ÌÇÐÄVlog

In Iran, few things wield as much power over young people¡¯s futures as the Konkur. Every year, the results of this fiercely competitive national university examination decide which students can enter elite fields such as medicine, engineering and law. And, in doing so, they illustrate the deep structural inequalities that characterise the country¡¯s education system.

Of the across mathematics, experimental sciences and humanities in this year¡¯s Konkur, a shocking 78 per cent came from the small number of government ¡°Sampad¡± schools: selective institutions designed for gifted pupils who pass an entrance exam. Private schools accounted for 10 per cent, ¡°sample¡± public schools ¨C selective schools a level below the Sampad schools ¨C for 8 per cent and ordinary state schools for none at all.

In the experimental sciences, the most popular track feeding into Iran¡¯s coveted medical schools, the dominance is even more striking: 90 per cent of the top-ranked students were from Sampad schools. In mathematics, 70 per cent came from Sampad and the rest from private schools. Even in humanities, often seen as more accessible, 70 per cent of top scorers were drawn from the same elite network.

The geographic distribution shows a similar concentration. A full 25 per cent of the top students came from Tehran and 17 per cent from Mashhad, Iran¡¯s second most populous city. Most of the remainder were from other major urban areas. Vast swathes of the country, particularly rural and economically disadvantaged provinces, were entirely absent from the list.

Economic stratification lies at the heart of these concentrations. According to , over half of the top 3,000 scorers came from the wealthiest 10 per cent of Iranian households, and more than 70 per cent of high achievers in the experimental sciences track came from the top four income deciles. By contrast, students from the bottom four deciles made up only a tiny fraction: in some analyses, as little as 4.5 per cent.

Interestingly, the inequalities persist despite Iran¡¯s operation of a quota system for university admissions that is supposed to help underprivileged students. The country is divided into three regional groups, at different levels of educational and socio-economic development, and Konkur candidates mostly compete with others within that group for university admission. Of course, the problem is that not all low-income families live in underprivileged regions, and not all high-income families live in Region 1 (consisting of developed cities, such as Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz).

This data illustrates what many families already know: educational success in Iran is increasingly bought, not earned. The most affluent students are able to afford private tutoring, expensive preparatory classes and specialised counselling.

There is a booming ¡°Konkur economy¡±, whereby desperate families funnel billions of tomans into the so-called Konkur mafia: networks of publishers, tutoring centres and prep schools. With some private courses costing more than the average monthly salary of a teacher, participation itself becomes a marker of privilege.

In effect, Iran¡¯s education system has been outsourced: the state provides minimal quality through underfunded schools, while private actors sell the ¡°real¡± tools of success to those who can afford them. Money has replaced raw talent and perseverance as the key to admission into top fields.

Educational inequality is pervasive , of course. From South Korea¡¯s cram schools to the US college admissions scandals, wealth shapes opportunity. But in Iran, the stakes are especially high because the Konkur is so decisive. Unlike in many systems, where multiple pathways exist, one exam at age 18 largely dictates access to Iran¡¯s higher education and professions.

The irony is that the Konkur was originally introduced to ensure fairness in university admissions, offering a single, standardised exam in place of the opaque or politically influenced student selection methods that previously prevailed. For decades, many saw it as the last bastion of meritocracy in a society marked by deep inequality: bright students from provincial towns could, in theory, compete with wealthier peers in Tehran on equal terms, entering prestigious professions and transforming their families¡¯ fortunes.

But the latest figures reveal how far that promise has eroded. For students in ordinary state schools, who are still the majority, the Konkur has become an all but impassable obstacle?owing to underfunded schools, overstretched teachers and a virtual absence of extracurricular support. Such educational inequality thus feeds directly into cycles of poverty and disillusionment, and experts warn that this hard block on upward social mobility risks eroding public trust not only in the education system but in social fairness more broadly.

Parents and students themselves are certainly becoming increasingly vocal, and, in recent years, policymakers have tried to by giving more weight to students¡¯ high school grades in university admissions. Yet this policy, too, has faced criticism because the quality and resources of state schools themselves vary enormously across regions. Many village schools lack specialised teachers, up-to-date textbooks or even basic infrastructure. Only by equalising resources across schools can Iran hope to address its increasingly rigid social stratification, experts say.

Many experts also call for curbing the dominance of tutoring centres and prep schools, whether by regulating their fees so that they are more affordable or by building state-supported alternatives. At the same time, the quota system should be revisited to ensure it does not end up creating new forms of inequality; one major criticism relates to the quota for the children of those killed or disabled in the Iran¨CIraq war and other military operations, which many Iranians consider unfair.

Finally, experts stress the importance of greater transparency in admissions data, arguing that publishing a full socio-economic breakdown of the top 3,000 candidates each year would allow for more meaningful debate and public accountability. This year¡¯s analysis was released in response to experts¡¯ demands, but many believe it still fails to capture the full range of relevant socio-economic factors.

Without such measures, the Konkur risks becoming less a ladder of opportunity than a mirror and even magnifier of inequality ¨C wasting the potential of Iranian youth and threatening the country¡¯s cohesion.

Roohola Ramezani?has a PhD in philosophy from?Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. He was formerly a?research fellow at?the IFK International Research Centre for Cultural Studies in?Vienna.