Would a single test for the State Matura be better?

2026-06-19 17:38:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

Every year, thousands of high school graduates in Albania take four separate exams: foreign language, Albanian language and literature, mathematics, and elective subjects. However, would it be more effective to test high school graduates through a single comprehensive exam, instead of four separate exams?

One argument in favor of this idea is that a unified test for all four subjects would significantly reduce the psychological stress of students, especially good students. Currently, high school graduates face a long exam period, where an unsatisfactory result can negatively affect performance in other exams. A single test would focus the assessment on a single moment and avoid prolonged tension.

Also, the organization would be simpler and less costly for educational institutions. The costs of administering, marking, and monitoring exams would be reduced.

On the other hand, the efficient use of technology, which enables new forms of assessment, suggests integrated, more practical and modern tests.

But there are also strong arguments against this approach. The four subjects tested today measure different abilities. A student may excel in a foreign language but be weaker in mathematics, or vice versa. A single test risks not accurately reflecting the real level of competence in each area. Moreover, the weight of each subject may be lost within an overall test, making the assessment less fair.

Another problem is that failing one part of the test can psychologically affect other parts during the same day. While a poor score in one subject can be compensated for by performance in other subjects, in a single test this possibility is reduced.

If we were to refer to international experience, we would notice that there is no unique model. In many countries, universities give importance to general tests. For example, for years in the USA, the SAT test mainly assessed reading, writing and mathematics skills in a single exam. The ACT test also follows a similar logic. These models are based on the idea that the graduate should demonstrate general academic competences and not only fragmented knowledge according to subjects.

An advantage of this approach is that the graduate is assessed as a whole. In university and professional life, people do not face problems separated by subject, but rather situations that require the combination of different knowledge and skills. A general test can better measure the ability to analyze, reason, and solve problems.

However, most European countries have not chosen this path. Matura exams are held in several specific subjects. The reason is simple: universities need to know not only the general level of the candidate, but also his specific competencies. A student aiming for engineering must demonstrate solid knowledge in mathematics, while a candidate for philology must excel in languages ??and literature.

The experience of these countries suggests that separate tests provide a more detailed and fairer picture of a student's academic profile. They provide universities with more complete information than a single score.

On the other hand, some education systems are experimenting with hybrid models: a general exam for basic competencies and separate tests for specific areas. This model seems to be gaining ground because it combines the advantages of both approaches.

Perhaps the most reasonable solution is neither to completely preserve the current system nor to switch to a single exam. An intermediate model, with fewer exams but preserving the differences between the main areas of knowledge, may offer the best balance between efficiency and fairness. We simply need to specify what we want to measure with the Matura exams.

If we aim to assess general skills, a single test may be sufficient. If we aim to accurately identify the academic profile of each graduate, measuring the knowledge and skills of students as accurately as possible, then separate exams remain the most reliable solution./ CNA