Category: Higher education

A 5/10 budget for undergraduate teaching

~ Andrew Norton ~ 5 Comments

The interest groups at last night’s education budget lock-up (I went along representing the U of M) were pretty happy with what they heard. It’s true that with expectations having been managed down for months, what was actually delivered significantly exceeded them, particularly for research, infrastructure and student income support.

But on the core of the system – undergraduate education – the government deserves no more than 5 out of 10.

As announced earlier, they are going to exclude from the demand-driven system the private providers of higher education and the TAFEs offering degrees. While there is a commitment to consult with private providers about their future role, the demand-driven system is not going to deliver its full potential benefits without them being incorporated from the start.

The government has recognised – as per my Issue Analysis paper from February – that it needs to look at the prices received by providers. They are setting up a review to report by 2011. But I think their conceptual framework is mistaken; there is not an appropriate ‘internationally competitive’ funding level, but rather multiple funding levels for different students, courses, and institutions.
Continue reading “A 5/10 budget for undergraduate teaching” →

Science, engineering and political identity

~ Andrew Norton ~ 21 Comments

Some commenters on my post on the academic backgrounds that that the science and engineering graduates should be distinguished. I have done this and also separated out those with qualifications in IT.

image0022

As can be seen, while science graduates were the largest single component of the original broad ‘science and engineering’ category for both groups, social democrats are relatively speaking more likely to come from a science background, and classical liberals from an engineering or IT background.

Did I make a ‘not well supported generally’ argument?

~ Andrew Norton ~ 4 Comments

In the Graduate Pathways Survey report, authors Hamish Coates and Daniel Edwards say:

…some commentators on graduate supply and workforce projections argue that the solutions to filling the skills gaps are not in boosting the training effort in Australia, but instead making sure all those who have university qualifications are utilising their skills sufficiently. Research by Norton (2007) indicates that a large number of graduates in Australia are not currently employed in ‘graduate occupations’. Norton argues that if these people’s skills were utilised, there would be no shortfall in highly skilled workers in most occupations in Australia. While this argument relating to the ‘over-qualification’ of the Australian population is not well supported generally, it is an issue of relevance that is addressed in this research project. (emphasis added)

If by ‘not well supported’ they mean that not many other people argue this they are right, but this is mainly because there is little overlap between the labour market literature and the higher education policy literature. Unfortunately, I pretty much have the issue of how we allocate university places between disciplines to myself. The only two other positions in the debate are what happens politically – ad hoc allocations of new places if employers scream loudly enough – and the position adopted by Bob Birrell and the Bradley report, which is to flood the labour market with graduates and hope that the sheer numbers make skills shortages unlikely.
Continue reading “Did I make a ‘not well supported generally’ argument?” →

The benefits of paid work while studying

~ Andrew Norton ~ 15 Comments

I have in the past been sceptical of claims that encouraging students to spend fewer hours in paid work is a worthwhile public policy goal. Recent research supports this scepticism.

The most detailed findings are from the Graduate Pathways Survey. Key points:

* no relationship between paid work and average overall grade
* working for pay during study is positively related to employment after graduation
* mean satisfaction score for those not working was 62 – the same as those working between 11 and 20 hours
* developmental outcomes were enhanced through paid work – an increase from 42 to 46 on the 100-point scale

Developmental questions related to understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, solving complex, real-world problems, developing a personal code of values and ethics, contributing to the welfare of your community, developing general industry awareness and understanding different social contexts.

As in previous research, the negatives only develop with very long hours at paid work, well beyond what most full-time undergraduates are doing. Key points:
Continue reading “The benefits of paid work while studying” →

Low SES not a disadvantage at uni

~ Andrew Norton ~ 6 Comments

Commenter Fitzroyalty asks whether there is recent data on low SES completions and drop-outs. In general, recent research gives cause for optimism that once low SES students reach university their SES status is not of itself (on average) a negative factor affecting outcomes.

This report based on Longitudinal Study of Australian Youth did find some slightly lower projected completion rates for the children of low education or occupation parents, but that these differences were not statistically significant after controlling for ENTER. In other words, low SES had done all the damage it was going to do at school, and did not do more damage at university.

The 2008 report of the Australian Survey of Student Engagement, released a week or two ago, found that low SES students had very similar rates of considering dropping out (34.6%) to all Australian students (33.1%). The grade point average of low SES students (71.6%) was virtually the same as all Australian students (71.9%).
Continue reading “Low SES not a disadvantage at uni” →

Do Group of Eight graduates earn more?, part 2

~ Andrew Norton ~ 8 Comments

In March, I reported academic research showing that employers appeared unwilling to pay premium salaries for graduates who had been to Group of Eight universities.

Another report released this week, 2008 Graduate Pathways Survey: Graduates’ education and employment outcomes five years after completion of a bachelor degree at an Australian university, gives some grounds for thinking that as graduates acquire work experience those from Group of Eight universities receive larger salary increases. The report is the first from the Graduate Pathways Survey, which in this case retrospectively asked people who completed their courses in 2002 about their progress since then.

It found that:

Go8 graduates tended to see the largest steady increase in salary over five years from $35,000 (2003 dollars) to $63,000 – an 80 per cent increase. ATN graduates salaries increased from $42,000 (2003 dollars) to $64,000 (60%). IRU [Innovative Research Universities, eg Murdoch, La Trobe, James Cook], regional and metropolitan university graduates’ salaries increased at slightly lower rates to reach $56,000 (up 56%), $61,000 (up 51%) and $60,000 (up 54%) respectively.

Australian Technology Network (ATN) universities are, however, still slightly ahead in absolute terms.

Unfortunately, there is no statistical analysis in this report to see whether there is a distinct Group of Eight effect, or whether (as is possible) this is a function of other labour market characteristics of the graduates. Presumably the age and discipline mix of graduates will affect the scope for rapid salary increases. And of course even a finding that controlling for these things there is a Group of Eight effect, it does not show that attending a Group of Eight university was a causal factor, given the higher prior average academic ability of these students.

Why focus only on the lowest 25% of postcodes?

~ Andrew Norton ~ 23 Comments

Yesterday my U of M boss, Glyn Davis, gave a speech on the difficulties in reaching the government’s target of 20% of all higher education enrolments being from a low socieonomic status background. The current definition of ‘low SES’ is living in the lowest 25% of postcodes according to the ABS index of education and occupation.

It is well established that socieconomic differences in school results are the major reason why low SES students are ‘under-represented’ at university. However, it was not until I recently analysed 2008 Victorian Year 12 results that I realised that lowest 25% seems like an inappropriately narrow target group. As the figure below shows, while students living in the lowest 10% of postcodes are clearly the weakest performers, those in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th deciles have very similar (and not very good) school results). Very few receive ENTER scores in the 90s, and nearly half have ENTER scores below 50. While results trend upwards after the 5th decile, it is only a modest exaggeration to say that we really have the top 20% and the rest.

vtacgif0021
Continue reading “Why focus only on the lowest 25% of postcodes?” →

When a conclusion appears as an assumption (or more dubious arguments for university funding)

~ Andrew Norton ~ 17 Comments

Funded by Universities Australia, KPMG have produced a report modelling the economic effects of increased investment in higher education. As an exercise in persuading Treasury, it is almost certain to fail.

Perhaps because of the way Universities Australia specified the project, the report assumes that this increased investment comes from the government. But this is not an assumption that can simply be built into an economic model. It is a highly contentious conclusion that never receives the arguments it needs.

The obvious alternative assumption is that students pay some or all of the increased investment. Under current HELP loan scheme arrangements this would still cost taxpayers, because of bad debts and interest subsidies, but not as much as direct subsidies.

Indeed, even setting aside the interests of taxpayers, it is highly likely that there would be more efficient investment and higher return if investment is determined privately rather than publicly.
Continue reading “When a conclusion appears as an assumption (or more dubious arguments for university funding)” →

A voucher scheme without private providers?

~ Andrew Norton ~ 6 Comments

Today Julia Gillard put out a media release drawing attention to the release of the first semester 2008 enrolment numbers (it’s a disgrace that it has taken a year to get these statistics ready, but that’s another issue).

They show that there is strong growth in the private higher education sector, despite fees that are significantly higher for domestic students than in the public universities. Commencing Australian students were up 17% on 2008 in the private providers, but only 0.2% in public universities (in absolute terms, the public institutions still have 95% of the market). These numbers suggest that the FEE-HELP scheme, which enables students to borrow tuition fees, is having a large effect.

Yet though these market signals show increasing student interest in private higher education, Gillard’s voucher scheme is specifically restricted to public higher education providers. This significantly undermines the positive potential of student choice, since it restricts choice to institutions that by the history of the funding system tend to be alike: large, multi-faculty, bachelor-to-PhD level institutions, aiming (with widely varying degrees of success) to be research institutions. It’s Henry Ford’s Model T kind of diversity: you can have any colour as long as it is black.

No rationale has been given for excluding the private providers.
Continue reading “A voucher scheme without private providers?” →

What will happen if the overseas students stop coming (or Julia Gillard’s big policy gamble)

~ Andrew Norton ~ 15 Comments

A story in this morning’s Australian drew attention to this Access Economics report on international students, commissioned by the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, the largest peak body for private education providers.

Because they don’t take into account the paid work overseas students do while living in Australia, I think the Access report overstates their contribution to export earnings and understates their contribution to GDP. But the report does do a service in pointing to the consequences for the economy of a decline in demand from overseas students.

Of more pressing concern for those of us attending or employed by universities is what happens to us if the overseas student market goes into serious decline. Universities depend on international students for their survival.

Julia Gillard as Education Minister is also relying on a strong international student market. Her current policy approach is actually high-stakes politics, with her policies putting the higher education system at significant risk.
Continue reading “What will happen if the overseas students stop coming (or Julia Gillard’s big policy gamble)” →