-based teacher.
Candidates had flagged the issue on June 30 itself, with several taking to Reddit and other forums to post screenshots and protest the change. “The paper included random sports without giving us a choice. It’s clearly unfair,” one user wrote.
With most central universities concluding first-round counselling and no provision for re-evaluation, students say they feel cheated. “We missed the BPEd cutoff at BHU. There’s no grace marks mechanism. And NTA hasn’t even acknowledged the issue,” said a candidate from Varanasi.
The episode adds to CUET-UG 2025’s mounting list of controversies — from biometric failures to erratic centre changes. But for physical education aspirants, the NTA’s silence has been the most damaging response of all.
As per the official CUET-UG syllabus, Unit III — “Theoretical Aspects of Games, Sports and Yogic Practices” — was to include questions from a single sport, based on the candidate’s selection. However, the actual paper asked questions from multiple sports without offering any choice, blindsiding students who had prepared selectively as per the guidelines.
The TOI had highlighted the issue in its July 1 report where it was stated that the official syllabus uploaded by NTA states that candidates should, while naming the sports, opt for ‘one of your choice’ for Unit 3. However, candidates reported that the questions were mandatory with no option. When asked, NTA did not address the syllabus deviation directly. Instead, it stated: ‘For physical education, the panel of subject experts decided not to provide options in Unit 3, as offering choices across 15 different sections was deemed impractical… Questions included in the paper were fundamental in nature… No undue advantage was given to any candidate during the conduct of the examination.’” The response didn’t explain why this change wasn’t notified in advance.
Despite representations through emails, social media, and the grievance portal, the NTA has remained silent. “We were promised a choice. Instead, the paper included volleyball, javelin, and other sports we hadn’t prepared for. Now our percentile is low, and counselling is almost over,” said a candidate from Rajasthan eyeing a BSc in physical education.
The issue is evident in the exam paper itself. For instance, Question 6 in Set 1 asked: “In FIVB World and Official competitions for seniors, if a team has more than 12 players recorded in the score sheet, how many Liberos are mandatory in the team list?” — a question from volleyball rules, even though many aspirants had chosen entirely different sports.
Similarly, Question 24 asked: “Which of the following is the correct throwing angle for Javelin in athletics field events?” — again, from a sport-specific section that was not supposed to appear unless selected by the candidate.
As CUET follows normalisation and merit-based seat allocation, even minor score drops have cost candidates seats in top universities. “This isn’t about poor preparation. It’s a breach of trust. You can’t deviate from the syllabus without prior notice,” said a Delhi-based teacher.
Candidates had flagged the issue on June 30 itself, with several taking to Reddit and other forums to post screenshots and protest the change. “The paper included random sports without giving us a choice. It’s clearly unfair,” one user wrote.
With most central universities concluding first-round counselling and no provision for re-evaluation, students say they feel cheated. “We missed the BPEd cutoff at BHU. There’s no grace marks mechanism. And NTA hasn’t even acknowledged the issue,” said a candidate from Varanasi.
The episode adds to CUET-UG 2025’s mounting list of controversies — from biometric failures to erratic centre changes. But for physical education aspirants, the NTA’s silence has been the most damaging response of all.New Delhi: Many candidates who appeared for the physical education paper continue to face the fallout of a major discrepancy — the removal of an “optional” section on sports, contrary to what the official syllabus had promised in the CUET-UG 2025. With corrective action from the National Testing Agency (NTA), multiple candidates have reported losing out on top choices in central universities due to lower percentile scores in the physical education paper.
As per the official CUET-UG syllabus, Unit III — “Theoretical Aspects of Games, Sports and Yogic Practices” — was to include questions from a single sport, based on the candidate’s selection. However, the actual paper asked questions from multiple sports without offering any choice, blindsiding students who had prepared selectively as per the guidelines.
The TOI had highlighted the issue in its July 1 report where it was stated that the official syllabus uploaded by NTA states that candidates should, while naming the sports, opt for ‘one of your choice’ for Unit 3. However, candidates reported that the questions were mandatory with no option. When asked, NTA did not address the syllabus deviation directly. Instead, it stated: ‘For physical education, the panel of subject experts decided not to provide options in Unit 3, as offering choices across 15 different sections was deemed impractical… Questions included in the paper were fundamental in nature… No undue advantage was given to any candidate during the conduct of the examination.’” The response didn’t explain why this change wasn’t notified in advance.
Despite representations through emails, social media, and the grievance portal, the NTA has remained silent. “We were promised a choice. Instead, the paper included volleyball, javelin, and other sports we hadn’t prepared for. Now our percentile is low, and counselling is almost over,” said a candidate from Rajasthan eyeing a BSc in physical education.
The issue is evident in the exam paper itself. For instance, Question 6 in Set 1 asked: “In FIVB World and Official competitions for seniors, if a team has more than 12 players recorded in the score sheet, how many Liberos are mandatory in the team list?” — a question from volleyball rules, even though many aspirants had chosen entirely different sports.
Similarly, Question 24 asked: “Which of the following is the correct throwing angle for Javelin in athletics field events?” — again, from a sport-specific section that was not supposed to appear unless selected by the candidate.
As CUET follows normalisation and merit-based seat allocation, even minor score drops have cost candidates seats in top universities. “This isn’t about poor preparation. It’s a breach of trust. You can’t deviate from the syllabus without prior notice,” said a Delhi-based teacher.
Candidates had flagged the issue on June 30 itself, with several taking to Reddit and other forums to post screenshots and protest the change. “The paper included random sports without giving us a choice. It’s clearly unfair,” one user wrote.
With most central universities concluding first-round counselling and no provision for re-evaluation, students say they feel cheated. “We missed the BPEd cutoff at BHU. There’s no grace marks mechanism. And NTA hasn’t even acknowledged the issue,” said a candidate from Varanasi.
The episode adds to CUET-UG 2025’s mounting list of controversies — from biometric failures to erratic centre changes. But for physical education aspirants, the NTA’s silence has been the most damaging response of all.
You may also like
Mohan Bhagwat calls for affordable healthcare; decries commercialisation of health, education
One Piece fans 'so hyped' as Netflix drops season 2 trailer with Bridgerton favourite
ITV Ridley series 2 cast in full from Call The Midwife to Vera stars
Anand Sharma resigns as chairman of Congress' foreign affairs department
RG Kar case anniversary: Victim's mother injured during Secretariat march; police file seven FIRs against BJP leaders (Ld)
