Perfect Scores in University Entrance Exams: Merit and Its Flaws

Perfect Scores in University Entrance Exams and the Story of the Smartest Girls

A report by El Mundo has put faces and names to the top scores in this year's university entrance exams. Elena López, Mariana Sánchez, Laura Soraya Ampudia, Jimena López, and Jingyi Ye, all between 17 and 18 years old, have achieved a perfect 10 out of 10 in high school and exam scores ranging from 13.11 to 14 out of 14. The article portrays them as feminists, pogre, committed, and detached from social media.

So much for the portrait. What's worth examining is the fine print: the implicit assertion that a brilliant academic record comes with a specific worldview. This leap—from data to character—has triggered the most acidic and, above all, the most skeptical responses.

Who are the five students in the report

Jingyi Ye scored 13.950 and will move from Zaragoza to Madrid to study Computer Engineering at the Polytechnic University; she comes from a private school, Liceo Europa, and her summer plans include playing the piano, drawing, and spending time with her grandparents. Laura Soraya Ampudia, with a 13.11, is entering Biomedical Engineering at the University of the Basque Country, a program with an entry cut-off score of 12.8 last year; she lives in Trapagaran (Vizcaya).

Elena López, 13.815, is the top scorer in Murcia, hosts a radio show, speaks English and French, and signs with the pseudonym Antígona. Mariana Sánchez achieved 14, the highest score in Madrid, and is enrolling in an advanced piano program at Alfonso X University. Jimena López Fuego, who lives in the Asturian mining basin, will pursue a double degree in Law and Business Administration in Oviedo with an eye on becoming a prosecutor.

The report insists that none of them fit the stereotype of a nerd. They have all prioritized vocation over salary—Literature, piano, Computer Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Law—and all assume their education will not end with their first degree. Mariana states it plainly: she knows her future will be 'more difficult' than that of her peers and is considering re-enrolling in Philology or something related to theater.

The article also describes one of the families: a mother who is a physicist, moved from the private sector to public healthcare, passed civil service exams, and now teaches at a high school, and a father who left a tech multinational at 40 to teach Mathematics. Reinvention as a norm, not an exception.

Why are university entrance exam scores said to be inflated?

This is the most common objection. Comparisons with past eras appear repeatedly: those who took the university entrance exams years ago recall a 6.4 as a high score in a graduating class with averages between 5 and 5.5, with the threshold for top students at 7 and a ceiling of 8.75.

The argument rests on two pillars. First, the volume: the number of thirteen and fourteen scores now appearing on the lists. Second, the method: the weight of the high school record in the final score, greater than that of the exams, which shifts a significant part of the result to the school where one studies rather than the test itself.

Added to this is a calendar detail noted in more than one response: the birth range given in the article clashes with the protagonists' ages and fits better with those born from 2006 onwards. In a piece built on credentials, this discrepancy is noticeable.

The predicted future: public employment and continuous training

The second dominant narrative is more uncomfortable. Many interpretations suggest that this profile—disciplined, good at memorizing, unaffected by noise—is a perfect fit for public sector employment, and that's where they will end up. The economic logic put forward is explicit: in an economy that does not reward entrepreneurship or initiative, the stability of a public salary becomes the rational choice for anyone capable of passing exams.

Against this, the obvious response is: if academic merit does not translate into the job market, the problem lies not with those who get the grades, but with the market. Several comments emphasize that acquiring theoretical knowledge does not equate to practical competence, and that the system measures the former, not the latter.

The protagonists have anticipated this criticism without realizing it. All of them insist they do not want to finish a degree and start working immediately. Continuous training is presented not as a vocation, but as a Plan B for a generation that does not expect stable employment.

Why this type of report no longer causes outrage

There was a time when such a piece would have ignited controversy. Today, the majority reaction is a shrug: it's read as promotional content written to showcase the protagonists, and it elicits more weariness than anger.

The most frequent criticism is not directed at the students, but at the framing. Presenting not using social media as a distinguishing trait turns a personal decision into a generational virtue, and incidentally suggests that those who do use them are less intelligent. Handwritten notes and fluorescent highlighters, cited as proof of effort, portray a method, not intelligence.

Beneath the surface lies something deeper: the suspicion that the system labels as brilliant those who best adapt to its structure, not those who think best. Some interpret the ideological coincidence between the protagonists and the dominant discourse of institutions not as rebellion, but as alignment. This is a debatable thesis. And, precisely because of that, it is debated.

The excerpt from the report that actually offers something new

Amidst the scores and photos, there is a paragraph that deviates from the script. One of the students claims to have witnessed more sens and homophobia in the classroom than ever before, primarily from male peers, and recounts that rumors spread that she was getting good grades due to sensual favors from teachers.

This fragment, more than any cut-off score, explains why the discussion exists. Both things can be true simultaneously: that a generation of girls is achieving the best academic records, and that the classroom climate has become more hostile for them.

The data that would settle the matter is missing: the historical series of average university entrance exam scores by year and by region. Without it, what's being discussed are perceptions. With it, perhaps the debate would shift.

If nothing changes, next June there will be another report with five different students and the same shrug. It's likely these girls will end up where they say they will: studying. What cannot be predicted is whether in ten years they will be writing, playing the piano, taking civil service exams, or all three. All are possible within the same academic record.