The Representation of Competitive Discourse in Iran's National University Entrance Exam: A Critical Discourse Analysis

This study presents a critical discourse analysis of the competitive language used in relation to Iran’s National University Entrance Exam (Konkur) within educational policymaking. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the qualitative data are analyzed through the discourse-historical argumentation model and the appraisal theory of language, focusing on three core components: attitude (affect, judgment, appreciation), engagement, and graduation, framed within Critical Discourse analysis (CDA). Quantitative analysis uses statistical charts and tables to classify linguistic fallacies and Topoi. The dataset includes over 50 purposively sampled official and media texts from institutions such as the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution and the National Organization for Educational Testing, collected between 2023 and 2025. Findings reveal that the dominant Konkur discourse utilizes linguistic fallacies and conventional argumentative patterns to consolidate the authority of educational policymaking institutions while imposing heightened psychological pressure on candidates through contradictory reports. Furthermore, through linguistic appraisal, the discourse justifies educational justice and consciously or unconsciously privileges medical fields while marginalizing other disciplines—a phenomenon that elevates the social prestige of some fields and influences students, schools, families, and public perceptions. 
Introduction:
According to Fairclough (2011), social activities like teaching and learning are “social practices” embedded in specific contexts called “discursive formations,” which include genres, styles, and discourses that reproduce particular ways of interaction, reality representation, and identity construction (Rogers, 2011: 8). Among these, media play a crucial role, not only reflecting but actively producing and reproducing social realities. Through narratives and persuasive strategies, media shape and reproduce ideologies and attitudes, thus acting as powerful instruments of influence and domination (Martin & White, 2005). Media language, while appearing clear, carries ideological weight and uses discursive strategies to persuade and affect public perceptions (Wodak, 2001).
A salient example is the media coverage of Iran’s nationwide university entrance examination, Konkur, involving millions annually. Media discourse employs competition-oriented language that foregrounds rivalry, reproducing values favoring certain societal groups. This discourse especially privileges fields like medicine, marginalizing others such as humanities and some basic sciences, reflecting a symbolic hierarchy in higher education. Such language fosters a tense atmosphere, reinforcing social inequalities entrenched in education and beyond.
Recent developments—such as social media growth, structural changes including the decisive role of school grades in Konkur results, and frequent policy fluctuations—have increased psychological stress on students and families, amplifying anxiety and social tensions.
The main research question thus arises: How is competition-oriented language represented in media coverage of Iran’s Konkur, and what roles does it play in reproducing or weakening social inequality structures? This study uses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), integrating Wodak’s (2001) historical-discursive argumentation model and Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework, to analyze semantic and evaluative layers in Konkur-related media discourse.
The study’s innovation lies in its focus on the linguistic features of media discourse about Konkur, one of Iran’s most significant social and educational events. Using a historical-discursive approach, it reveals how competition-driven discourse is formed and reinforced, offering insights into media’s role in perpetuating social and educational inequalities and suggesting paths toward fairer coverage.
Method:
This research employs a mixed qualitative-quantitative approach within CDA, focusing on the historical-discursive method. Wodak’s argumentation model identifies linguistic fallacies and conventionalized expressions, while Martin and White’s appraisal framework examines language valuation at three levels: attitudinal, judgmental, and engagement.
Data collection involved purposive sampling of over 50 official and media texts from key institutions—such as the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council and the National Organization for Educational Testing—between 2023 and 2025 (1402–1404 Iranian calendar). This period covers major Konkur reforms, including the definitive impact of school grades and the two-stage exam system, which have intensified discursive tensions. To ensure analysis validity, conceptual triangulation and peer review methods were applied.
Results and Discussion:
Analysis indicates that official discourse positively evaluates medical fields while marginalizing others, particularly humanities and basic sciences. This one-sided emphasis restricts students’ academic choices, often under social and parental pressure, funneling them toward “prestigious” fields. Such discourse limits intellectual and creative development and fosters a harmful, competition-focused culture within education.
Policy inconsistencies—frequent changes in grading weight, exam timing, and capacity—have generated instability, anxiety, and distrust among students and families. Emotional strain is evident in statements like “one-third of incoming students suffer psychological disorders.” Judgmental analysis reveals negative public perceptions of policymaking bodies, fueled by contradictory regulations and inconsistent decisions.
The discourse frequently invokes phrases such as “educational justice” with intensified markers like “all” or “majority” but without concrete implementation, weakening the concept’s practical value. Linguistic devices of exaggeration and mitigation guide evaluative direction in discourse. Furthermore, participation analysis uncovers monologic decision-making that excludes diverse voices, blocking social participation.
Overall, the competition-oriented discourse neither advances educational justice nor equality. Instead, it legitimizes existing social inequalities through authoritative language, ideological valuations, and fallacious concepts. Policymakers create a pseudo-legitimacy for the current system, increasing psychological pressures on candidates and steering public opinion toward favored fields like medicine. The discourse portrays education as hierarchical and authoritarian, marginalizing humanities and social sciences, limiting diversity and academic debate—potentially undermining educational quality and social equity.
Conclusion:
This study examined competition-oriented language in Iran’s Konkur media coverage through a critical discourse lens. It aimed to show how this discourse is represented in educational policymaking and its role in reproducing or weakening social inequalities.
Findings reveal that the discourse contains linguistic fallacies such as self-contradiction, excessive hedging, and semantic contradictions. These appear as attempts by officials to evade responsibility while assuring the public that the system is fair and sound.
Conventionalized phrases like “educational justice,” “authority of resolutions,” and “threats to violators” serve as ideological legitimizers, shaping public opinion by obscuring contradictions and deflecting accountability, thus discouraging public scrutiny.
Appraisal analysis highlights emotional aspects (anxiety), judgmental views (negative evaluations of institutions), and appreciation (favoring medical sciences while marginalizing humanities). Grading tools like intensifiers and mitigators are common for guiding evaluations. Participation analysis shows exclusionary decision-making, evidencing limited social involvement.
In sum, the dominant competition-driven discourse fails to promote justice or equality, reproducing structural inequalities through authoritative and ideological language mixed with fallacious reasoning. It imposes psychological pressure on students and directs attention to favored academic fields, while portraying education as a rigid hierarchy that sidelines diversity and academic freedom.
Future research should explore the interplay between official media discourse, social media narratives, student experiences, and policy history to better understand the gap between discourse and lived realities. Intersectional studies considering gender, class, and ethnicity may further illuminate hidden layers of structural discrimination in Iran’s university admissions.