The University Entrance Exam Crisis in Iran

Abstract

ance-based model for many years, trying several methodolo-gies for measuring universities' activities and involving groups of experts at many universities. The committee's suggestions were seriously considered both by academic communities and by politicians. The New Model for Financing Universities In 2004, following the advice of the National Evaluation Committee, the government adopted a new formula. The main concept of this new formula represents the three groups of indicators: number of students (33%), results of teaching activities (33%), and the amount and results of research activities (33%). In the first indicator, the number of students is weighted according to different programs to reflect instructional costs (e.g., students in medicine are weighted more than students in economics). The second indicator, results of teaching activities, is measured by the number of credits obtained by students and by the number of graduates (weighted using "time for gradua-tion"). The final indicator, results of research activities, is measured by comparing the number of teachers and researchers (also research assistants and PhD students) with the ability to obtain research-targeted financial resources from public and private companies and organizations and the rate of success in winning research funds from the ministry. Policy Implications The new model seems to respond well to the challenges faced by Italian universities, even though critiques of the policy are ongoing. The indicators in the formula are coherent with national political strategies (increasing the number of students and graduates and also improving the quality of research through resources obtained by companies) and also address the multidimensional characteristics of universities' activities. A few reflections can be drawn from the Italian experience, perhaps with international relevance, in terms of a possible agenda to be followed to develop a good performance-based system. First, the amount of resources allocated through the formula must be quite high, while in Italy it is definitely too low, because the formula is used for allocating only a part of the total public budget. In 2006 and 2007, about 99.5 percent of the budget was allocated according to traditional procedures and only 0.5 percent according to the formula. To improve the effects of incentives, the formula must be rapidly used for distributing at least 10 to 15 percent of the public budget. Second, the indicators for research must be as increasingly accurate as possible, including measures of quality. In Italy the indicators adopted are still quite rough (e.g., publication counts are not considered at all). The difficulty in adopting accurate measures is well known, but if one of the objectives remains to improve quantitatively and qualitatively the research relevance of Italian universities, adequate incentives must be established. The recent initiatives of the Italian National Evaluation Committee for a qualitative assessment of research products (publications, patents, etc.) seem a feasible way for improving the data available. Last but not least, the issue of differentiation must be considered. Giving the same incentives to all universities means accepting the uniformity of their activities. Based on the formula , each university should improve the quantity and the quality of its teaching and research to obtain a good score. Instead, internationally, the diversity of universities' offerings and their differentiation seem to be a positive trend, to improve efficiency and effectiveness of higher education performance as a whole-especially because the demand for higher education is increasingly differentiated. Perhaps, a possible option to face this challenge would be to separate research and teaching funds and to distribute them according to different formulas. Examining these three issues can lead to a reconsideration of some important characteristics of the present performance-based formula in the Italian university system and can contribute to a wider international debate about the fundamental topic of better models for distributing public resources among universities.