Bob Birrell and Ian Dobson

Information on the class characteristics and financial support of commencing Monash students indicates that students from moderate to low income families will face increasing difficulties in accessing university places.

Recent developments in higher education policy have once again thrust the equity issue to the forefront of debate about the university system. On one hand all the original Dawkins’ equity categories remain intact. Universities are still required to report annually on their progress in facilitating access to categories of students regarded as disadvantaged, including female students in non-traditional subject areas, persons from Non-English-Speaking-Backgrounds (NESB), and those from low socio-economic status households. On the other hand, the Coalition government has moved closer towards a user-pays system with its increases in Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) charges, its tightening of access to Austudy and most recently its policy of allowing universities to charge full-fees from 1998 for local students who are recruited over Government intake targets.

It seems likely that, if there were problems of access to higher education for disadvantaged groups in the pre-Coalition environment, then these problems would surely be exacerbated by the new circumstances. But, since the election of the Coalition Government in March 1996, little information or analysis has emerged which would allow investigation of these access concerns. Part of the problem is that debate about equity is still bedevilled by the intellectual morass into which equity discussion descended during the 1990s. The educational bureaucrats and their various academic consultants seem reluctant to take into account data which contradict the original ‘Dawkins’ assumptions about which categories of students deserve to be targeted for assistance.

The most recent official analysis relating to questions of equity — published under by the Higher Education Council (HEC) which is officially responsible for the equity policy area — is a report entitled Equality, Diversity and Excellence. Despite evidence that more females than males succeed in making it to university from low socio-economic status households, and more NESBs from the same areas than non-NESBs, the report recommends the maintenance of all the existing equity categories (and adds no new categories).¹

Furthermore its analysis of the most important factor in tertiary entrance, socio-economic status, is weak. The report relies entirely on the socio-economic ranking of postcodes to identify the students from low socio-economic status backgrounds.

Better indicators, including data on parents’ occupation and income, are needed urgently. Though this ranking is based on the education level and occupation of employed persons, it covers all such persons and not just those who are parents of teritary students. But, even within the limitations of the postcode identifier, the HEC Report shows that there has been no advance since 1991 in access to university for persons living in areas ranked in the lowest 25 per cent of postcodes according to socio-economic status. Only 16.7 per cent of all Australian students aged 15-24 in 1995 came from such postcodes compared to 16.6 per cent in 1991.² If such students in 1995 or 1991 had been equally represented then their share of student numbers would have been around 25 per cent. The report provides no discussion of the ways in which low socio-economic status origins may affect university access, including the significance of parent financial support, or the extent to which government policies on HECS and Austudy may affect the decision to undertake a university course.
 

Table 1: Percentage of commencing undergraduate students drawn from low socio-economic areas, 1996 — large universities only
University	No. of students	Percentage low SESa
Victoria University of Technology La Trobe University University of Wollongong University of South Australia University of Queensland University of Melbourne Adelaide University  University of Western Australia Monash University University of Western Sydney University of New South Wales Flinders University	4,468 6,281 2,639 6,566 7,440 6,888 3,534 2,989 9,106 8,526 5,043 3,280	31.4 23.5 18.3 16.7 14.5 14.3 13.1 11.6 11.2 10.7 10.2 9.3
Total Australia b	174,163	16.1
a socio-economic status b includes all universities Source: Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University, Equity (Access) Indicators, 1996, Table 4

The HEC report confirms other work which suggests that, despite the increase in enrolments in higher education since the early 1980s, students from low socio-economic status backgrounds have made little progress in increasing their share of the student body relative to students from better-off families. Students from professional and managerial families continue to dominate university enrolments. They made up around 53 per cent of higher education entrants in 1981 and 51 per cent in 1989³ (around double the representation of such families in the workforce). The implication, as implied in the 16.7 per cent access rate cited by the report for 1995, is that many young persons with the potential talent to benefit from university education may be missing out because of factors associated with their socio-economic background.

THE MONASH EXPERIENCE

Further analysis of these issues requires more detailed information on the class background and financial situation of students than is available from the material which universities report on an annual basis to the Department of Employment Education and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) and on which the HEC relies for its equity analysis. Monash University administers a biennial questionnaire which most students complete when they first enrol, and which does provide some of the necessary data. This article draws on this information for students enrolling in 1996 as well as that reported by students commencing in 1994 and 1990. The relevant data include the occupation and education level of fathers and mothers, parents’ place of birth and the student’s main source of financial support. The data on parents’ occupation provide a better indicator of the student’s socio-economic status than does postcode. Parents’ place of birth also allows for a more complete analysis of the characteristics of second-generation students of NESB than is available from the DEETYA files. The latter only report the student’s place of birth and language spoken at home. Furthermore, the Monash data are available in unit record form thus facilitating cross-tabulations by class, ethnicity and the student’s major source of financial support.
 

Table 2: Monash University (Clayton campus) commencing students by occupations of fathers by father’s birthplace, 1996 (%)
Father’s birthplace	Managerial	Professional	Para profes-sional	Trade	Clerk	Sales and Service	Plant and machine operators	Labourers	Home duties	Not known	Total number	(Australia-born)
Australia China Malaysia Hong Kong India Sri Lanka Vietnam Greece Italy UK Holland	28.1 25.9 18.8 28.5 30.2 13.3 10.0 22.2 26.5 28.3 10.5	35.2 17.2 45.8 23.8 26.3 43.3 6.0 30.5 15.9 30.3 7.0	4.7 3.7 4.7 4.7 2.6 6.7 1.0 8.3 1.1 7.1 -	6.3 19.7 4.7 14.3 3.9 1.7 12.0 16.6 20.2 9.6 31.8	1.1 3.7 3.5 2.4 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.7 1.1 0.5 1.2	18.4 11.1 10.6 14.2 26.3 25.0 8.0 16.7 15.9 19.7 10.6	1.5 7.4 3.5 - 5.3 1.7 15.0 - 6.4 3.5 8.2	2.4 4.9 3.5 4.8 1.3 3.3 26.0 2.7 11.7 1.0 23.5	0.6 1.2 - 2.4 - 1.7 8.0 - - - 7.0	1.7 4.9 4.7 4.8 2.6 1.7 12.0 - - - -	1,225 81 85 42 76 60 100 36 85 198 85	(1,217) (-) (-) (1) (-) (-) (-) (31) (84) (146) (84)
Totala	24.5	30.0	4.7	10.3	1.4	16.3	8.2	5.6	1.3	2.4	2,581	(1,941)
a Total includes all other birthplaces of fathers. Table excludes respondents providing no information on father’s occupation. Source: Monash University, 1996, Research Questionnaire, unpublished

We focus on the Clayton campus, mainly because the data for earlier student surveys were only available for that campus. There were 3,048 respondents for the 1996 Survey, representing 66 per cent of those who began their undergraduate education at Clayton in 1996. (Though university officials sought a full enumeration, completion of the survey was not compulsory). For the purposes of this analysis we excluded overseas full-fee students. All 3,048 students were therefore Australian permanent residents or citizens, or New Zealand citizens.

Since our main concern is the impact of class on student access to higher education, the first question is: how representative is Monash of other Australian students. To answer this question we have made use of the DEETYA files to calculate the proportion of students from low socio-economic status postcodes enrolled in each Australian University. The results for the bigger universities are displayed in Table 1. Monash, and particularly the Clayton campus, is located at the more competitive end the tertiary entrance score spectrum in Victoria. As such, it tends to attract students better equipped to compete in the Higher School Examinations process. Also only 11.2 per cent of all commencing undergraduates at Monash in 1996 (including all Monash campuses) were drawn from low socio-economic status postcodes, compared with 16.1 per cent for all equivalent Australian students. There must be some caution therefore, about generalising from the Monash experience to students at all levels of the higher education system.

CLASS AND BIRTHPLACE OF MONASH STUDENTS

The occupational background of the fathers of students commencing at Monash in 1996 is shown in Table 2, broken down by major birthplaces of these fathers. We use the father’s occupation because it is the best guide to the socio-economic location of the student’s family. The results confirm the crucial significance of class in shaping access to higher education. Students with fathers in professional and managerial occupations made up 54.5 per cent of the respondents (again, about double their representation in the male workforce). At the other end of the scale, students with fathers holding lower skilled or unskilled blue collar occupations make up just ten per cent of the respondents. This is well under half their representation in the male workforce. Students whose fathers were tradesmen (10.3 per cent) and clerks (1.4 per cent) were also poorly represented.
 

Table 3: Percentage of Monash University (Clayton campus) commencing students with fathers holding managerial or professional occupations by major faculty
Faculty	Managerial	Professional	Total	No. of studentsa
Arts/Law Medicine Engineering Arts Business & Economics Computing Science	26.6 19.8 24.8 23.4 23.8 23.4 20.4	39.2 43.5 28.8 27.0 26.6 21.5 20.6	65.8 63.3 53.6 50.4 50.4 44.9 41.0	79 114 201 674 455 218 390
Totalb	24.5	30.0	54.5	2,581
a Total includes all commencing students enrolled in each faculty. Table excludes respondents providing no information on father’s occupation b Total includes all other faculties

The situation in 1996 had hardly changed from that reported for students commencing at the Clayton campus in 1994.⁴ In the case of the 1994 group, 59.5 per cent of the fathers held professional or managerial occupations and, just as in 1996, ten per cent held lower blue collar positions. The only significant difference between the 1994 and 1996 respondents was a sharp increase in the proportion of fathers with sales and service occupations from 4.7 per cent in 1994 to 16.3 per cent in 1996. The latter figure implies a significant over-representation of persons from this background (males in sales and service occupations made up about nine per cent of the adult male workforce in 1996). We cannot readily explain the increase in this category since the occupational categories presented to students on the questionnaire were exactly the same in the two surveys. Nevertheless, it is plausible that many fathers classified in the sales and service category, which included investment, insurance and real estate salespersons, might enjoy relatively high incomes. If so, this might include the capacity (as with professional and managerial families) to put their children through private schools (some 60 per cent of Monash students originated from such schools in 1994) and to help finance their university education.

The impact of class (as indicated by father’s occupation) is even more evident for particular fields of study. The proportion of students with fathers holding managerial or professional occupations by major faculty is listed in Table 3. The preponderance of managerial/professional backgrounds is especially notable for students enrolled in medicine and arts/law. Here, nearly two thirds of the commencing students originated from such households.

The Monash data illustrate the difficulties students from low socio-economic status backgrounds have in gaining access to universities at the more competitive end of the spectrum. But does the class factor work primarily through the financial resources parents have available to invest in their children? The answer to this question is central to an evaluation of the importance of the fee structure students face and the availability of public financial assistance in shaping access to universities. It is well-known that the class factor is also significant in shaping students aspirations as regards university attendance. But, even if students from low income families do aspire to attend university, questions remain about whether they can surmount the financial hurdles.

ETHNICITY

One way to explore the influence of class is to investigate whether it is over-ridden by ethnicity. If young people from lower-class backgrounds whose parents were born in NESB countries appear to be more successful in accessing tertiary education than their counterparts with Australian-born parents, then perhaps financial resources are not the key to more equitable outcomes.

Reports based on 1991 and earlier Census data, indicate that the best performing birthplace groups were those drawn from Southern and Eastern European households.⁵ Young people from these groups were far more successful in entering and completing higher education than youths from households where the father was born in Australia or the United Kingdom. Most of the fathers born in Southern Europe held low-skilled jobs. The performance of their children was therefore particularly notable because of the striking pattern of educational mobility it revealed from the first to the second generation. Data from the 1994 Monash University student survey confirmed this pattern^.6

Our subsequent national level research based on 1995 enrolment data indicated that the Southern-European-origin group were not maintaining their past achievement level. Rather the high performers were drawn from recently arrived NESB communities, especially those coming from Chinese and Vietnamese speaking households.⁷

The 1996 Monash survey provides an opportunity to revisit this issue. The results are consistent with the national trend. The percentage of students with Australia-born fathers has fallen from the 58.6 per cent reported by respondents in 1990 to 47.4 per cent for the 1996 respondents. Over the same period the percentage of students with Asia-born fathers increased from 10.1 per cent to 20.8 per cent. The main growth points in the Asia-born fathers’ group were those with Indian and Sri Lankan fathers, whose share increased from 2.1 per cent in 1990 to 5.3 per cent in 1996 and those with Vietnamese-born fathers who rose from one per cent to 3.8 per cent over the period.

At first sight these outcomes might suggest that a significant ethnic factor is influencing tertiary entrance success rates at Monash. But the data reported in Table 2 on the occupations of fathers by father’s birthplace would caution against such a conclusion. Over fifty per cent of the students with fathers born in Malaysia, Hong Kong, India and Sri Lanka report their fathers occupations as managerial or professional. These proportions are close to the 63.3 per cent level reported by students with Australia-born fathers and the 58.3 per cent with UK-born fathers. It is notable that, like the students with Australia-born fathers, there was a virtual absence of students with Greek-born fathers holding plant and machine operator or labouring occupations. In the case of the Greek students, this represents a striking change from the pattern of upward mobility amongst such students reported in previous studies of Monash Students.⁸

To the limited extent that class barriers were overcome, it was amongst respondents whose fathers were born in Vietnam, Holland and, to a lesser extent, Italy. All the Vietnamese students themselves were born in Vietnam whilst, for the other two groups, almost all were Australia-born. Amongst the students with Greece-born fathers there was a virtual absence of students from lower blue-collar backgrounds by 1996. This represents a striking change from the pattern of upward mobility amongst Greek students noted in earlier studies.

The data are consistent with the well-known anxiety of recently arrived migrant parents from southern and eastern Europe as well as Asia to ensure that their children take advantage of Australia’s educational opportunities. It appears that this anxiety and commitment is common to all classes within the migrant communities, including those from a rural background. But it is equally clear that, to the extent that this drive helps overcome class barriers associated with income and the family’s cultural capital, it is far from the full explanation for the success of students with Asia-born fathers. As noted, with the significant exception of the Vietnamese, most students with Asia-born fathers come from similar class backgrounds to students with Australia-born fathers.

Cahill has noted in his thoughtful review of this issue that there have been some exceptions to the pattern of ethnic educational mobility, including amongst the Maltese and the Turks.⁹ It may also be that the motivational factor is a waning asset, especially for second-generation young people of NESB origin. Young people of second-generation background may now be less insulated from the mainstream class and youth cultural influences, influences which may inhibit the aspiration levels of those with Australia-born and UK-born fathers than was the case in earlier decades. Another interpretation is that young people from lower class backgrounds, whatever their family setting, now face tougher competition for tertiary entry and higher financial hurdles than earlier cohorts.

CLASS AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES

The review conducted by Chapman in 1992 during his evaluation of Austudy indicated that lack of financial resources was an important factor in shaping the decision to enter or continue with tertiary studies. Chapman concludes that ‘there is a significant pool of people whose desire to continue in post-compulsory education is being frustrated by lack of finance’.¹⁰ Chapman also acknowledges that factors associated with the degree of parental ambition and drive in motivating their children to aspire to higher education are important and that these commitments may help override financial barriers associated with class.

It is clear, however, that the financial barriers to university entrance are mounting. First of all, since the abolition of Commonwealth scholarships in 1973, there are very few awards which students from low-income backgrounds can access on the basis of superior merit. Secondly, since the replacement of the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme in 1973 by the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) and then in 1986 by the reformulation of TEAS as Austudy, there has been a gradual tightening in the means test determining access to Commonwealth provided financial assistance to students. Data reported by Chapman show that the threshold income of families at which the Austudy grant is reduced had fallen from about 73 per cent of average weekly earnings in 1980 to about 65 per cent in 1990.¹¹ One consequence is that the proportion of means-tested recipients who received a part allowance increased from 43 per cent in 1988 to 53.5 per cent in 1990.¹²

Access to Austudy has tightened since 1992 with the introduction of tests on family assets, the inclusion of certain fringe benefits for the income test and, from January 1995, by adding negative gearing losses to income. Students applying in 1996 also faced the first version of the ‘actual means test’ designed to ensure that the living standards of the claimants’ families reflected their reported taxable income. These developments would not have affected families with very low incomes. By 1996, the taxable income threshold below which students receive the full rate was just $22,650 (after adjustments downwards taking account of the presence of other dependent children in the family). At this level only students from poor households, many of which would be dependent on social security benefits, would be eligible for the full Austudy rate. The means test reduces the benefit by $1 for every $4 of family income over the $22,650 threshold, thus effectively cutting the award out at about $36,333. In 1996 average weekly earnings for full-time male workers was $762 or $39,600 per year.

The Austudy means test thus cuts out youths from most working-class and lower white-collar families, especially where both parents are working. Therefore, the decision whether to attempt a university course would in most cases depend on whether the parents were prepared to make a considerable financial sacrifice or whether the students themselves were prepared to take the onerous route of self-support via part-time or full-time work. Not surprisingly, access to Austudy is seen by low income secondary students, and particularly those of NESB background, as an important determinant of the decision to go to university.¹³

In 1996, around 60 per cent of full-time undergraduate resident students in Australian universities were recipients of Austudy. This figure may surprise given the preceding comments. It is explained in part by the fact that the denominator excludes part-time students. But the main reason is that 58 per cent of Austudy recipients (as of late 1996) were Independents who are not means-tested on parents’ income.¹⁴ There were some 171,000 higher education Austudy recipients as of late 1996, of whom 98,676 were Independents, most of whom (66,574) were receiving the benefit because they were 22 or older and the remainder because they met other criteria for the Independent rate such as marriage or having spent three years in the workforce.

It is in this context that one can appreciate the importance of the Government’s decision to lift the age at which students are granted Austudy as Independents (for new applicants in 1997) from 22 to 25. Henceforth all students starting courses aged 22-24 will, if they apply for Austudy, be subject to the means test based on their parents’ income and assets. In our previous study of Austudy recipients it was shown that only 14.8 per cent of the 20-24 year old students receiving Austudy as Independents in 1996 came from low SES locations. It is therefore likely, assuming that this class pattern is sustained, that most of these Independents will be ineligible or receive a fractional Austudy payment. The Government has in effect removed a backdoor entry to university for those whose families were unable or unwilling to provide financial assistance, but who were prepared to wait until age 22 to take up their studies.

SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR MONASH STUDENTS

The 1996 Monash survey highlights the equity dilemmas resulting from these circumstances. The Monash students were asked about their main source of financial support. The results, detailed by fathers’ birthplace are shown in Table 4. Since we are dealing with students beginning university (thus generally well below age 22) it is not surprising, given the previous comments, that only 26.3 per cent indicated that Austudy was their main source of funds. The majority (55 per cent) relied on parents. A minority (14.9 per cent) depended on income from part-time or full-time work. Only a tiny share (0.4 per cent) stated that their main source of financial support was a scholarship.
 

Table 4: Monash University (Clayton campus) commencing students’ major source of financial support by father’s birthplace, 1996, percentages
Father’s birthplace	Austudy	Parents	Scholarships	Work	Social Security	Other	Total students
Australia China Malaysia Hong Kong India Sri Lanka Vietnam Greece Italy UK Holland	21.5 39.5 10.5 19.0 15.8 20.0 67.6 25.0 23.0 19.4 40.2	55.9 51.2 82.3 76.0 69.7 68.3 27.4 55.5 48.3 59.2 48.3	0.2 - 1.2 2.3 - 1.6 - - - 0.5 -	18.3 4.6 3.5 2.3 10.5 10.0 1.9 13.8 26.0 18.4 10.3	1.0 - 1.2 - - - - 2.7 1.1 1.0 -	3.1 4.7 1.2 - 4.0 - - 3.0 1.6 1.5 1.2	1,237 86 85 42 76 60 102 36 91 201 87
Totala	26.3	55.0	0.4	14.9	0.8	2.6	2,623
a Total includes all birthplaces of fathers.

The only major exception to the general pattern of high dependence on parents were those whose fathers were born in Vietnam, 67.6 per cent of whom were Austudy recipients. However, some 40 per cent of students whose fathers were born in Holland and China also indicated reliance on Austudy. They presumably met the means test because a high proportion of their fathers (as shown in Table 2) held labouring or operative occupations. Nevertheless the Monash data confirm the earlier argument that many students from such backgrounds are likely to miss out on Austudy. As indicated in Table 5, only 45 per cent of those with fathers holding labouring or operative jobs indicated that Austudy was their main source of funds.
 

Table 5: Monash University (Clayton campus) commencing students’ main source of financial support by father’s occupation, 1996, percentages
Father’s occupation	Austudy	Parents	Work	Other	Total students
Managerial Professional Para professional Trades Clerks Sales and Service Labourers and Operators	17.3 14.7 24.5 41.6 44.1 25.8 45.0	61.6 67.6 60.6 37.8 38.2 52.4 40.6	16.5 14.3 12.2 16.0 14.7 18.3 11.2	4.6 3.4 3.6 4.6 3.0 3.5 3.0	628 768 122 262 34 421 231
Totala	26.0	55.1	15.1	3.8	2,581
a Total includes home duties and unknown.Table excludes respondents providing no information on father’s occupation.

CONCLUSION

The implications for equitable access to higher education are serious. The Monash data give substance to concerns that the severity of the Austudy means-test has left something of a financial black hole for young people aspiring to attend university who do not come from well-off families. Those coming from families amongst the very low income working poor and social security recipients (such as the Vietnamese) do have access to Austudy. But those originating from families located between this extreme and the better-off managerial and professional families on the other are likely to face serious financial problems.

If such students do manage to achieve the requisite tertiary entrance score in competition with those whose parents can facilitate top quality secondary schooling (perhaps including attendance at a private school) they face the prospect of little or no Austudy assistance at university and probably a struggle on the part of their parents to provide for their financial needs. The alternative is part-time work (again in competition with students who can rely on parental support). For those contemplating a decision to go to university in 1997 and later, there is the added imposition of an increased HECS debt, particularly for the fields of medicine and law where the fee has increased to $5,500 per year, and science, engineering and business where the increase is to $4,700.

If the Government is serious about ensuring bright and aspiring students from lower middle and working class families have a realistic opportunity to go on to higher education it will:

References

Back to People and Place Home Page