عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Extensive criticisms have been raised against Iran’s university admission system, prompting the addition of final examinations alongside the national entrance exam. Despite these changes, standardized testing remains central, driven by a commitment to objectivity and ethical impartiality. In this paper, we argue that the traditional conception of objectivity—specifically mechanical objectivity or the value-free ideal—assumes that test scores alone are sufficient for admission, creating serious challenges for the validity of entrance exams. Classical test theory, rooted in operationalism and aligned with mechanical objectivity, emphasizes reliability over validity, failing to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate assessments. Consequently, mechanical objectivity alone cannot ensure justice or epistemic integrity. Drawing on Daston and Galison’s work, we highlight the need for additional epistemic virtues such as truth-to-nature and trained judgment. Latent variable models, which aim to uncover the underlying essence of phenomena, are presented as alternatives to classical test theory. Furthermore, trained judgment leverages expert evaluation to offer a more holistic view of student abilities. Recent perspectives also frame objectivity as context-sensitive and goal-oriented. Therefore, redefining objectivity in university admissions requires identifying clear social and academic goals and designing evaluations accordingly. Ultimately, we propose a hybrid framework that integrates latent variable-based assessments with expert-driven processes, aiming to create a fairer, multidimensional, and more just admission model for Iran’s universities.
کلیدواژهها English
فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی