Unified Admission Results: New Indicators in Competition

The results showed that more than 56% of the admitted students obtained one of their first five choices, while the admission rate among vocational track students was 74%, compared to 66% for the academic track and 58% for health field students.

The results come amid a noticeable rise in the competitive thresholds for medical specialties, with the competitive threshold for medicine reaching 99.3% at the University of Jordan, 99% at the University of Science and Technology, 98.4% at Hashemite University, 98.1% at Yarmouk University, 97.9% at Al-Balqa Applied University, and 97.6% at Mutah University.

Educational expert Faisal Tayeh believes that the most significant figure in this year's admission results may not be the number of admitted students, but rather the narrow gaps between students at the top of the competition ladder, where small parts of the average are enough to move a student from one major to another or from one university to another.

He says in an interview with 'Al-Rai' that reading these numbers should not stop at the competitive thresholds, as the competitive threshold does not necessarily represent the student's learning level, but is the result of the interaction of the number of applicants, their averages, their preferences, the number of seats and majors offered, the admission rules, and the volume of demand for them.

He points out that the non-admission of 35% of applicants does not mean that they are not capable of university study, as non-admission is related to options, competitive thresholds, available seats, and competition rules, not solely academic ability.

Also, the fact that more than 56% of the admitted students obtained one of their first five choices provides an indication of the distribution process results, but it does not determine the extent to which these choices match the students' academic preparations and the requirements of the majors they have chosen.

Tayeh points out that the admission rate was 68% in the academic year 2024/2025, then decreased to 62% in 2025/2026, before rising to 65% this year, explaining that this comparison helps in reading the general trend, but it is not sufficient alone to judge the success or failure of the system, due to its being affected by multiple factors, including the number of applicants, seats, majors, preferences, and admission rules.

Tayeh emphasizes that the importance of this year's results goes beyond the admission numbers, as they come in the context of implementing the new fields and tracks system, which requires reading the results in light of the experiment's design and mechanisms.

He raises a fundamental question about whether the rise in rates reflects an actual improvement in the level of learning, or whether changes in the structure of secondary education and the calculation of grades have contributed to raising the rates and reordering students within the competition ladder.

He stresses that this question does not detract from the efforts or achievements of the students, but rather concerns the function of measurement tools and whether they measure knowledge, skills, and real readiness, or primarily serve the function of ranking students.

Regarding the high competitive thresholds for medical specialties, Tayeh believes that these numbers cannot be separated from the number of seats, capacity, and the volume of demand for the specialty.

He points out that increasing the number of admissions for medicine within the regular program at public universities from 640 to 840 students, and for dentistry from 320 to 400, confirms that the competitive threshold is not a fixed number that reflects the abilities of students independently of the system, but changes according to multiple elements that govern the admission process.

He also points out that university admission is not based on a single track, in light of the multiplicity of admission tracks and categories, and therefore, reading the competitive threshold for regular admission alone does not provide the full picture.

Regarding the admission rate in the vocational track reaching 74%, compared to 66% in the academic track and 58% in the health field, Tayeh believes that these rates deserve analysis, but they should not be directly turned into a judgment on the success of one track or the failure of another.

He says that interpreting the differences requires studying the nature of the majors that students are competing for, the number of available seats, the admission rules, the distribution of students across fields, the preferences they submitted, alongside the distribution of rates. He emphasizes that judging the success of tracks cannot be done at the moment of admission only, but through monitoring the performance of students within universities, dropout rates, major changes, continuation, and graduation.

Regarding providing the opportunity for health field students to enroll in some engineering and technological majors, Tayeh explains that the issue is not about whether the student has studied mathematics and physics, but rather the depth of their study of these subjects and their level of readiness for university major requirements.

He points out that a number of engineering majors rely primarily on mathematics, physics, and chemistry, which makes opening the field to students from other tracks in need of foundational requirements or remedial courses to ensure that the student has the necessary academic basis.

He stresses that educational justice does not necessarily mean unifying the conditions among all tracks, but linking them to the nature of the specialty and its requirements, while keeping a real opportunity for the student to prove their readiness.

Tayeh emphasizes that the real test of any change in the admission system or fields and tracks begins after students enter universities, by monitoring their performance in core courses, their need for remedial materials, dropout rates, major changes, continuation, and graduation, up to linking these results to employment opportunities.

He wonders what should accompany the unified admission results and the development of the fields and tracks system: have we become more accurate in ranking students, or more accurate in measuring their learning?

He asserts that unified admission can tell us who entered the university and which major, but it cannot alone answer the question of the student's learning level and real readiness.

According to Tayeh, education reform is not measured by the number of doors opened for students, but by the extent of their scientific preparation for success behind these doors, and the system's ability to prove this with data and follow-up over the years.