**10. The influence of the quality of education received prior to higher education on access to higher education**

One of the factors affecting the higher education goals and decisions of the individuals in Turkey is the quality of the education they have received before the higher education. The quality of education that individuals receive before the higher education, especially at the level of secondary education, can directly affect the higher education goals. The level of secondary education not only affects individuals' access to higher education, but also their preferences of universities and departments in higher education.

**9. Important part of expenses used for central exam preparation**

160 Global Voices in Higher Education

The most important part of the education expenditure of the household in Turkey includes the expenditures made for central exam preparations. The increasing selectivity of central examinations in Turkey has led to efforts to obtain this opportunity in large sections of society who plan their future based on having access to higher education. Thus, parents have been making every sacrifice for their children to make them benefit from higher education. This situation has led to the formation of the "test preparation" sector that has been constantly extending [37]. Individuals wishing to achieve in this competitive environment have turned to institutions and practices that may be alternatives to schools in order to increase their suc‐ cess in university exams [65]. The most important institutions that emerged as an alternative to schools were after‐school support centers that underwent structural change in 2015. In addition, practices under different names such as private courses, extra study sections, stu‐ dent coaching have become alternatives for families who were willing to spend their incomes

for the sake of making their children successful in the university placement exam [42].

In 2005, the Turkish Education Association (TED) conducted a comprehensive survey to determine the size of the expenditure for after‐school support institutions. According to the survey, the expenditure made by the students who entered ÖSS in 2004 to enter the uni‐ versity was 8.4 billion dollars and 9.2 billion dollars in 2005. The average expenditure per person in the preparation process for the university on the side of the families was \$ 4708 in 2004 and \$ 5322 in 2005. In 2004, the share of budget per student in higher education was \$ 1990 [37]. The results of another study carried out by the Turkish Education Association in 2010 also show that the test preparation sector has brought about a serious financial bur‐ den on families. Expenditures made by the families for the preparatory work each year are about 16 billion TL (about 5 billion dollars). The distribution of the preparatory expenditures made by the families in one year area is as follows: After‐school support center: 5,707,811,064 TL (1.7 billion dollars), expenses for test preparation, book magazines and similar materials: 2,160,968,761 TL (635 million dollars), tuition and course payments for the preparation of the test: 1,267,398,136 TL (\$ 372 million), expenses for transportation, meals and other expenses 5,198,178,895 TL (1.5 billion dollars), tuition fee payments: 2,374,954,883 TL (\$ 698 million).

Bakıs et al. [66] state that after‐school support, expenditures do not create benefits for students. According to the authors, this process creates a system based on reinforcement and competi‐ tion rather than qualification and creating benefits based on it. The lack of a "diploma" which is the basic feature of the educational benefit is also another reason for the ineffectiveness after‐school support process. The authors state that one of the world's most irrational edu‐ cational systems emerges in terms of economic acceptance, given the size of the expenditure

that individuals make to participate in a race that only 15–20% will succeed.

**education on access to higher education**

**10. The influence of the quality of education received prior to higher**

One of the factors affecting the higher education goals and decisions of the individuals in Turkey is the quality of the education they have received before the higher education. The most important reason why the level of secondary education in Turkey is so effective in higher education access and higher education decision is the difference in qualifications between school types in secondary education. For many years, certain types of schools in secondary education have provided qualified education opportunities, so their graduates are more successful in achieving higher education. Higher education access statistics in accor‐ dance with school types support this situation [42].

**Table 4** lists the number of candidates who applied to higher education according to various school types in 2015.

The results on **Table 4** show that the school types that had higher university entrance rates in 2015 are the Science and Anatolian High Schools, as it was in the past. Again, as in past years, the number of students who are placed in undergraduate programs from vocational‐technical high schools is still very low.

One of the most important evidences of the qualitative differences among school types in secondary education in Turkey is the placement rate into the university. On the other hand, there are also other national and international exams, which aim to evaluate the school types in terms of academic achievement. If the types of schools in secondary education are exam‐ ined in terms of academic performance in these exams, the secondary education programs that have lower achievement rates are noticed [67]. For example, the results of all the PISA exams between 2003 and 2012 display that the schools with the best performance in all fields in Turkey are Science, Anatolian and Teacher high schools. Conversely, the average of the high schools with the lowest average scores is multi‐programmed high schools, vocational schools, and general high schools [48].

In mathematics literacy, which is one of the main fields in PISA 2003, Turkey ranks first among OECD countries in terms of inter‐school inequality. This situation was not the case in PISA 2006 results. Turkey is 11th among 30 OECD countries and 19th among 57 countries in terms of school inequality in the main field of science literacy. In intra‐school success, inequal‐ ity among students is below OECD average. In other words, the inequality between schools in Turkey is deep, and the inequality within the schools is relatively low. When the average mathematics achievement scores of PISA 2012 for different schools in Turkey are examined, it is obvious that serious differences between the schools still persist. When we examine how much of the variance (change) in PISA 2012 mathematics scores is caused by the difference between schools, it is seen that Turkey is one of the countries with the highest rate of differ‐ ences in schools among the OECD countries. In Turkey, 62% of the difference in PISA 2012 mathematics scores is the result of differences between school types [68]. Studies conducted using PISA data in Turkey show that student achievement is related to school type [69–74].

In the study conducted by Berberoğlu [69], it was found that general high school, vocational high school, and Anatolian vocational high schools showed low performance levels among the schools participating in PISA 2003. Berberoğlu found that general high schools and pri‐ mary schools were well below international averages, and that the Anatolian High Schools



**School type**

**ÖSYS** 

**Placed in undergraduate** 

**Placed in associate degree\***

**Open education**

**Total number of student** 

**placement**

**applicants**

**programs**

**Candidate** 

**Placement ratio (%)**

**number**

114.059

14.0

86.072

10.6

**Candidate** 

**Placement ratio (%)**

**Number**

**Candidate** 

**Placement ratio (%)**

**number**

326.215

40.0

**Candidate** 

**Placement ratio (%)**

162 Global Voices in Higher Education

**number**

General high

816.179

126.084

15.4

school

Private high

8.228

2.286

27.8

971

11.8

491

5.9

3.748

45.5

school

Anatolian high

294.672

147.391

50.0

19.017

6.5

6.183

2.1

172.591

58.6

school

Science high

16.241

9.602

59.1

146

0.9

87

0.5

9.835

60.6

school

Private science

5.471

3.547

64.8

69

1.3

50

0.9

3.576

65.4

high school

Social sciences

2.706

1.548

57.2

22

0.8

8

0.3

1.578

58.3

high school

Fine arts high

6.276

187

2.3

397

6.3

178

2.8

762

12.1

school

Teacher high

43.684

25.929

59.4

967

2.2

708

1.6

27.604

63.2

school

Religious

149.727

25.511

17.0

14.429

9.6

29.527

19.7

69.467

46.4

Vocational

School

Commercial

123.442

9.474

7.7

42.240

34.2

14.609

11.8

66.323

53.7

vocational

school

Technical high

81.976

11.291

13.8

28.665

35.0

4.517

5.5

44.473

54.3

school

Industrial

211.390

5.937

2.8

61.253

29.0

14.774

7.0

81.694

38.6

Vocational

School

**Table 4.** The number of higher education applicants and placed candidates by school types in Turkey (2015).

Source: ÖSYM [43].

reached high achievement levels. Using PISA 2003 data, Çifçi [71] found that school type, school district, gender, and geographical region influenced students' achievement rates in Turkey. Yılmaz [75] investigated the variables related to the science literacy of Turkish stu‐ dents using PISA 2006 data and found that most of the students' variation in science literacy scores originated from the differences between schools. Using PISA 2006 data, Dinçer and Uysal Kolasin [73] found that a student studying in Anatolian High School received 66–79 points higher than a student in general high school. However, a student who is studying in general high school had 22–27 points higher than a student who is studying in vocational high school. In a study that used student questionnaires and cognitive skill tests obtained from PISA 2003, 2006, and 2009 PISA tests, Yalçın [74] exposed the ongoing qualitative difference between high schools. Science schools were the most successful school type in these three PISA exams. The Anatolian High Schools were one of the most effective schools in the 2009 and 2006 PISA exams. They also had a successful score in the 2003 PISA exam, although it was not as high as 2009 and 2006 results.

In Turkey, individuals who graduate from the same level of education can develop themselves at different levels after entering higher education as a result of the differentiation of the qual‐ ity of their education [76]. For these reasons, demand for "elite" high schools is high. Because graduates of these schools are more successful at university entrance exams, students find themselves in high‐quality, "respected" universities with high demands [61]. Higher education statistics and surveys reveal that access to these schools in Turkey is more dependent on socio‐ economic factors. For example, 51% of the students in Science High School in 2013 and 42% of the students in Anatolian High School come from families with the highest socioeconomic level. On the other hand, 23% of the students in the vocational high school and 30% of the students in the other secondary education institutions have the lowest socioeconomic rate of 20% [7].

Children of socioeconomically better families are more likely to have access to selective schools, as well as to receive more qualified training when they have access to these more sophisticated school types. Ultimately, their academic achievements are at a higher level than their peers [77].

Aedo et al. [78] argue that the stratification of schools in secondary education in Turkey and the central examination system applied to secondary education in transition to secondary education make large differences between the achievements of students attending these schools. Likewise, the ERG [65] report emphasizes that the reasons for schools being so sep‐ arated according to socioeconomic status in Turkey are the division of schools into types in secondary education, the differences in quality among schools, and the central examina‐ tion system. As pupils are placed in schools in accordance with the competitive examination systems, student achievement and quality differences between school types and schools are intensified. As the qualitative differences become more intense, the competition in examina‐ tions increases, and thus, the differences created by socioeconomic background increase as well. Over the years, these processes have become interconnected, and at school level, there has been a breakdown according to socioeconomic roots.

Objective and subjective evaluations of the quality of secondary education show that this teaching process has serious problems in terms of quality and does not provide sufficient basis for higher education to students. There is consensus on the drawbacks of choosing university students based on only a single university entrance exam. The university exam takes only the final scores into consideration and places students in higher education institu‐ tions regardless of their competence. The exam ignores the shortcomings of the students who achieve to pass it. Consequently, higher education has to deal with the inadequacy of second‐ ary education [2].
