Higher education is often seen as a pathway to social mobility and economic opportunity. However, systemic inequalities deeply influence access to and participation in higher education, shaped by cultural, economic, and institutional contexts. High-stakes exams, such as China’s Gaokao and Kazakhstan’s Unified National Testing (UNT), significantly impact these opportunities and often exacerbate educational inequality. These exams determine access to higher education, scholarships, and career prospects but disproportionately disadvantage students from underprivileged backgrounds due to disparities in resources, family support, and access to quality education (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Smyth & Banks, 2012). This study explores how such inequalities shape the decision-making processes of undergraduate students in China and Kazakhstan, focusing on how high-stakes exams and systemic disparities may affect access to higher education.

The primary objective of this study is to understand how high-stakes exams reproduce social inequality in access to higher education. The research is guided by two key questions: 1) How do high-stakes exams contribute to the reproduction of social inequality in access to higher education in China and Kazakhstan? 2) What cultural, economic, and institutional factors influence students' experiences with these exams?

This study is grounded in three core concepts: educational inequality, high-stakes exams, and decision-making in higher education. Educational inequality refers to the unequal distribution of academic resources and opportunities, often influenced by socioeconomic status, geographic location, and institutional policies. In both China and Kazakhstan, urban-rural divides and disparities in school funding exacerbate these inequalities. Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) highlights how privileged students navigate educational systems with advantages. In China, urban students typically have access to better tutoring and exam preparation materials than rural counterparts (Liu, 2021). Similarly, in Kazakhstan, disparities in educational quality between urban and rural areas limit opportunities for less privileged students (Temerbulatova et al., 2024).

High-stakes exams like the Gaokao and UNT are seen as gatekeepers to higher education, but they also reinforce existing inequalities. The concept of credentialism (Collins, 1979) explains how these exams perpetuate social stratification, privileging those who can afford extensive preparation. In China, wealthier students are more likely to attend prestigious schools offering superior exam prep (Zhang, 2018). Likewise, in Kazakhstan, the UNT has been criticized for favoring urban students with better access to educational resources (Kuzhabekova, 2011).

Students' decision-making processes are shaped by their perceptions of opportunities and constraints. Rational choice theory (Coleman, 1990) helps understand how students weigh costs and benefits when making educational decisions, though this must be seen within the context of structural inequalities. In China, rural students often choose vocational or less prestigious universities due to financial constraints and lower Gaokao scores (Li, 2019). In Kazakhstan, students frequently prioritize fields with better job prospects. These choices reflect both personal aspirations and structural limitations, illustrating the interplay between individual agency and systemic barriers.

The relationship between educational inequality, high-stakes exams, and decision-making is cyclical. High-stakes exams reinforce inequality by privileging those with better resources, while inequality shapes students' decision-making processes, limiting their options. Structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) explains how students navigate these constraints, as their choices may either reproduce or challenge existing structures. In both China and Kazakhstan, disadvantaged students face a "double disadvantage"—they are less prepared for exams and have fewer resources to navigate higher education decisions (Liu, 2021; Kuzhabekova, 2011).

This study employed a qualitative research design, utilizing focus group discussions as the primary method of data collection. A total of six focus groups were conducted, involving 41 students from Kazakhstan and China. The participants were all over 18 years old, eliminating the need for parental consent; only the students’ consent was obtained. The focus groups were structured to explore students’ experiences and perceptions regarding exam preparation during their school years, their attitudes toward university admission assessment systems, questions related to their socioeconomic background, and the impact of exam results on their subsequent academic performance in university. Interviews were conducted in Russian and Chinese to accommodate the participants’ linguistic preferences. The focus groups comprised 22 Kazakhstani students and 19 Chinese students. The Kazakhstani participants were enrolled in social sciences and humanities programs, with a mix of male and female students. The Chinese participants included students studying in both China and Kazakhstan as international students. All participants came from two-parent households, with varying family structures and educational backgrounds. The diversity of the sample provided rich insights into the experiences of students from different cultural and educational contexts. Thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke's (2016) framework, was used to analyze the data. This involved coding the transcripts to identify recurring themes and patterns related to the research questions. The coding process was iterative, with initial codes refined and grouped into broader themes to capture the nuances of participants' experiences and perspectives. This approach ensured a systematic and rigorous analysis of the qualitative data. The study adhered to strict ethical guidelines to ensure the protection of participants’ rights and confidentiality. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, their right to withdraw at any time, and the confidentiality of their responses. No identifying information was collected, and data were anonymized during analysis. All participating students were 18 years old and over, so no parental consent as required. Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant institutional review committee to ensure compliance with ethical standards in research involving human subjects.

The study compares students' experiences with China's Gaokao and the Unified National Testing (UNT), highlighting similarities and differences. Both exams are high-stakes, determining university admission and causing significant stress due to parental and societal expectations. STEM subjects are challenging for many, and academic performance varies. Preparation often involves intensive study and private tutoring, though students criticize the lack of career guidance and overemphasis on scores. Perceptions of the exams are mixed. Gaokao is seen as life-changing but criticized for high pressure, regional inequalities, and rote learning. Similarly, UNT is viewed as crucial by some, while others find it overly stressful and irrelevant to university studies. Both systems face calls for reform, such as incorporating portfolios and soft skills to create a more holistic evaluation process. University and major choices are heavily influenced by exam scores, often leading to dissatisfaction. Many students select majors based on scores rather than interest, with some desiring to switch fields. In Gaokao, this is often due to parental influence or unclear career goals, while UNT students are sometimes motivated by state grants, which can also result in mismatched choices. Post-exam experiences differ. Gaokao students see university as a new phase, with exam skills like time management being useful but not directly linked to academic performance. UNT participants are generally satisfied with their results and university life, though some struggle with workloads or regret major choices influenced by parents. Both studies emphasize the need for reforms to reduce stress, address inequalities, and better align exams with students' interests and real-world skills. By adopting more holistic evaluation methods, both systems could support students more effectively, leading to more fulfilling academic and personal outcomes.

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing & student learning. Education policy analysis archives, 10, 18-18. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016). Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology, 12(3), 297-298. Collins, R. (1979). The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. Academic Press. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press. Hannum, E., & Wang, M. (2006). Education and Inequality in China. Routledge. Kuzhabekova, A. (2011). Higher Education in Kazakhstan: Reform and Development. International Journal of Educational Development. Liu, J. (2021). Educational Inequality in China: The Role of the Gaokao. Journal of Education Policy. Smyth, E., & Banks, J. (2012). ‘There was never really any question of anything else': young people's agency, institutional habitus and the transition to higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(2), 263-281. Temerbulatova, Z., Mukhamediyev, B., Zhidebekkyzy, A., & Bilan, S. (2024). Regional disparities and dual dynamics: Economic growth and income inequality in Kazakhstan. Economics & Sociology, 17(2), 241-255. Zhang, Y. (2018). The Gaokao and Social Mobility in China. Chinese Sociological Review.