Trevor Gale

8/3/2019 Trevor Gale

1/8

Three myths and two what ifs

Trevor Gale

National Centre for

Student Equity in Higher Education


2/8

Myth no. 1:low SES students dont aspire to attend university

Two studies on school students

aspirations for university study% lowSES

% mediumSES

% highSES

School students in Melbournes

western suburbs (Bett et al. 2008)

68 71 81

Year 10-12 Australian studentssurveyed in 1999 (James et al. 2008)

42 - 70

The largest group of university outreach programs targeting low SES students in

Year 10 is focused on raising students aspirations (Gale et al. 2009, in press)

How Young People are Faring: teenagers from poor backgrounds (those in lowSES families) are three to four times more likely as those from wealthybackgrounds (those in high SES families) to leave school without completingyear 12 or its equivalent (Lamb & Mason 2008: 48).


3/8

Myth no. 2:increases to equity are a threat to quality

DEEWR data: the success rate (or tendency to pass their years

subjects) of low socio-economic status students is 97 per cent of

the pass ratesof their medium and high socio-economic status

peers (Bradley et al. 2008: 30).

LSAY data: If students from a low socio-economic background

get to university, their background does not negatively affect their

chancesof completing the course (Marks 2007: 27).


4/8

Myth no. 2:increases to equity are a threat to quality

Monash:students from relatively disadvantaged schools, who gain lower

ENTERs in Year 12, subsequently catch up to, and then overtaketheir more

privileged counterparts from other school types once at university (Dobson &

Skuja 2002: 61)

Monash:ENTERis not a particularly good predictorof performancein

information technology, creative arts, the humanities or business courses and is a

poorpredictor of performancein the health and education areas (Dobson &

Skuja 2002: 61)

UniSA:once students gain entry they have a high rate of retention and in most

cases perform as well or betterthan other school leavers (Tranter et al. 2007:14)

Edith Cowan: Dobozy, E. (2008) Alternative pathway entry students show

promising start in teacher education. AARE Conference, Brisbane.

UWA: Win R. & Miller P. (2005) The effects of individual and school factors on

university academic performance. Australian Economic Review38(1): 1-18.


5/8

Myth no. 3:VET to HE pathways are predominantlytravelled by low SES students

Wheelahan (2009: 11). Table 3: overall basis of admission of commencingunder-graduate students in Australian public universities by SES in 2007

Basis for admission % incategory*

% lowSES

% middleSES

% highSES

Other basis 11.6 20.0 49.5 28.3

Prior HE 23.2 14.7 46.1 37.1

Prior school 46.8 16.2 47.1 35.6

Prior VET 10.1 20.0 51.8 27.0

Mature age special entry 5.5 27.0 52.1 20.0

Total 97.1 17.4 48.0 33.1

*Doesnt equal 100% because very small categories were excluded. Source: unpublished DEEWR

(2008b) student statistics basis of admission & highest prior qualification for domestic commencing

under-graduate students 2005 2007.


6/8

What if no. 1:what if we count thebenefitsas well as the costs?

industry: from 2010, the overall demand for people with higher education

qualifications will exceed supply (Access Economics in Bradley et al 2008: 9).

nation: nexus between tertiary education participation and productivity (Bradley

et al 2008: 4); the economys growth rate in the future will depend on increasing

our productive capacity (Quality Education 2000: 7)

k-economy: tertiary education is a major driver of economic competitiveness in

an increasingly knowledge-driven global economy (OECD 2008: 23)

universities: 40% attainment target by 2020; financial incentives to seek out and

enrol a broader group of students includ[ing] people from low socio-economic

backgrounds, those from regional and remote areas and Indigenous people(Bradley et al 2008: 21-22).

societies: higher levels of health, wellbeing (WHO 2008), volunteerism, political

and social engagement (Dusseldorp Skills Forum 2000), salaries (and taxes), and

lower levels of incarceration (Baum & Payea 2004).


7/8

What if no. 1:what if we count the benefits as well as thecosts?

If the [higher education] system deals unjustly with some of its[students], they are not the only ones to suffer. The quality ofeducation for all the others is degraded. (Connell 1993: 15)

Indigenous people do not come empty handed toAustralias highereducation system but bring significant strengths, both in knowledgecapital and human capital that enriches higher education in

Australia (Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council

submission to the Bradley Review, 2008: 2).

Diminished equity is a threat to quality


8/8

What if no. 2: what if we deepen & broaden our measuresof applicants capacities to undertake university study?

What if we generalize to all applicants alternative ways of

demonstrating capacity for university study?

What if we were to ask for recommendations about applicants

from schools? (e.g. UNE have been accepting students on schoolrecommendations for at least 20 years)

What if we were to reintroduce interviews?

What if we required applicants to submit a portfolio of

achievements, with ENTER scores as just one component?

What if we were to re-weight students ENTER scores, relative to

the advantage and disadvantage afforded them by schooling,

society and economy?

Documents

Trevor Gale