Record scores, deep suspicions: Success or anomaly in the LGS? What do the statistics say?

The High School Transition System (LGS) exam, administered on June 15, 2025, and announced on July 11, has turned into a process that tests not only students but also the conscience of society, the sense of trust, and faith in the education system. The fact that 719 students achieved a perfect score in this exam, which is known for its "historic difficulty" level, and that thousands were held back by only 1 or 2 errors, pointed more to a "crisis of confidence" than to success. The first reaction that echoed in the public sphere with the exam results was not joy, but suspicion: Instead of "Bravo to our children!", people said, "There is something strange about this."

719 students with perfect scores were not just a record; they were also a statistical anomaly in the history of educational measurement and evaluation that requires explanation. This situation was discussed more through the lens of the system's fairness, measurement security, and transparency than the performance of the students. LGS 2025 has now turned into a turning point that gains meaning not from how many people received a perfect score, but from how much these scores resonate with the public conscience.

"MIRACULOUS" RESULTS IN A DIFFICULT EXAM

The 2025 LGS was defined by teachers, students, and education experts as the most difficult exam of the last twenty years. Especially in the Turkish test, long and attention-demanding paragraph questions made time management quite difficult. In the mathematics section, multi-step, abstract logic-based problems required not only knowledge but also psychological resilience. Comments expressed in various media outlets after the exam clearly reflected the difficulty students experienced. Expressions such as, "If there is anyone who got a perfect score or had 1 or 2 errors in such a difficult exam, they must truly be an extraordinary talent or something else," opened the belief in the fairness of the exam to debate. Teachers similarly expressed that the selective nature of the exam led even the strongest students to lose morale.

WHAT THE STATISTICS DO NOT SHOW: ANOMALY

However, the most striking point was that despite the exam being so difficult, 719 students received a perfect score of 500 and thousands of students had only 1 or 2 errors. This number is not just a statistical success, but an anomaly that requires explanation in terms of educational science. When compared with previous years, the situation becomes even more striking. The number of students with perfect scores, which was 181 in 2020, 97 in 2021, 193 in 2022, 562 in 2023, and 352 in 2024, has more than doubled compared to the previous year, rising to 719. According to the evaluations made by education experts before the exam results were announced, it was predicted that there would be at most 200 students with perfect scores in an exam of this difficulty. However, the results made the validity of the measurement tools and exam security a serious subject of debate. The reaction rising in the public was: If there are so many top scorers and thousands of students with 1 or 2 errors in such a difficult exam, there is a reality that either the system has collapsed or there has been external interference.

This increase is not just a quantitative success; it is also a situation that must be questioned in terms of fundamental educational principles such as the validity of measurement tools, exam security, and the honesty of data analysis.

MEASUREMENT? SELECTION? OR DECEPTION?

The most fundamental debate remaining from the exam focused more on the fairness of the measurement-evaluation system and exam security than on the students' performance. The fact that thousands of students left the exam with only 1 or 2 errors produced a result that does not fit the normal distribution curve in terms of success distribution. At this point, one must ask the following question: How can such a high success rate be explained in such a difficult exam?

The science of statistics looks not only at the results but also at the distribution from which those results are formed. Without examining basic criteria such as standard deviation, average success level, true-false statistics, and discrimination rates per question, calling these results "success" or "meaningful" does nothing but damage public trust.

ALLEGATIONS OF SECURITY BREACHES AND DIGITAL LEAKS

What made the situation even more dire were the allegations made regarding exam security. In some news reports reflected in the press, it was alleged that exam booklets were circulated via messaging applications while the exam was ongoing, leaked in PDF format, and that booklet distribution was carried out irregularly in some schools. Following these developments, some opposition party deputies brought the issue to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) and demanded an explanation from the Ministry of National Education. However, the Ministry declared all these allegations baseless and announced that it would file a criminal complaint. Yet, this statement remained far from refreshing public confidence. Because the public's expectation was not denial, but transparency and accountability.

PARENTS AND STUDENTS ARE LOCKED ON THE SAME QUESTION: WHERE IS JUSTICE?

The sense of grievance experienced by parents and students deeply shook their faith in the exam system. This year, more than 1 million students applied for the LGS and 963 thousand participated in the exam. However, the expressions frequently heard after the exam showed that the sense of justice had been wounded. Sentences such as, "My child worked all year, but some seemed as if they had solved the questions beforehand," revealed that trust not only in an exam system but in public policies in general had eroded. Faith in success in education can only be possible with equal opportunity and a fair competitive environment, not just with knowledge. Unfortunately, this exam could not provide this environment of trust and caused the impression that a violation of rights had occurred.

SILENCE WHILE TRANSPARENCY IS EXPECTED

The Ministry of National Education moved away from the basic transparency principles it had applied in previous years during this process. Question booklets published in previous years, success distribution analyses at the provincial and school levels, and response analyses based on question types were not presented to the public this year. The Ministry chose to remain silent. However, trust in education is built not only with measurement techniques but with accountability. Therefore, the public's fundamental expectation is the documentation of the question booklet distribution chain, the transparent sharing of success data at the provincial, district, and school levels, the explanation of technical glitches during the exam process, and the establishment of independent audit mechanisms.

CONCLUSION: MORE THAN AN EXAM, A TRUST TEST FOR THE FUTURE

The LGS is not just an academic evaluation, but also a test of justice and trust. The 2025 results signal a systemic breakdown. Today, the issue is not just the disappointment of those who received low scores; it is the damage to the faith that hundreds of thousands of young people, who aim for success in a fair competitive environment with their labor and sweat, have in the system. Where justice is questioned, success is not trusted; if there is suspicion, hope withers.

For this reason, the 2025 LGS results should be examined by an independent board using objective criteria such as:

• Average success level,

• Standard deviation values,

• Distributions of the number of students with perfect scores and 1-2 errors based on school types and city-regional geography,

• Question-based analyses.

This board, which will consist of educational statisticians, measurement-evaluation experts, and independent academics, should work on a ground cleared of political influences; the results should be presented to the public with scientific transparency.

The Ministry of National Education must take transparent steps that will relieve the public conscience; it must openly share technical glitches, base its actions on the principle of accountability, and activate independent audit mechanisms. It should not be forgotten that silence does not build trust; the only source of trust is transparency.

If statistics are surprising, the system is questioned. If the public conscience is not convinced, successes remain in the shadows. If there is no justice, merit, equal opportunity, and trust in education; success is just a number, it has no soul or legitimacy.

True success only gains meaning in an order where everyone competes under equal conditions, labor is valued, and both the exam and the system are transparent and fair. Otherwise, neither perfect scores nor record successes can go beyond being a "statistical illusion" in the eyes of the public.

If this country wants to give hope to its youth again, to instill in them the courage to dream and faith in the future; it must first recognize and solve the crisis of confidence in education. Because an education system where trust is lost darkens not only exams but also the future.

And let us not forget: Success can be written in statistics; but if it does not reach consciences, it has neither social legitimacy nor historical value. What is being discussed in the LGS results today is not just the result of an exam, but the grade our education system has received in the conscience of the public.