PREAMBLE

You are required to use each of the three text extracts provided in this exam:

Chesters, J. & L. Watson. (2012). Understanding the persistence of inequality in higher education: evidence from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 28(2), 198-215.
James, R., E. Bexley, M. Devlin & S. Marginson. (2007). Australian University Student Finances 2006. Centre for the Study of Higher Education: The University of Melbourne.
Kearney, Judith. (2012). Unlucky in a lucky country: A commentary on policies and practices that restrict access to higher education in Australia. Journal of Social Inclusion, 3(1).

QUESTION 1 5 Marks
Describe the relationship between student work commitments and study. Refer to James et al. (2007), Table 3.8 for your answer.

INSTRUCTIONS:
Present your answer in the form of a data commentary in one or two well organised paragraphs.
CRITERIA:
You will be assessed on your ability to: * Set out a location statement * Highlight relevant information * Describe the features of the data * Use in-text citations to indicate the source, or sources, of your data.
Question 2 5 Marks
Write an essay plan for a 400 to 500 word essay written in response to the following question:
Do you think that all Australian residents have equal access to a university education? Discuss using evidence from the 3 text extracts to support your response.

CRITERIA:
You will be assessed on your ability to: * Construct an outline of the structure of your essay * Provide a thesis statement * Provide topic sentences * Indicate the sources of evidence to be used

Question 3 20 Marks
Write a 400 to 500 word essay written in response to the following question:
Do you think that all Australia residents have equal access to a university education? Discuss using evidence from the 3 text extracts to support your response. (Note: this is the same question for which you wrote your outline in Question 2 above.)

INSTRUCTIONS: * Your essay should be 400 to 500 words long. * Include at least one data commentary in your essay * Draw from all four provided sources * Use in-text citations to indicate the sources of your evidence * You may use only one direct citation * Do not set out a final reference list

CRITERIA:
You will be assessed on your ability to: * Write a deductive essay using a general to specific structure * Include a thesis statement and clear topic sentences * Develop at least 3 supporting arguments * Maintain your writer’s voice while supporting it with the voices of others * Use the correct in-text citation format * Express ideas in your own words * Use appropriate data commentary structure(s)

James, R., E. Bexley, M. Devlin & S. Marginson. (2007). Australian University Student Finances 2006. Centre for the Study of Higher Education: The University of Melbourne.

Selected findings
The executive summary of Paying their way, a previous study commissioned by the
Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee which investigated undergraduate student finances in 2000, began with the statement ‘Being a university student in Australia in the year 2000 is tough – financially speaking’. This continues to be the case. During 2006, many Australian university students were in stressful financial situations and many found it difficult to support themselves week-to-week. A large proportion of students lacked adequate financial support and many were highly anxious about ‘making ends meet’ and the debts they were accumulating.
Australian University Student Finances 2006 2
Further key findings of this study include: * Consistent with the findings of previous studies (Long and Hayden 2001; Krause et al. 2005), the typical Australian student in 2006 was undertaking considerable paid work during semester: 70.6 per cent of full-time undergraduates reported working during semester, on average these students were working 14.8 hours per week. 79.2 per cent of full-time postgraduate research students and 73.7 of full-time postgraduate coursework students worked during semester, working an average of 11.3 and 20.3 hours per week respectively. * One in every six (14.5 per cent) of the full-time undergraduate students who were working during semester was working more than 20 hours per week, as were over one third (38.2 per cent) of full-time postgraduate coursework students. Over all, more than one-third of the nation’s full-time university students (35.2 per cent) were working at least 13 hours per week during semester. Similar reckoning for part-time students shows that 41.8 per cent of all part-time students were working at least 38 hours per week – in effect, full-time paid employment. * A small yet notable proportion of full-time undergraduate students (4.5 per cent) reported being in full-time employment (up from 3.1 per cent in 2000). Among postgraduates, 7.1 per cent of full-time research students were also in full-time employment as were 20.7 per cent of full-time postgraduate coursework students. * Many students indicated they undertook substantial hours of work simply to afford basic necessities, transport, textbooks and other study materials. A large proportion of these students reported that this work had a significant detrimental effect on their studies and limited their opportunities to benefit from the full university experience: 40.2 per cent of full-time undergraduate students, and over 50 per cent of all part-time students believed the work they were doing was having an adverse effect on their studies; 22.7 per cent of full-time undergraduate students and 37.4 per cent of parttime undergraduate students regularly missed classes because they needed to attend employment, as did around one quarter of all postgraduate students. * One in eight students (12.8 per cent) indicated they regularly went without food or other necessities because they could not afford them. For Indigenous students, the comparable figure was much higher, at 25.4 per cent. * Part-time female students reported far lower levels of overall income than part-time males (a difference of $7,060 for part-time undergraduates, $11,140 for part-time research postgraduates and $12,500 for part-time coursework postgraduates), and were more likely to worry about finances than were male students. * Female students were also more likely to have a budget deficit, less likely to have savings for an emergency, and less likely to have paid HECS or full-fees up front. They were more likely to be financially dependent on someone else, two to three times more likely to rely on assistance in the form of cash gifts and help with bills, more likely to rely on free or subsidised services provided by universities and student associations, and less likely to believe they could afford such services if they were not subsidised. * Female students were more likely to have taken out a repayable loan in order to study than were male students; however male students with loans had borrowed much larger amounts. * 47.8 per cent of full-time undergraduate students had annual budgets that were in deficit. Around half of the students surveyed indicated they often worried about their finances – among the Indigenous students, 72.5 per cent reported their financial situation was often a source of worry for them. * Indigenous full-time undergraduates in employment worked on average three hours per week more than their non-Indigenous counterparts in a typical week during semester (17.8 hours, compared with 14.8 hours) and employed Indigenous full-time postgraduates worked 3.6 more hours in a typical week during semester than non-Indigenous students (18.9 hours compared with 15.3 hours). A higher proportion of Indigenous students than non-Indigenous reported that they regularly missed classes because of their paid work commitments (for undergraduates, 29.1 per cent compared with 25.7 per cent; for postgraduates, 40.3 per cent compared with 26.7 per cent); * Indigenous students were considerably less likely to rely on most forms of cash and non-cash assistance from others, such as parents or partners, than were non Indigenous students. More Indigenous undergraduates and postgraduates had taken out a loan in order to study (33.8 per cent and 34.4 per cent respectively) than had non-Indigenous undergraduates and postgraduates (24.4 per cent and 20.2 per cent respectively). The loans taken out by Indigenous postgraduates in order to study were considerably larger (mean loan of $8250) than loans taken out by other postgraduates (mean loan of $6250). * Indigenous students’ study-related expenses were higher overall than those of non-Indigenous students. Indigenous students were more reliant than non-Indigenous students on university and student association subsidised services. Indigenous students were particularly reliant on health-care and counselling.

Financial circumstances of indigenous students Financial A
A separate survey using a slightly modified questionnaire was conducted for Indigenous students. The separate surveying was undertaken in the belief that the often distinctive family and financial circumstances under which Indigenous students are studying warranted special consideration. Further, there is an ongoing need in Australia to develop policies and programs to raise Indigenous people’s higher education access, participation and completion rates, and therefore the financial circumstances and income support for Indigenous students are likely to be central issues in advancing Indigenous higher education.
All Indigenous students attending public universities were surveyed and 1207 responses were received. This represents an estimated response rate of 16.4 per cent. Of the respondents, 80.7 per cent were undergraduate students, compared with 75.7 per cent for non-Indigenous students. Seventy-one per cent of the Indigenous students were full-time, comparable to the proportion of full-time students among non-Indigenous students in the sample; and 69.7 per cent of the Indigenous students were female, compared with 66.6 per cent of the non-Indigenous students.
At a national level, Indigenous students were often older than non-Indigenous students and have family responsibilities that strongly influenced their educational decisions and capacity to study. Indigenous students were also more likely to be female, to be studying part-time and to be enrolled in enabling programs than non-Indigenous students. Unsurprisingly then, in the present study some clear differences emerged in the enrolment characteristics of the Indigenous students compared with non-Indigenous students:
• undergraduate Indigenous students were more likely than non-Indigenous students to be enrolled in enabling courses (3.8 per cent compared with 0.5 per cent) and diploma level courses (4.7 per cent compared with 1.7 per cent); and
• only 18.9 per cent of the Indigenous students surveyed were enrolled in Group of
Eight universities, compared with 29.3 per cent of non-Indigenous students.
Other sizeable demographic differences that emerged, some related to age, are likely to impinge directly on the work and study arrangements of Indigenous students:
• A higher percentage of Indigenous students were aged thirty years or older (47.8 per cent) compared with non-Indigenous students (30.2 per cent);
• A higher percentage of Indigenous students had dependent children (30.2 per cent) compared with non-Indigenous students (16.6 per cent);
• Almost three times as many Indigenous students reported they were the sole carer of another person (18.8 per cent) than did non-Indigenous students (6.4 per cent);
• A higher percentage of undergraduate Indigenous students were not financially dependent on others (65 per cent) compared with undergraduate non-Indigenous students (44 per cent);
• A higher percentage of postgraduate Indigenous students were not financially dependent on others (78 per cent) compared with postgraduate non-Indigenous students (71 per cent), although the difference here was not as pronounced as it was with undergraduate students; and
• More than twice as many Indigenous students reported having a disability or condition that affected their studies (15.0 per cent) than did non-Indigenous students
(6.1 per cent).
Australian University Student Finances 2006 55
As the findings from the 2006 survey show, the decision to survey and report on the financial situation of Indigenous students separately is borne out in the major differences revealed between the financial circumstances and pressures experienced by Indigenous students and those faced by non-Indigenous students. Overall, Indigenous students reported more financial difficulties and pressures than non-Indigenous students.
Despite the financial pressures experienced by many Indigenous students, there was evidence of a strong commitment to completing a university education in the comments made by students. One student said: It has been a struggle to study, however I do it in the hope to better my situation and provide my future family with the financial security I never had as a child – although my parents did the best they could with what little they had. (Indigenous female, full-time postgraduate)
Some of the most important findings in relation to Indigenous students and their financial situation include:
• Indigenous students were far more likely to agree that their financial situation was often a source of worry to them (72.5 per cent) than non-Indigenous students (52.5 per cent);
• Indigenous students were almost twice as likely to go without food and other necessities because they could not afford them (25.4 per cent) than were non-
Indigenous students (12.8 per cent);
• Indigenous full-time undergraduate students in paid employment during semester worked on average three hours per week more than their non-Indigenous counterparts in a typical week (17.8 hours, compared with 14.8 hours) and
Indigenous full-time postgraduate students in paid employment during semester worked 3.6 more hours in a typical week than non-Indigenous postgraduate students
(18.9 hours compared with 15.3 hours);
• A higher proportion of Indigenous students reported that they regularly missed classes or other study activities because of their paid work commitments
(undergraduate 29.1 per cent compared with 25.7 per cent of non-Indigenous students; postgraduates 40.3 per cent compared with 26.7 per cent of non-
Indigenous students);
• Indigenous undergraduates were more likely to have some form of income support than non-Indigenous undergraduates and they had a higher overall mean income
($18,520) than non-Indigenous undergraduates ($16,030). Indigenous postgraduates were also more likely to have some form of income support than were non-
Indigenous postgraduates, however they had a lower mean overall income ($32,060) than did non-Indigenous postgraduates ($36,830);
• Indigenous students were more reliant than non-Indigenous students on university and student association subsidised services, such as childcare and counselling;
• Indigenous undergraduate students were far less likely to rely on cash and non-cash assistance from others than were non-Indigenous undergraduate students;
• Postgraduate Indigenous students were less likely to rely on non-cash assistance but more likely to rely on cash assistance than non-Indigenous postgraduate students;
• Indigenous students’ general and study-related expenses were higher overall than those of non-Indigenous students;
• More Indigenous students had taken out a loan in order to study than non-Indigenous students (undergraduates 33.8 per cent compared with 24.4 per cent; postgraduates 34.4 per cent compared with 20.2 per cent);
• The average loan taken out by Indigenous postgraduate students in order to study
($8250) was larger than the average loan taken out by non-Indigenous postgraduate students ($6520); and
• More part-time Indigenous students indicated that they would prefer to study full-time if their financial circumstances permitted it (76.7 per cent) than non-Indigenous parttime students (62.2 per cent), especially postgraduates (78.9 per cent compared with 57.6 per cent).

Kearney, Judith. (2012). Unlucky in a lucky country: A commentary on policies and practices that restrict access to higher education in Australia. Journal of Social Inclusion, 3(1).

While social inclusion has particular currency with the Australian government, a national policy that serves to exclude capable and motivated students from higher education pathways is clearly incongruous. Yet this situation is now in place, serving to entrench exclusion and disadvantage among Pacific Island communities who have used New Zealand as a migration pathway to Australia.
Journalist Fynes-Clinton (2011) has profiled Puleitu Tumama, a promising Year 12 student in Logan City. Eager to study law, Puleitu cannot proceed to university for financial reasons because she is ineligible for HECS-HELP. She finds the annual university tuition fee of $9000 unmanageable; her family of six relies on her mother’s modest income as a machine operator. Puleitu is typical of her rapidly growing Pacific Island cohort whose higher education and employment opportunities are limited by their ineligibility for HECS-HELP. Most will be unable to fulfil their aspirations to proceed with study and career development while they aim to build a meaningful life as Australian citizens. The cycle of disadvantage is cemented. In this lucky country, they are the unlucky ones.
A resilient Puleitu remains optimistic, with Fynes-Clinton (2011, p. 27) reporting that she will work at Hungry Jack’s to save money for the upfront payment of fees. However, Puleitu’s optimism is not shared by all Pacific Island youth. Many lose hope. They disengage from school - and from their aspirations for a career - when unskilled, casual work is the likely post-school option rather than higher education. This trend is reflected in reports from schools that students of Pacific Island descent are disproportionately represented in cohorts of under-performing and/or misbehaving students. Similarly, government agencies report over-representation in the juvenile justice system and correctional centres; in homelessness statistics; in low-income occupations, unskilled and casual employment; and, under-representation in higher education and professional employment.
That participation in education, especially higher education, is key to social inclusion is axiomatic (Caspersz, Kavanagh & Whitton, 2010). In its social inclusion statement, the national government advised, “Education is fundamental to achieving a fairer and stronger Australia and for many provides a pathway out of disadvantage” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, p. 9). So why is Puleitu denied this pathway? For the last seven years she has attended Australian public schools while her parents have worked when possible and paid taxes to the Australian government. Puleitu identifies herself and her future as Australian, yet she is excluded from further education and training because her family’s visa status locks her out of the financial support for higher education that the government provides to Australian citizens, and into prohibitive, perhaps unaffordable costs. To appreciate how and why this happens we must consider trans-Tasman arrangements during the last 40 years.
1973-2001:
In 1973 the New Zealand and Australian governments announced the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA) that entitled New Zealand and Australian citizens to live and work indefinitely in each other’s country, with permanent residence and the entitlements associated with that status. By 1981, the trans-Tasman migration flow was clearly imbalanced, with many more New Zealanders coming to Australia than the reverse flow (Goff, 2001). A series of policy adjustments mostly by the Australian government has sought to discourage arrivals from New Zealand. First, in 1981 the Australian government required New Zealanders to hold passports and then introduced a six-month waiting period for eligibility for social security payments. In 1986, the government extended this period to two years. By 1994, all New Zealanders were automatically granted a Special Category Visa (SCV) on arrival in Australia (Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2010).
After 2001
In 2001, the open-door policy between Australia and New Zealand was seriously constrained with a new bilateral agreement on social security. This agreement resulted in two types of visa holders: those with protected SCVs who were residents in Australia on or before 26 February 2001, and those with unprotected SCVs who arrived after that date. The new agreement stated that the holders of unprotected SCVs would be considered temporary residents qualifying for the full complement of social security benefits1 only after gaining a permanent visa and serving the two-year waiting period for newly arrived residents (Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2010).
The Australian government’s intended outcome was to reduce Australia’s responsibility for social security payments to New Zealanders residing in Australia (Birrell & Rapson, 2001). The outlay, then estimated at A$1 billion dollars per year (Goff, 2001), was fuelling concern among Australians when ever more arrivals from New Zealand had never contributed to the Australian national purse through taxation and were not quickly obtaining employment to ensure their own financial security. Other intentions were to deter the number of arrivals who were unlikely to meet criteria for skilled migration (Birrell & Rapson, 2001) and to restrict relay migration as a significant number of trans-Tasman arrivals in Australia were not born in New Zealand, but originated from Polynesian countries or from East Asia, India, the Philippines, South Africa, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (Hugo, 2004).
However, three unintended outcomes complicated this picture. First, arrivals from New Zealand increased even further in the following decade with 566,815 New Zealand citizens residing in Australia by June 2010 (Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2010). Second, many arrivals seeking to reside in Australia were not absorbed quickly into the labour force. In 2009–2010, this group represented 44.6 per cent of trans-Tasman arrivals. Third, since 2001, there has been a significant group of people from New Zealand working in Australia while ineligible for permanent residence and the full range of benefits associated with Australian citizenship. Their children were eligible for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) – a loan scheme available to students to complete higher education by deferring their HECS liability until earning an amount equivalent to the minimum repayment threshold. However, this opportunity was denied in 2005.
After 2005
Current eligibility requirements for HECS-HELP – the revised loan system that commenced in 2005 – are governed by the Higher Education Support Act 2003. Under this Act, New Zealand citizens along with Australian citizens and permanent humanitarian visa holders may access a commonwealth-supported place. However, New Zealanders who are not also Australian citizens are not eligible for HECS-HELP to pay their student contribution. This contribution ranges from approximately $4,500 to $9,000 a year depending on the study program. New Zealand citizens who are not also Australian citizens must pay this contribution upfront and do not qualify for the payment discount applicable to Australian citizens.
The current context
The number of New Zealand citizens moving to live permanently in Southeast Queensland is still growing rapidly and indications are that this trend will continue.2 Skilled migration is the most common pathway to becoming an Australian Permanent resident, which is the usual pathway to full Australian citizenship. As increasingly stringent qualifying criteria apply, few of the New Zealand applicants gain permanent residence. School and community members increasingly report that young people of Pacific Island heritage – like Puleitu – who would otherwise transition to higher education do not because their residency status precludes their eligibility for essential HECS-HELP.
This is a lose–lose situation. The consequences are not just the social exclusion of a disadvantaged community, with costs of isolation and social disengagement for community members. Australia at large deprives itself of the benefits that productive engagement through social inclusion of the Pacific Island communities could deliver. Instead of a mutually rewarding outcome, both sides suffer the consequences of this exclusion and alienation, which destabilise and disrupt the shared life of the nation. Entrenching social exclusion of these disadvantaged young people diminishes us all.
One must ask why these families continue to come to Australia when their children’s access to higher education is restricted. Ironically, they come for opportunities, with dreams of a better future for their children than life in New Zealand can deliver. However, Va’a (2011) argues that many arrivals are uninformed or misinformed before leaving New Zealand, and have little understanding about their limited entitlements to government services and benefits if they are ineligible for permanent residence. Indeed, many are probably unaware of their SCV status as it is recorded electronically and not in their passports.
The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement is built on a history of cooperation between New Zealand and Australia. Its longevity indicates both governments’ willingness to promote institutional collaborations that, in the main, benefit business and trade arrangements. Both governments now need to reconsider socio-economic outcomes. Existing arrangements compromise educational opportunities for a significant group of young people who are highly vulnerable through no fault of their own and in so doing convert win–win opportunities into lose–lose outcomes for disadvantaged communities and the Australian nation.
The Australian and New Zealand governments have the potential to break cycles of intergenerational poverty through pragmatic policies that help to secure social inclusion. But the seeming inertia of both governments in ensuring that financial incapacity does not preclude school leavers who are otherwise eligible to participate in higher education constitutes the greatest barrier to these young people’s social inclusion. Government complacency now is deferring the social and economic costs of university exclusion for this group and the wider community. A response mindful of the national and personal benefits of social inclusion is urgently needed. Certainly, there are economic reasons for restoring HECS-HELP eligibility to our Pacific Island heritage residents from New Zealand, but more important are the strong moral grounds that should compel this restorative action. Entitlement to higher education must not be reduced to a matter of luck.

Chesters, J. & L. Watson. (2012). Understanding the persistence of inequality in higher education: evidence from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 28(2), 198-215.
Introduction
Policy goals to increase higher education graduation rates are justified in economic terms as global demand for university graduates remains strong and the attainment of a higher education degree rewards individuals with higher earnings compared to people with lower-level qualifications (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (OECD 2010). In Australia, between 2005 and 2010, 70% of new jobs created were in highly skilled professional and managerial occupations, whereas jobs in occupations requiring the lowest levels of skills such as sales assistants and labourers grew by just 2% (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations) (DEEWR 2010).
Australia now ranks seventh out of 31 OECD countries in terms of the percentage of its population aged 25–64 years (26%) holding university-level qualifications (OECD 2010, 36). However, although the total number of domestic undergraduate students more than trebled over the 36 years from 1974 to 2010 (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs) (DEETYA 1996; DEEWR 2011), the proportion of people from the bottom socio-economic quartile who participate in higher education has hovered between 14 and 15% since 1989 (Australian Government 2009, 12).
The persistence of inequality in access to higher education has been investigated by policy-makers and researchers in many English-speaking countries (Adelman 2004; Blanden and Machin 2004; Bradley et al. 2008; Chapman and Ryan 2003; Harrison 2011; James, Bexley, and Maxwell 2008; Marks 2009a). The lower rates of university participation among young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds have been attributed to several factors including: a lack of financial resources to undertake university study; lower educational aspirations; lower levels of educational attainment and a lack of awareness of the possibilities and benefits of tertiary education (Bradley et al. 2008). Seller and Gale (2011, 129) argue that student equity is more than removing barriers, it is also about changing institutions so that participation is more accessible and desirable to a wider variety of groups of individuals. At an individual level, cultural capital and family expectations can influence low socio-economic status (low-SES) students’ perceptions about the difficulties and risks of undertaking higher education compared to being in the full-time labour market (Ball 2003; Holm and Jaeger 2008; Savage 2011). At the institutional level, universities also perpetuate structural inequalities through the power and control they exert over the curriculum taught in secondary schools (Alon 2009; Teese 2000) and their institutional habits and traditions which may deter young people from low-SES families from applying (Harrison 2011).
This paper seeks to understand the persistence of inequality in higher education by examining changes in patterns of participation in Australian universities. Using data collected by three Australian surveys conducted between 1987 and 2005, we examine the influence of having a university-educated parent on an individual’s chances of obtaining a higher education degree. After a brief overview of the Australian higher education system, existing research and relevant theoretical perspectives, we present the results from our analyses and then discuss the challenges policy-makers need to address.
Discussion
The results presented here show that although the expansion of higher education in Australia since the 1970s appears to have reduced inequality in educational attainment on the basis of gender, inequality related to socio-economic status persists. Our measure of socio-economic status, having a university-educated parent, has a positive effect on the likelihood of graduation from university. When we control for the effects of time (in Table 4), we find that men with a university-educated father were 2.8 times more likely to have graduated from university than other men and that women with a university-educated father were 3.7 times more likely to have graduated from university than other women. Mother’s education also has an effect, net of father’s education for both men and women.
We have also shown that men and women born in earlier cohorts and interviewed in 1994 and 2005 were more likely to have a university degree than their counterparts interviewed in 1987. This finding suggests that the expansion of higher education allowed men and women to return to education (as mature-aged students) and attain university qualifications after spending some time in the workforce. According to DEEWR (2011), 24% of university students were aged 25 years or more in 2010. Our results confirm those of other studies conducted in Australia and overseas on the impact of socio-economic status on higher education participation and attainment (Chapman and Ryan 2003; Marks 2009b; Pfeffer 2008), and the benefit to women from the expansion of higher education (Chapman and Ryan 2003; James 2007; Marks 2009b).
The dramatic increase in the likelihood of being university-educated for women born in the latter cohorts appears to provide support for both MMI theory and RRA theory. According to MMI theory (Raferty and Hout 1993), inequalities in educational achievement will persist until all members of the advantaged class (those with a university-educated parent) who want to attend university are accommodated. It is only after ‘saturation’ level for this class is attained that an increase in the number of students from the lower classes will occur. RRA theory predicts that people will only invest in their education to avoid downward mobility (Breen and Goldthorpe 1997; Goldthorpe 1996; Goldthorpe and Breen 2007). Women born before 1940 relied on marriage to secure their social position, therefore, women from high socio-economic backgrounds did not have to participate in higher education to avoid downward social mobility. When higher education expanded in the latter half of the twentieth century, it provided women with an alternative path to secure their social position. Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) came to a similar conclusion suggesting that changes in the labour market encouraged women from high socio-economic backgrounds to acquire qualifications for service-class occupations rather than to rely on marriage to suitably qualified men to avoid downward social mobility.
Conclusion
This paper finds that although the expansion of university places in Australia since 1974 has diminished the level of inequality in higher education, parents’ education continues to be a strong predictor child’s education despite the trebling of the undergraduate student population, the removal of up-front tuition fees and the introduction of means-tested living allowances for students. Our analysis indicates that in 2005, men with a university-educated father were almost three times more likely to have graduated from university than other men and that women with a university- educated father were almost four times more likely to have graduated from university than other women. Mother’s education also had a positive effect on men’s and women’s education in 2005. Overall, the benefits of the expansion of higher education appear to have been enjoyed predominantly by women and men from higher socio-economic backgrounds.
While it is too early to evaluate the success of recent government initiatives to support its target for universities to enrol 20% of their students from low socio-economic backgrounds by 2020, we note that the government’s programmes to support the achievement of the low-SES participation target are of relatively short duration (four years). In light of the evidence presented, we surmise that the task of changing institutional behaviour in a way that effectively addresses persistent inequality in higher education will probably require a more long-term policy and funding commitment.