Revisiting a long-standing misunderstanding about the konkur, Tehran and educational justice
Maryam Zareian – Sociologist
The announcement of the results of the 1405 entrance examination and the publication of the news that 21 of the top 40 ranked five test groups are from Tehran, once again brought the educational justice dispute to the forefront of the news. For many, this statistic is a sign of the concentration of educational facilities in the capital and the need to increase the quota of less privileged regions. But is it possible to directly reach the necessity of increasing geographical quotas from the concentration of top ranks in one city? Has every policy formulated with the claim of protecting the underprivileged necessarily led to the realization of justice? And more importantly, will not the rights of another group of students, including the volunteers of Region 1, be marginalized in this hasty judgment?
In my opinion, the issue of educational justice in Iran requires a critical re-reading of the concept of justice, a review of the theoretical foundations of student admission policies, and an evaluation of their real consequences, rather than a thoughtless increase in quotas.
The first analytical error occurs when we consider the residence of the top applicants as the direct cause of their success. The concentration of top ranks in Tehran alone does not tell how much of their success is due to the city's educational facilities, how much is due to family characteristics, and how much is the result of talent, effort and individual agency.
Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, focused on the concept of "cultural capital" in explaining the reproduction of educational inequalities; Capital that is transferred to the next generation through language, study habits, academic expectations and family upbringing methods. Besides that, economic and social capital are also involved in the formation of educational opportunities.
The PISA 2022 report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that, on average, in the member countries of this organization, about 15% of the changes in students' mathematical performance are related to differences in their economic, social and cultural backgrounds. Due to its political, economic and administrative position, Tehran is the place of concentration of families with economic and cultural resources. Therefore, the high share of Tehrani students in the top ranks cannot be interpreted independently of the social composition of their families.
Maybe some of the families whose children are successful in Tehran today, if they had similar educational facilities in another city, they would experience similar results.
At the beginning of the formation of the region quota system, the distinction between the educational status of cities and different regions of the country was an understandable basis for policy making. The educational division of the country into regions one, two and three, although it was formed in a period with the aim of compensating inequality, but it raises the question whether such macro classification can still represent the real difference in educational opportunities?
Does a student from a low-income family in a low-income neighborhood on the outskirts of Tehran necessarily have better educational facilities than a student from a prosperous family in a city in the second and third regions? Can the mere address of the place of education be a substitute for the accurate assessment of deprivation?
In the reports related to the final exams of June 1403, Yazd province was in the first place with an average of 12.91 and Sistan and Baluchistan was in the lowest place with an average of 8.12. This significant gap shows that we are not facing the same educational reality even outside of Tehran. Of course, the provincial grade point average cannot be considered directly equivalent to all students having the same quota. For this judgment, disaggregated data of schools, counties and social groups is necessary. To this credit, the application of fixed geographical divisions, without continuous revision, can lead to ignoring intra-regional differences; Differences that may be more than the difference between some regions one and two.
The neglected part of this controversy is the discrimination that students in Tehran and other cities of Region 1 may face, even to enter the universities located in their residence. It is interesting that a student from Tehran has to compete within the quota of Region 1 in order to enter a university in his city. While the candidates from the cities of the second region can also put the same university at the top of their choices by benefiting from the capacity allocated to their quota. Due to this credit, Tehrani student not only does not have a special privilege to study in his city, but due to the intensity of competition in Region 1, he may face more difficulty in obtaining the same field of study. This situation, from the point of view of distributive justice, raises a serious question about structural discrimination and equal opportunities. It is about why a student should face unbalanced opportunities to study in his home city, compared to a volunteer from another region with similar academic competence? Therefore, increasing the quotas without reviewing the existing consequences, not only does not necessarily lead to the realization of justice, but can lead to the reproduction of another form of inequality.
The quota dispute is not limited to the division of regions. Veteran quotas, especially the 25% and 5% capacities, are among the most important issues that require an independent and evidence-based review.
By predicting these quotas, the legislator tried to compensate part of the damages and fulfill social obligations towards the families of martyrs, veterans and sacrificers. The principle of the necessity of supporting these families should not be confused with the discussion on the most appropriate way to implement this support. In the rules of the 1405 entrance exam, for these two quotas, a total of 30% of the capacity of the majors is predicted.
The sociological and moral question is whether the allocation of limited educational capacity is the most appropriate social compensation mechanism? Couldn't some of this support be achieved through scholarships, funding, dedicated teaching services, and empowerment programs, without affecting the competition for all academic capacity equally?
Here we are faced with a kind of clash between two conceptions of justice: compensatory justice, with the aim of supporting qualified groups, and competitive justice, with an emphasis on academic merit and equal opportunity in admission. None of these two values should be pushed out of the arena with slogans. Resolving the conflict between them requires evaluation of works, transparency and public dialogue.
Another common argument in explaining the concentration of top ranks is the high contribution of gifted schools to success in entrance exams. Basically, Sampad schools select their students through the scientific selection process. Therefore, part of the success of these schools is rooted in the characteristics of the admitted students before the start of education. If a school attracts hard-working students with higher academic ability from the beginning, all their subsequent success cannot be attributed to the quality of the school's education. Therefore, for a fair judgment, the contribution of the selection effect should be separated from the contribution of the school effect. Attributing all success to the name of the school is as unfair as ignoring the student's agency.
Examining the experience of other countries shows that supporting low-income students does not necessarily mean relying exclusively on geographic quotas.
In the UK, some universities use the "admissions by context" model. In this approach, in addition to academic grades, factors such as low family income, free school meals, personal conditions and the school's educational status are included in the evaluation of the applicant.
Brazil's experience is also interesting from another angle. In federal universities, this country has an extensive quota system for graduates of public schools and groups subject to support. In the legal reforms of 2023, a mechanism was emphasized that the applicants subject to the quota are first evaluated in the general competition and, if not accepted, enter the competition of exclusive capacities.
The importance of these experiences for Iran is that it is possible to examine various options regarding the type of exclusion criterion, capacity allocation arrangement and support method.
If the goal of policymaking is to achieve educational justice, the solution should not be sought only in increasing the capacity of quotas. First, it is necessary to approach the educational deprivation measurement system from general geographic classifications to more detailed individual, family and school indicators. Parents' income and education, school status, access to expert teachers, and educational facilities should be considered along with geographic location. The design of such a mechanism, of course, requires protection of privacy and prevention of information falsification.
Second, existing quotas should be periodically evaluated with real data. It is necessary to clarify which groups benefited each quota, how much of its capacity was used and what effect it had on the probability of acceptance of other candidates. Third, the compensatory policy should not replace the reform of the quality of public education. Investing in public schools, improving the quality of teachers, academic support for low-income children, and reducing the educational gap from the elementary years are more fundamental measures than the constant manipulation of capacities on the verge of entering university.
Fourth, the declared policy of justice must be measured with its applied policy. Simply introducing a program under the title of supporting deprived areas is not enough to prove the fairness of its consequences.
In conclusion, it can be said that the success of Tehrani students is not a reason to deny educational deprivation in other regions of the country, nor is it a sufficient document for the necessity of increasing quotas. Just as the exclusion of students from some provinces cannot by itself justify any new restrictions for the candidates of Region 1.
The main conflict is not between Tehran and the city; There are two ways of dealing with inequality: one is to be satisfied with the distribution of limited capacities, and the other is to modify the structures that reproduce inequality from years before the exam.
In the meantime, both the underprivileged student of Sistan and Baluchistan deserves a real opportunity to progress, and the hardworking student of Tehran has the right to be sure that the university admission rules are based on clear, proportionate and defensible foundations. Judging independently from those in power and distancing ourselves from fanatical adherence to long-term policies requires us not to consider even programs that have been formulated with good intentions immune from criticism.
Educational justice is not to limit the rights of another student for no reason in order to compensate for the deprivation of one student; Justice is to equalize the opportunities as much as possible before the competition and to keep the competition rules fair, transparent and accountable.
And perhaps the most important question facing the policymaker is: do we want to reduce educational deprivation, or simply change the distribution of university seats?
The answer to this question clarifies the line between symbolic politics and fundamental reforms.