[Opinion] Fairness of the College Admission System and Educational Fairness

It has been 13 months since the Ministry of Education announced the 'Measures to Strengthen Fairness in the College Admission System.' The core of these measures consisted of three main points: strengthening the fairness of the Student Record Comprehensive Screening (Hakjong), rationally adjusting the proportions of admission screening methods, and establishing a new social integration screening process.

To block the influence of external factors such as parental background or private education in Hakjong, all extracurricular activities were excluded from consideration, and self-introduction letters were abolished. To eliminate the halo effect of the applicant's high school, blind evaluation, which had been applied only to interviews, was expanded to include document evaluations. To reduce the gap in acceptance rates by income and region, a social integration screening process was also introduced.

Due to the advance notice system for college admissions, most policies are still in the announcement stage, and only some policies have been applied to this year's Hakjong. Looking at the results of this year's Seoul National University early admission, the acceptance rate for general high schools has not improved, and the situation at the university where I work was no different. Despite the Ministry of Education's ambitious plans and strong pressure on universities through linkage with financial support projects, what caused the results to fall short of expectations?

The Ministry of Education focused more on blocking visible outcomes rather than addressing the fundamental causes that undermine fairness in college admissions. It overlooked the fact that students apply to Hakjong with already unfair results and concentrated on securing fairness in screening elements and processes. The Ministry surely knew that fairness in screening elements and processes is a necessary but not sufficient condition for fairness in college admissions, yet the policies reflected otherwise. The reason general high school students were disadvantaged in Hakjong was not because universities evaluated general high school applicants unfairly, but because general high school students had lower competencies compared to students from other types of high schools. If the biggest cause of acceptance rate differences by high school type is the difference in student competencies, it is natural that the gap by high school type did not decrease even with blind document evaluation. The disparities by income level and region also occurred not because universities discriminated against students based on income class or region, but because there were competency differences by income level and region.

The Ministry of Education should have identified the fundamental causes that create competency differences by high school type, income class, and region. While differences in student competencies are closely related to innate abilities, policies cannot bridge these gaps; therefore, policies can only focus on reducing the influence of environmental factors. However, improving fairness through changes in the college admission system is inevitably limited. The ability to adapt to the changed system is closely linked to parental income level, so the effect of the improved system is absorbed by income level effects as soon as the advance notice period ends.

Before discussing fairness in the college admission system, fairness in high school education must be secured, and fairness in high school education depends on how the influence of parental income is controlled. In the past, the influence of income on education was small, so social mobility was possible through the educational ladder. Education still serves as a pathway for social mobility, but unlike before, the width, height, and strength of the ladder vary depending on the price of the ladder purchased according to income level.

The expensive educational ladder purchased by high-income groups is sturdy, wide, and long, allowing them to climb quickly, easily, and high, whereas the cheap educational ladder purchased by low-income groups is weak, narrow, and short, making it not only difficult and slow to climb but also limiting how high they can go.

As the influence of income on education grows, education becomes a means of perpetuating social class. To restore fairness in education, policies that provide a fair educational ladder minimizing the influence of income, along with economic policies that reduce income disparities between classes, are necessary. Fairness achieved through improvements in the college admission system is secondary.

Fundamentally supported by economic policies that improve income polarization, in the new year, we look forward to measures that strengthen educational fairness by qualitatively equalizing educational opportunities beyond mere quantitative equality.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.