Search Results

This paper draws on an analysis of one of the UK's most prominent longitudinal datasets, the British Household Panel Survey. The panel was used to study and track the realisation of job aspirations of young people born in the early 1980s and entering the workforce in the 2000s. The study compared the aspirations of those growing up in socio-economically disadvantaged areas with those growing up in non-disadvantaged areas. The analysis confirmed strong differences in the occupational preferences and choices of young people in these two types of areas. Young people in disadvantaged areas more often sought manual occupations, often following their parents' example. They were also more likely to become unemployed, reflecting economic tertiarisation and decreasing availability of manual jobs in those areas. However, the study also found evidence of young people from disadvantaged areas using repeated changes in jobs to achieve employment in higher-level occupations. The research demonstrated that growing up in disadvantaged areas did not prevent the proactive construction of career biographies per se, but it required overcoming more barriers to do so.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

University participation is a strong predictor of labour market success, personal health and wellbeing, and positive familial and social outcomes. However, in contemporary Australia large differences in university participation rates remain between young people from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds. In this paper [the authors] leverage contemporary longitudinal data for a representative Australian sample of students and event-history regression models to examine the associations between equity-group membership (coming from a low socio-economic background, non-English-speaking background or a regional/remote area), school factors (career guidance and school experiences), and students' likelihood to enrol into university.

[The authors] find evidence that equity-group membership reduces the likelihood of university participation (except for non-English-speaking background), whereas receipt of career advice and positive school experiences increase such likelihood. Importantly, school factors more strongly predict subsequent university participation amongst young people from equity groups. These findings are important and policy-relevant, as they suggest that policy initiatives aimed at improving school factors will result in expanded university enrolments, and smaller enrolment gaps between young people from advantaged and disadvantaged social strata.

Published abstract. Show less

University participation is a strong predictor of labour market success, personal health and wellbeing, and positive familial and social outcomes. However, in contemporary Australia there remain large differences in university participation rates between young people from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds. In this report [the authors] leverage contemporary longitudinal data for a representative Australian sample of students and employ event-history regression models to examine the associations between equity group membership (coming from a low socio-economic background, non-English-speaking background or a regional/remote area), school factors (career guidance and school experiences), and students' likelihood to enrol into university.

[The authors] find evidence that equity group membership reduces the likelihood of university participation (except for non-English-speaking backgrounds), whereas receipt of career advice and positive school experiences increase such likelihood. Importantly, school factors more strongly predict subsequent university participation amongst young people from equity groups. These findings are important and policy-relevant, as they suggest that policy initiatives aimed at improving school factors will result in expanded university enrolments, and smaller enrolment gaps between young people from advantaged and disadvantaged social strata.

Published abstract. Show less

Despite mounting evidence that university participation enhances labour-market prospects, there are growing concerns about unequal returns to university for graduates from advantaged and disadvantaged social backgrounds. The available evidence-base, however, suffers from significant shortcomings that challenge the validity of these findings - including small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and self-reported measures of labour-market performance. In this study, we overcome these methodological limitations by leveraging large-scale linked administrative data covering the full population of individuals graduating from Australian universities over the 2005-2011 period (n=3,107,085 annual observations and 565,318 graduates). Capitalising on this unique and powerful dataset, we examine differences in the labour-market trajectories of graduates from multiple social backgrounds (based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, migration, location, and disability) over a 10-year observation window. We track both their employment earnings and the amount of unemployment benefits that they received.

Our findings reveal higher returns to university education over the first 10 years post-graduation amongst graduates from advantaged social backgrounds compared to their peers from more disadvantaged social backgrounds. However, there was substantial heterogeneity in graduates' earnings and unemployment-benefit receipt both across groups and over time. Of the five groups considered, graduates with a disability and from non-English speaking backgrounds experienced the worst outcomes, whereas graduates from low socio-economic status backgrounds and regional, rural and remote areas fared comparatively well. Indigenous graduates experienced inconsistent outcomes that changed markedly with time since graduation. These findings bear important implications for policy and practice in relation to both higher education and the labour market.

Published abstract. Show less

An important channel for humanitarian migrants to successfully integrate into mainstream society is participation in the local education system and, particularly, higher education. Yet individuals from humanitarian-migrant backgrounds face multiple and unique barriers to education participation and success, over and above those faced by other migrant groups. Few studies to date have empirically examined the ties between humanitarian-migrant status and circumstances and higher education participation and attainment in Australia. This report aims to fill this significant gap in knowledge.

The report provides novel analyses of two data sources: (1) initial analyses of the 2016 Australian Census and Migrants Integrated Dataset (ACMID) supplemented with the 2016 Census of Population and Housing (the Census), offering a thorough overview of the relative rates of education/higher education participation and attainment of humanitarian migrants in Australia, compared to other migrants and Australian-born people; and (2) subsequent analyses of longitudinal survey data from Building a New Life in Australia (BNLA), which adds further nuance by providing novel evidence on the factors that act as enablers and barriers to education/higher education participation and success amongst a recent cohort of humanitarian migrants. Both sets of analyses consider potential differences between men and women, thereby recognising that processes of education participation and success are often gendered.

The analyses showed humanitarian migrants were approximately half as likely as Australian-born individuals to have a university degree, a third as likely as family migrants, and a fifth as likely as skilled migrants. Engagement with higher education amongst humanitarian migrants in Australia is modest. Limited English-language proficiency and prior educational experiences were identified as core barriers to education participation and success, more prominently among some humanitarian migrant groups. The research found that targeted support would particularly benefit humanitarian migrants with limited English-language skills and educational experiences. Overall, a nuanced understanding of individuals within recognised equity groups provides the foundation for effective student equity policy and practice. The analyses provide a robust evidence base to guide the design and implementation of equity policies aimed at improving the educational prospects of individuals from humanitarian-migrant backgrounds. These policies are likely to have significant reverberations in improving humanitarian migrants' outcomes in other life domains - such as employment, health and wellbeing.

Edited excerpts from publication and publisher's website. Show less

Research consistently shows that higher-education participation has positive impacts on individual outcomes. However, few studies explicitly consider differences in these impacts by socio-economic background (SEB), examine graduate trajectories over the long run, or focus on non-labour outcomes. We address these knowledge gaps by investigating the short- and long-term socio-economic trajectories of Australian university graduates from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds across multiple domains (labour market, social capital, wellbeing). We use high-quality longitudinal data from two sources: the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey and the Australian Longitudinal Census Dataset. Results indicate that low-SEB graduates experience shortterm post-graduation disadvantage in employment and occupational status (but not wages). They also experience lower job and financial security up to five years postgraduation. Despite this, low-SEB graduates benefit more from higher education in relative terms; that is, university education improves the situation of low-SEB individuals to a greater extent than it does for high-SEB individuals.

Published abstract. Show less

This report aimed to address significant gaps in scientific knowledge about the trajectories of post-graduation outcomes of students from equity groups by examining the following research questions: Do equity graduates reap the benefits of university education to the same extent as non-equity graduates over the short and long run? What are the differences in outcomes between graduates from different equity groups? What are the specific outcome domains (e.g. labour market, social capital, wellbeing) where equity group graduates perform particularly well or particularly poorly? To answer these research questions, the study utilised robust statistical methodologies to analyse high-quality, nationally representative longitudinal data from the ABS Census of Population and Housing (the Census) and the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. Both sets of analyses covered five population-based equity groups: low socioeconomic status (low SES); non-English-speaking background (NESB); residents in regional/remote areas; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Indigenous); and students with disability.

Key findings from these analyses included: (1) a lower likelihood of low SES and NESB graduates to be in employment, to be employed in a managerial or professional occupation, and to have a high personal income if in full-time employment; and (2) a lower likelihood of graduates with disability to be employed. Although the differences between equity and non-equity graduates were often not statistically significant, or converged over time, there were two notable exceptions to this pattern: students of an Indigenous background, and students with disability, both of which reported significantly inferior outcomes compared with their non-equity counterparts, particularly in terms of physical and mental health, and subjective wellbeing as captured by life satisfaction. While based on small samples, and arguably reflecting a broader underlying disadvantage for these two equity groups, these findings highlight that this kind of disadvantage is not easily alleviated through the completion of a university degree alone but also requires a concerted policy effort within and beyond the higher education sector. For the other equity groups, the trajectories of equity and non-equity graduates appeared to converge over a longer-run so that any initial differences disappear after seven to eight years post-graduation. However, arguably more could be done to prevent this seven- or eight-year-long catch up and give an equal start to all university graduates, regardless of their background.

Edited excerpts from executive summary. Show less

Humanitarian migrants are amongst the most marginalised population groups in countries within the Global North, including Australia. An important channel for these migrants to successfully settle into the host society and improve their socio-economic outcomes is participation in the local education system, particularly in higher-education options. However, we know surprisingly little about the socio-demographic factors that facilitate or constrain access to (higher) education amongst humanitarian migrants, with evidence from robust quantitative studies being particularly scarce. The present study fills this important gap in knowledge by analysing Australian longitudinal survey data (Building a New Life in Australia; n=2,109 migrants and 8,668 person-year observations) by means of random-effect panel regression models.

Key results indicated that higher English-language proficiency and pre-arrival education levels are core factors fostering greater engagement with the Australian higher-education system amongst humanitarian migrants. Surprisingly, humanitarian-migrant women in our sample exhibited a greater adjusted likelihood of being a student than humanitarian-migrant men. Altogether, our findings confirmed that humanitarian migrants experience barriers to accessing the Australian higher-education system, and that policy attention is required to redress this situation. However, they also stress that a 'one size fits all' policy strategy may be neither sufficient nor appropriate to boost their education prospects.

Published abstract. Show less

There are currently six recognised equity groups in the Australian higher education system: people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, people from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, people from regional and remote areas, people with disability and women in non-traditional areas of study. Critics of the Australian higher education equity framework have underscored the existence of other potential sources of educational disadvantage that currently lack official recognition. Given the increasing prevalence of mental health issues among young people, some scholars and equity stakeholders have recommended refining or complementing the existing disability equity group by explicitly incorporating measures of poor mental health. A recent change to the definitions of higher education data elements might be seen as a step towards recognising poor mental health as a condition that can lead to educational disadvantage.

The analyses presented in this report fill two significant knowledge gaps. First, the study investigates the overlap between pre-existing poor mental health and membership in the officially identified equity groups (all of which are also defined on the basis of information preceding the commencement of university studies). Second, the study examines the impact of pre-existing poor mental health on early student outcomes, namely first-year attrition. Altogether, our results unequivocally stress the critical importance of pre-existing poor mental health as a predictor of student attrition during the first year of university. Despite some overlap between students with poor mental health and students who belong to the officially identified equity groups - chiefly students with disability - our results indicate that the disadvantage stemming from pre-existing poor mental health is distinct from that stemming from being a member of any of the designated equity groups.

Based on these findings, three recommendations are formulated: (1) stakeholders at all levels should consider poor mental health as an important factor contributing to first-year student attrition and design more mental health-focused interventions; (2) the Australian Government should consider allocating more funding to support students with disabilities; and (3) the Australian Government should consider funding (a) the collection or linkage of data that enable a more robust examination of the extent and repercussions of poor mental health amongst university students, and (b) research that expands the analytic scope of this report to other phases of the student life cycle.

Edited excerpts from publication. Show less

The Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) provides funds to Table A [of the Higher Education Support Act 2003] only or eligible universities to undertake strategies that improve access to undergraduate courses for people from low socio-economic status (low SES) backgrounds, those from regional and remote areas, and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples. An evaluation of the HEPPP in 2017 concluded that while it had demonstrated effectiveness in improving certain outcomes, there was a lack of consistent, rigorous and systematic data collection across HEPPP-funded projects. It was recommended that a Student Equity in Higher Education Evaluation Framework (SEHEEF or the Evaluation Framework) be developed to measure and monitor the impact of HEPPP-funded projects, and to inform future strategies. There was strong support within universities for a framework.

In March 2021, as part of the National Priorities Pool Program funding, the Australian Government’s Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE or the Department) engaged the Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) at the University of Queensland (UQ) to design an Evaluation Framework. The purpose of this project is to develop a robust framework for the evaluation of the overall HEPPP and of individual HEPPP-funded university programs and activities. Specifically the aim is to produce an Evaluation Framework, developed in consultation with the Higher Education (HE) sector, that would structure and guide three levels of evaluation: (1) Overall national program evaluation of the HEPPP and its outcomes; (2) Quality improvement evaluations of HEPPP-funded university projects; and (3) Evaluations of the effectiveness and impact of HEPPP-funded university projects.

Excerpts from publication. Show less