Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated using human-crafted benchmarks, under the premise that higher scores implicitly reflect stronger human-like performance. However, there is growing concern that LLMs may ``game" these benchmarks due to data leakage, achieving high scores while struggling with tasks simple for humans. To substantively address the problem, we create GAOKAO-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark based on China's National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao), and conduct ``closed-book" evaluations for representative models released prior to Gaokao. Contrary to prevailing consensus, even after addressing data leakage and comprehensiveness, GAOKAO-Eval reveals that high scores still fail to truly reflect human-aligned capabilities. To better understand this mismatch, We introduce the Rasch model from cognitive psychology to analyze LLM scoring patterns and identify two key discrepancies: 1) anomalous consistent performance across various question difficulties, and 2) high variance in performance on questions of similar difficulty. In addition, We identified inconsistent grading of LLM-generated answers among teachers and recurring mistake patterns. we find that the phenomenons are well-grounded in the motivations behind OpenAI o1, and o1's reasoning-as-difficulties can mitigate the mismatch. These results show that GAOKAO-Eval can reveal limitations in LLM capabilities not captured by current benchmarks and highlight the need for more LLM-aligned difficulty analysis.