A simpler way to increase low SES uni enrolments
Never choose a simple scheme when there is a complex alternative: that, unfortunately, seems to a maxim of higher education policymaking. It was on display again yesterday morning at a Group of Eight forum on higher education and social inclusion.
In her presentation (ppt), Sydney University Deputy Vice-Chancellor Ann Brewer suggested an ‘equity trading scheme’ to encourage universities to enrol more students from low SES backgrounds. I must admit she lost me on the detail of how it would work, but presumably it would mean that those universities (like, I suspect, her own) that failed to meet their equity targets would have to buy credits from those that had more credits than they needed.
There is a much simpler way of dealing with this problem, which is to fix the market design of the whole Commonwealth funding scheme. At the moment, the total number of Commonwealth-supported places is largely fixed overall and for particular institutions. This means that all the specific proposals for recruiting low SES students she and other presenters offered would operate in a zero-sum game. The only way to increase low SES numbers is by decreasing numbers from other SES groups.
Universities have weak incentives to spend large sums coaxing under-prepared low SES students into university when they can take bright, well-educated upper-middle class kids who apply without needing encouragement. Brewer is right that the incentive structure would need to change before this would happen. But there is a simpler option than an equity trading scheme: just deregulate the market.
Instead of recruitment being a zero-sum game with a fixed number of places, it could expand to meet all demand, regardless of SES backgrounds. This in itself would do more than any other policy measure to enrol the current group of low SES students interested in higher education. Indeed, we can be pretty confident that the significant increase in the number of places in the last few years will continue to increase low SES shares of commencing students. There is a leading indicator of this in the statistics on accepted offers by Year 12 score, with the below-70 group continuing to increase its share of the total.
The added competition taking away all quantity restrictions would create would give universities more of an incentive to recruit in innovative ways. Brewer herself suggested colleges that provided pathways to universities through diploma courses. But the for-profit higher education sector has been doing this for years. Why? Because they have an incentive to tap into markets left vacant by the public sector.
Vice-Chancellors at the forum, Ian Chubb from ANU and Alan Robson from UWA, were endorsing moves by universities to relax the emphasis on Year 12 results to let more low SES students in. But the reason they are doing this is not, despite their spin, principally altruism. It is because a combination of soft demand in some areas and the new Commonwealth-supported places means that some institutions are having trouble meeting their enrolment quotas.
Wanting to help the poor is a nice sentiment. But it is self-interest that moves universities the most, and it is that self-interest that policymakers need to harness. A market scheme, in which universities are directly rewarded for enrolment success and punished for enrolment failure, will focus their minds far more intently and with much greater simplicity than an equity trading scheme.
July 17th, 2008 09:46
I think the problem will solve itself in Australia — there are many courses now where essentially anyone can get in due to low student demand and universities needing to fill quotas (the announcement by ACU and UWA of “special” entry schemes to let essentially anyone in is a good indicator of this).
As for those courses where this is not the case, I wish universities taking these lower end students would actually do a bit more than letting them in and giving them access to a rather limited amount of help. Where I work, they have a scheme like this, and what seems to be the case is that often duller or less well educated students get stuck in a group of smarter/more educated ones, and the results are entirely unsurprising (they do poorly). I believe there is similar data from some of the US private universities where similar things have happened in the name of affirmative action — as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
July 17th, 2008 10:09
Conrad - I agree that this is a big issue that is almost entirely overlooked as the ‘equity’ people try to reshape society according to how they think it should look. There needs to be far more attention given to the ethics of enrolling people without sufficient regard to the likely consequences for them.
July 17th, 2008 10:50
WHat is the Latin for “complex solutions to simple problems”?
July 17th, 2008 11:14
I think the problem is that a lot of the people that love large amounts of social engineering also believe in the ultra hard left line (and rather scientifically ignorant line) that there are no differences between individuals, and that any differences that emerge due to long term environmental pressure are easily and quickly ameliorated. If you believe this, then you can also believe that that all those kids that dropped out of school when they were 15 need is a bit of love and attention, and they’ll be doctors (or star dancers) before you know it. I think Hollywood movies are used as their main source of evidence, which proves that they are correct and not just causing more problems for people that don’t need them.
July 17th, 2008 12:53
Conrad - Try this too:
I think the problem is that a lot of the people also believe in the ultra hard right Ayn Rand line (and rather scientifically ignorant line) that there are no differences between individuals, and that any differences that emerge due to long term environmental pressure are easily and quickly ameliorated. If you believe this, then you can also believe that that all those kids that dropped out of school when they were 15 need is a bit of application and determined self interest, and they’ll be doctors (or star dancers)[or architects] before you know it.
I think Hollywood movies are used as their main source of evidence, which proves that they are correct and not just causing more problems for people that don’t need them.
–
I agree that just getting people into a university is not enough - struggling to get through VCE in a family that struggled to get you second hand desktop with pirated software and a family that hasn’t ever formally studied at that level is difficult enough.
Landing in a class where most of the people have new laptops, swishy mobiles on $49 plans, and think nothing of blowing $20 on lunch can be the most difficult thing in the world to deal with.
When combined their access to university educated dads, mums and aunties for essay help (or even having most of your essay done when in a pinch) , any disadvantage at VCE is only compounded.
July 17th, 2008 16:04
FXH,
which hard right groups are trying to push affirmative action and so on onto universities?
Also, I don’t mind thinking about the idea of equity, I just want people to be realistic. You could take smart students from poor places (most of country Australia), or if you really insist on taking these guys with poor scores (who haven’t learnt many academic skills at all), then people should admit that and send them to Tafe or such places first. Personally, in my books, if you’re worried about equity, the school system, and not the university system, is the place to start.
July 17th, 2008 18:51
conrad - no hard right groups are pushing for affirmative action. I was just suggesting that both right, left and others frequently insist its all about individual effort.
July 17th, 2008 20:33
Kill HEX, bring back AUS study, increase the places for first year so kids get second chance and set a reasonable academic standard for the second.
It really is that simple
July 18th, 2008 11:18
I still don’t understand where the money for these deregulated degrees is going to come from. My understanding is that low SES students are adverse to HECS as is, I don’t see them taking out real loans.
July 22nd, 2008 14:41
Who wants to increase low SES enrolment and why? Are there many low SES people who would love to go uni, but are locked out by their low SES status? I doubt it. There are so many universities in Australia, many with incredibly low entrance requirements, I doubt anybody is lcoked out of our university system.
July 22nd, 2008 14:45
In fact, both students and universities would improve immensely if we spent policy energy on deterring students from university. One vital method is of course to close half of these “universities” down.
July 22nd, 2008 23:44
John- I suspect the private sectors already dealing with this. There’s a University within walking distance of where I live, but it’s well known that their graduates consistency lose out in job applications against graduates of most other Universities (around here at least). I can’t see Universities like the one described above continuing their standards over the longer term.