The Unified State Exam (EGE) is once again under scrutiny following the annual wave of complaints about its fairness. Despite claims of excessive difficulty and regional disparities, statistical data suggests otherwise.

Concerns arose this year regarding the perceived difficulty of the advanced mathematics exam and allegations that students from the provinces scored lower on the literature exam compared to their counterparts in the capital. However, these claims are largely unsubstantiated by official results.

The average score in mathematics actually increased compared to the previous year, indicating that the exam was not abnormally difficult. Furthermore, the gap in literature scores between students in major cities and those in other regions has narrowed significantly.

A key point of contention revolves around the expectation that intensive preparation and high scores on practice tests should guarantee similar success on the actual exam. However, the EGE is designed to assess a broader understanding of the curriculum and the ability to think critically, rather than simply memorizing specific test formats.

The exam aims to evaluate a student’s comprehensive knowledge of the school curriculum, their reasoning abilities, and their capacity to apply learned rules. Those who excel typically possess a strong foundation in the subject matter and are capable of independent thought and analysis.

Opponents of the EGE often criticize it as a system that merely requires students to select correct answers without demonstrating true understanding. However, achieving high scores on the EGE necessitates a deep understanding of the subject matter and the ability to apply knowledge effectively.

The current system also faces challenges, including the presence of “EGE trainers” who may generate unrealistic expectations and contribute to disappointment when students do not achieve desired scores. The need for state intervention in the EGE preparation system is a topic of ongoing debate.