Madrid university entrance exam marred by physics errors and out-of-curriculum chemistry question

The physics and chemistry teachers of Madrid are furious. During this year's university entrance exam—the PAU, formerly known as selectividad—errors appeared in the test materials that could reshape the academic futures of hundreds of students, and the educators who prepared those students feel powerless to help them.

The physics problem was straightforward enough on its surface: a graph-based calculation question. But the graph contained two errors. The unit of measurement listed in the exam itself read cm/s, while the corrected version circulated later showed m/s. For students working under time pressure, this discrepancy meant their calculations—methodologically sound, mathematically correct—would not match the answer key. A student who solved the problem perfectly could still lose points because the numbers didn't align with what the grading commission expected. The problem statement itself contained additional confusing language that compounded the issue. Some teachers shrug at this; they argue the problem was solvable despite the confusion. Others are apoplectic. Under exam conditions, with adrenaline and anxiety in the room, a muddled question can turn a correct answer into a failed one.

The chemistry error was different but equally damaging. Examiners asked students about Lewis acid theory—a concept that exists nowhere in the current Madrid curriculum, as defined by Decree 64/2022. Chemistry teachers in the region had not taught this material to their second-year students because it was not supposed to be on the exam. Students walked into that question unprepared, not because they were unprepared, but because no one had told them to prepare for it.

What made the situation worse was the timing of notification. In some testing centers, students were not informed of the physics error until ten to fifteen minutes before the exam ended. No additional time was granted to compensate for the lost minutes or the mental disruption of learning mid-test that the materials they were working from contained mistakes. Other locations learned of the error earlier, giving students more room to adjust. The inconsistency itself became another form of unfairness—students in one building had more time to respond to the problem than students in another.

Teachers consulted by this publication expressed a sense of helplessness. One noted that challenges to exam errors have never succeeded in the past. They feel unheard by the commissions that write these tests. They point out that Madrid students face a particular disadvantage: each autonomous community in Spain designs its own entrance exam, so errors in Madrid's test affect only Madrid's students, with no broader mechanism to flag systemic problems.

Perhaps most galling to educators was what happened next. The universities posted the corrected exams online without formally acknowledging the errors or explaining what had gone wrong. The mistakes were simply erased from the public record, as if they had never existed. No compensation was offered to students whose grades were affected. No formal apology was issued. The commissions responsible for the physics and chemistry exams appeared to have chosen silence over accountability, leaving teachers and students to absorb the consequences of institutional failure.