Comments on: Fees and the poor, again

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:34:15 +0000

Rajat - I had two theories, one that prices would not have an impact, which I think is confirmed, and another that the expansion of places would have a positive impact, which is not - though the data is consistent with that, the margin is so small it could just be some random factor, especially when we consider the fairly low quality of the data source.

By: Rajat Sood

Rajat Sood — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:19:36 +0000

Geez, Andrew, you’re a tough man if you judge a theory by +/-0.04% !!

I would have thought that your prediction was confirmed regardless of the private providers adjustment. After all, your point was:

“…there was no evidence in the enrolments data suggesting students were being deterred by the cost of study.”

By: Andrew Leigh

Andrew Leigh — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:46:14 +0000

Andrew, can you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations to work out what’s going on in the commencement year? Eg. if the average low-SES share went up by 0.4, and years 2-3 stayed the same, then the commencement year low SES share must have gone up by 1.2? Or maybe things are more complicated than this.

By: Leopold

Leopold — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:08:49 +0000

I think I’ve seen it suggested (maybe by you Mr Norton, on here?) that high fees may actually discourage high SES students more, as they are more likely to take a ‘gap’ year and head off on a world trip or something.

Whereas low SES students have to choose between working at Maccas (or some similar place) and no Uni or working at Maccas and going to Uni.

Also, fewer high SES people taking up HECS places (both because of ‘gaps’ and some of them, from 2005, paying full fees) automatically creates more room for people with lower high school results (eg, low SES background).

PS - Do you feel like Don Quixote on this issue?