대학별 독자기준에 의한 특별전형 운영의 정당성

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 이화여자대학교 교과교육연구소 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교과교육학연구 / 6권 / 1호
ㆍ저자명 : 오은경

목차

I. 서 론
II. 대학별 독자기준에 의한 특별전형의 획일성과 정당성
III. 대학입학 기준의 공평성
IV. 결론; 독자기준 운영의 정당성
참고문헌

한국어 초록

대학 입시정책이 한국교육에 미치는 영향력은 막강하다. 대학의 일반전형에서 소외되는 사회의 최소
수혜자들에게 특별 배려를 하는 듯이 보이는 대학별 독자전형이 상당히 방만하게 운영되고 있는 것으로
지적된다. 독자전형의 기준들의 유사성을 살피고, 기준들의 공평성을 교육의 기회균등원칙에 비추어 검
토해 보았다. 평등의 개념을 최대이익의 원리와 인간존중의 원리에 비추어서, 특별전형의 운영에 어떻게
반영되는지를 검토해 보았다. 최소수혜자들에 대한 배려라는 차등의 원리가 자칫, 고등교육의 내재적 가
치를 훼손시키는 것은 아닌가를 논의하였다.

영어 초록

If academic ability test scores are the basis of admission into a university, then two people
with the same scores should receive the same treatment. When people differ on some relevant
characteristic they should be treated differently.
This kind of admission policy assumes that justice consists in treating equals equally and
unequals unequally. Here fairness requires different treatment. Then we need to know what is
to count as a relevant characteristic. So far as education is concerned, it seems as though such
things as a student's abilities, needs and interests are relevant differences. Are exceptions
impossible?
Lately some academics has criticized unequal distribution of educational resources and been
more sensitive to the needs of the least advantaged individual. They insist that we must judge
inequality from the perspective of the person who is the least well off. While universities have
been trying to provide remedies for educational inequality, they give preferential treatment in
admissions for the least advantaged student. However, preferential admissions have shown
some problems which some characteristics of admission criteria are arbitrary and hard to be
justified, such as full-time housewife, old people, sons and daughters of low class public
officers.
Criteria of preferential admissions were discussed in terms of utilitarian and the respect for
humans. Utilitarians start from the conviction that decisions about how resources are to be
allocated must be made in terms of what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
Ability to profit is clearly a relevant characteristic. Therefore we allocate educational resources
on the basis of ability to profit. We admit intellectually talented people to universities.
Utilitarians are not likely to be impressed with the argument that the least advantaged people
ought to be given preferential treatment in admissions because they have been the victims of
injustice.
The idea of respect for persons supports the preferential treatment for the least advantaged
people. John Rawls has suggested a principle that is intented as answer to the question of the
kinds of inequalities that can be permitted in a just society. His position is that inequality is
permissible when it is to the advantage of the least advantaged individual. If an inequality is
to the benefit of the person receiving the lesser share, then it is permissible. Otherwise it is not.
Such a principle might be argued for by appealing to the idea of equal respect for persons.
If we are to apply this view to any admission procedures, preferential treatment for the least
advantaged person might be justified. However this view has also limits on admission policy.
Such a policy would be based on a denial of equal respect for academically talented students.
It might be a discrimination against them. Such an outcome is surely unfair.
If our duty is to maximize the welfare of the least advantaged individual, there is virtually
no limit the time and resource universities will have to spend. Although we have heard a
frequent complaint about utilitarianism, we are also obligated to treat people with equal
respect.
If equality is only one value in the society, institutional remedy programs for inequality can
be made as possible as many. However educational resources are not infinite. People cannot
have all of the educational resources they want or need. How, then, are we to choose? The
purpose of education should be considered. Universities are not welfare institutions. There
should be some relevant criteria to be discussed among faculties in terms of the purpose of
their own university.

참고 자료

없음