Comparing Turkish and Arab Higher Education Models: Similarities and Divergences

Abstract

Objective: This study compares access to and progression through higher education in Türkiye and the Gulf, Mashriq, and Maghreb through Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus, and capital. It examines how centralised examinations, private preparation, kinship ties,wasta, foreign university affiliations, and linguistic legacies reproduce inequality beneath claims of equal opportunity. It also brings two largely separate regional literatures into a common theoretical framework.Methods: A theory-driven qualitative design and structured-focused comparison were used. Türkiye, the Gulf, the Mashriq, and the Maghreb were examined through theoretical sampling and maximum-contrast logic. The evidence comprised policy and governance documents, official statistics and reports, institutional materials, peer-reviewed studies, and selected grey literature. Analysis involved systematic thematic reading and conceptual matching, while the findings were cross-checked through triangulation across different types of secondary sources. No primary field data were collected.Results: In Türkiye, although the centralised examination provides formal uniformity, access to cram schools, private tutoring, high-quality schools, and cultural resources gives enduring advantages to students with greater cultural and economic capital. Across Arab subregions, inequality is shaped by social networks andwasta, royal or bureaucratic connections, the prestige of Western-affiliated institutions, and the cultural value of French or English. Despite regional variation, meritocratic rhetoric in both contexts obscures mechanisms of social and symbolic reproduction.Conclusions and Recommendations: Access to and progression through higher education depend not only on individual achievement but also on the distribution of capital and students’ habitus. Equity policies should therefore extend beyond formal admission criteria. Recommended measures include free targeted preparation, additional resources for disadvantaged schools, transparent scoring and independent appeals in scholarships and placements, multilingual bridging programmes, inclusive mentoring networks, and equity conditions in internationalisation. Because the study relies on secondary evidence, its propositions should be tested through mixed-method, longitudinal, and country-specific research.