Five decades ago, women represented only one-fifth
of all university students. Today they comprise more than half of the
student body. It is sometimes thought that because women now make up
approximately half of Australia's
university students, and more than half of all staff employed in Australian
universities, that gender equity in Australian higher education is no
longer an issue which requires attention. However, despite recent gains
in women's participation in universities, as both staff and students,
significant gender differences remain. These gender differences do not
just relate to women as the proportion of men entering non-traditional
fields of study has also declined.
As staff, the majority of women in universities are
still employed as general staff, while men are predominantly employed
as academic staff. Female academics have however made significant gains
in terms of security of employment. A decade ago they accounted for
approximately one-quarter of all tenured staff. In 2002, they account
for almost half of tenured academic staff in Australian universities.
Women have also made steady gains in terms of participation in the academic
workforce. In 1985 they represented only one-fifth of all academics.
Eighteen years later they account for two-fifths of the academic workforce.
There are also now more women in senior levels of academia than ever
before. Nevertheless, women remain concentrated at the bottom of the
academic hierarchy, while men still account for more than 80 per cent
of the most senior academics in Australian universities. The vertical
divisions between men and women in the academic workforce extend to
senior executive levels in the university sector. While better represented
than women executives within the business sector, women still only account
for only 29 per cent of the senior executives in Australian universities.
Gender differences in 2002 student enrolments reviewed
within suggest that the divide between 'traditional' male and female
fields of study is still strong in engineering, information technology,
health and education. While women have made some gains in entering non-traditional
fields, such as science, business, agriculture and architecture,(2)
they remain under-represented in engineering and technology related
courses. At both undergraduate and graduate levels, female students
remain concentrated in the social sciences, humanities, arts, education
and health. These are the cheapest university courses with narrower
employment opportunities and less security and income expectation than
the more expensive engineering and technology courses where men comprise
the overwhelming majority of students. Meanwhile the number of men enrolled
in non-traditional fields of study has gone backwards. For instance,
the number of men enrolled in the broad field of education dropped from
around 25 000 (or 34 per cent of all education students) in 1983
to 18 000 (or 24 per cent of all education students) in 2000. This has
flow-on effects for the teaching profession more generally, with fewer
men employed as school teachers. Consequently, the gender profile of
the student body is important not only for equity reasons, but because
it has a significant impact on students' prospective employment opportunity,
security and income as well as the gender composition of the labour
market more generally.
Given the proposals to change the Australian higher
education system announced by Education, Science and Training
Minister Brendan Nelson
in the 2003 Federal Budget, it seems timely to revisit the important
issue of gender equity in higher education. In this paper, the most
recent statistics available are used to examine the current gender discrepancies
in the staff profile of general, academic and senior executive staff
employed in the higher education sector. Gender variances in the academic
staff profile of the tertiary sector are compared over a longer time
frame using published data from 1985 to 2002. Gender differences in
the undergraduate and postgraduate student bodies are analysed according
to broad fields of study. The paper also offers some observations about
the possible impact of the proposed changes to higher education on the
gender composition of university students in the future, assuming the
current proposals for change are passed by the Senate.
There is some debate in the higher education sector,
and in the literature on gender equity more broadly, about how 'gender
equity' should be defined.(3) A key 1990 Department of Employment,
Education and Training paper on equity in higher education, A Fair Chance for All, defined the overall objective for equity as
the need to ensure 'that Australians from all groups in society have
the opportunity to participate successfully in higher education': this
would be achieved by 'changing the balance of the student population
to reflect more closely the composition of society as a whole'.(4)
Aggregate measures, such as access and participation
rates relative to proportion of population, are important equity indicators.
Analysis of the most recent staff and student data demonstrates that
on these measures, in many areas the equity targets for women's participation
in higher education set in 1990 have not yet been met. However, these
kinds of quantitative measures only tell part of the story. The other
part of the gender equity tale lies in the qualitative
aspects of women's and men's experiences within the higher education
system, and how sometimes less tangible, but equally important barriers
exist which prevent the objective of 'all groups in society having the
opportunity to participate successfully in higher education' being achieved.
Therefore, in addition to the analysis of quantitative equity measures
in this paper, some of the qualitative factors which impact on gender
equity in the Australian higher education system are canvassed. These
include the ways in which the academic promotions process potentially
disadvantages academic women with children and family responsibilities,
and some of the stigmas attached to the teaching profession which discourage
men from entering this field.
In 2002, just over 70 000 staff were employed
in the tertiary sector: around 40 000 (or 58 per cent) of these
were general (or non-academic) staff, and around 30 000 (or 42
per cent) were academic staff. Figure 1 illustrates the differences
in the gender composition of academic and general staff. The figure
shows that the majority of employees in Australian universities in 2002
were general staff (58 per cent in total), and the majority of these
were women. Conversely, the biggest proportion of academic staff were
men. That is, most men in the university sector are employed as academics,
while women are more likely to be employed as general staff.(12)
General staff working in non-academic positions include: staff employed
in university libraries, finance, marketing, student administration,
human resources, executive support, information technology and maintenance.
Data on the gender composition of university staff
were first published in 1985. Since that time the percentage of women
academics has risen from 21.6 per cent to 39.0 per cent of the total
academic workforce. Figure 2 shows that from 1985 to 2002 women have
made the greatest percentage gain at senior lecturer level (level C),
followed by lecturer level (level B), but remain concentrated at the
lower end of the academic hierarchy. The most significant increase in
the numbers of women in the academic workforce followed the amalgamation
of colleges with universities as a result of the 1988 Dawkins higher
education reforms.(13) Colleges had a higher proportion of
female teaching staff and a higher proportion of women employed at senior
levels than universities.(14) When colleges combined with
the university sector this boosted the representation of women in the
academic staff profile of Australian universities. The steady rise in
the representation of women at all levels of academic appointment from
1985 to 2002 is reflected in Figure 2.
A decade ago women accounted for approximately one-quarter
of all tenured (or permanent) staff in Australian universities.(15)
At that time only 43 per cent of academic staff had tenured employment
security.(16) By 2002, however, 71 per cent of all academic
staff were tenured,(17) and the proportion of tenured staff
was almost equally divided between men and women (see Figure 3). Clearly,
academic women have been beneficiaries of the trend towards a higher
ratio of tenured staff in universities over the last decade. However,
it is also possible that this trend has also hampered women's access
to the senior ranks of academia. Tenured staff predominate at senior
levels (thus reducing the relative frequency with which positions at
these levels become vacant),(18) and as the following discussion
shows, men dominate the senior levels of the academia.
While women academics have made substantial gains in
recent years in terms of the security of employment and overall representation
in the academic workforce, nevertheless, they remain concentrated at
the bottom of the academic hierarchy. As Figure 4 illustrates, in 2002
women accounted for 54.6 per cent of employees at associate lecturer
level (level A), the lowest level of the academic hierarchy; 47 per
cent of staff at lecturer level (level B); 34.2 per cent at senior lecturer
level (level C); and only 19.4 per cent of associate professors and
professors (levels D and E), the most senior academics. By contrast,
men made up 45.4 per cent of associate lecturers, 53 per cent of lecturers,
65.8 per cent of senior lecturers, and the vast majorityover 80
per centof associate professors and professors.
The vertical divisions between men and women in the
academic workforce extend to senior management level. While women have
made significant gains in terms of security and representation, still
relatively few women are employed as senior executives in Australian
universities. While better represented than women executives within
the business sector,(19) women still account for 29 per cent
of the senior executives in Australian universities.(20)
While nine of Australia's
38 Vice-Chancellors are female, none are employed by the Group
of Eight, a prestigious group of well-established, wealthy universities.(21)
This is not a surprising finding since university senior executives
(pro vice-chancellors, deputy vice-chancellors, and vice-chancellors)
are nearly always drawn from the ranks of senior academics, 80 per cent
of whom are male.
As well as being concentrated in the lowest levels
of the academic hierarchy, women academics also remain concentrated
in discipline areas which they have traditionally dominated. That is,
there are horizontal gender differences as well as
vertical gender differences
in Australia's
academic workforce. Women academics tend to be heavily represented in
the broad fields of teaching, nursing, arts, humanities and social sciences.
At the same time, they are under-represented in the science-related
disciplines such as medicine, and in engineering, information technology
and dentistry.(22) The latter parts of the paper demonstrate
that these disparities between the representation of male and female
academic staff in different disciplines are replicated in both the undergraduate
and postgraduate student bodies.
A number of factors have been offered to explain why
women continue to be disproportionately represented at the lower end
of the academic hierarchy while being under-represented in the senior
executive of university management. These include:
Thus, the under-representation of women at senior levels
of academia is not caused by overt discrimination in selection or promotion
processes, as most universities have good equal opportunity policies
in place.(32) Further, domestic responsibilities do not fully
explain the obstacles faced by tenured female academics with well-established
research careers seeking senior executive positions.(33)
For aspiring senior female academics the masculine culture of the collegial
processes of university leadership has been repeatedly identified as
the major hurdle they face to their career advancement.(34)
Nevertheless the complex interplay between gender divisions in the home
and in the workplace is a key factor underlying the career disadvantages
faced by those with family responsibilities, such as the nurturing of
children.(35)
In 1949 women represented only one-fifth of all university
students.(36) Currently they represent more than half the
student body. Yet the profile of the undergraduate student body is characterised
by significant gender differences in fields of study. In this section
of the paper, the latest data on university enrolments in undergraduate
courses are briefly surveyed. The gender profile of the student body
is important not only for access and equity reasons, but because it
has a significant flow-on effect for the gender composition of the labour
market more generally.(37)
While women make up more than half of undergraduate
students in Australian universities, there nonetheless remain significant
gender differences in enrolment patterns by broad field of study. In
2002, there were just over 697 000 undergraduate students enrolled
in Australian universities.(38) Around 56 per cent of these
students were women, and 44 per cent of them men. When these data are
broken down into broad field of study, stark gender differences emerge.
As Figure 5 illustrates, more than three-quarters of all undergraduate
students studying in the fields of education and health in 2002 were
female. By contrast, 85 per cent of students enrolled in undergraduate
engineering and related degrees, and over 75 per cent of those in information
technology degrees, were men.
Source: DEST, Students
2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Commonwealth of
Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course, Broad
Field of Education and Gender 2002.(39)
According to 2002 DEST enrolment data, female undergraduate
students are disproportionately concentrated in the social sciences,
humanities, arts, education, health and nursing.(40) Medicine
is not included in the health field of study. Compared with the more
expensive engineering and technology courses where men comprise the
overwhelming majority of students, these courses have narrower employment
opportunities and less security and income expectation.(41)
They are also the cheapest courses to study. In the Higher Education
Contribution Scheme (HECS)the government loans scheme through which
students make a contribution to the costs of their coursethese are
categorised as 'Band 1' courses, which currently incur a debt of $3680
per year. Band 1 courses (with the exceptions of health and education,
as discussed below) are projected to cost up to $5101 per year under
the new fee arrangements announced in the higher education package in
the 2003 Federal Budget.(42)
Male students by contrast are concentrated in engineering,
agriculture, and information technology courses.(43) These
are 'Band 2' HECS courses which currently incur an annual HECS debt
of $5242 per year (projected to rise to a maximum of $7137 per annum
under the new funding arrangements). While the dominance of men in engineering
has been long-term, their dominance in new fields such as technology
related courses is evidence that new gender divisions are constantly
being produced in academia, not just reproduced.(44)
HECS 'Band 3' courseswhich include
law, dentistry, medicine and veterinary scienceare the most expensive
courses. They currently incur an annual debt of $6136 (and are projected
to cost a maximum of $8355 per year under the new funding arrangements).(45)
Gender disparities in the student profiles of these most expensive and
exclusive Australian university courses are, and have always tended
to be, less noticeable. For example, roughly equal proportions of men
and women now enter law and legal studies, compared to 1983 when a sizeable
40 per cent of entrants were female.(46) The major defining
characteristic of students in Band 3 courses is socio-economic status:
the overwhelming majority of students (usually around 90 per cent) enrolled
in these courses are from high socio-economic backgrounds. The dominance
of students from high socio-economic backgrounds in fields of study
such as law and medicine has been a long-term feature of the higher
education system, and pre-dates the introduction of HECS in 1989.(47)
Students from low socio-economic backgrounds tend to have higher rates
of participation in other fields of study.(48)
A DEST sponsored survey of 7000 year 1012 students
published in 2002, found substantial gender differences in high school
students' assessment of the impact of the cost of a university education.
The report found that 'an alarming 41 per cent of lower socio-economic
status (SES) females reported they believed costs may make university
impossible for them' (compared with 34 per cent of lower SES males).(49)
Similarly, 43 per cent of females from lower SES backgrounds surveyed
believed their families could not afford the costs of supporting them
through university. The gender disparity between higher socio-economic
male and female students was much less apparent.(50) Another
study of vocational education and training courses found that female
enrolment in these courses was 'much more sensitive to the availability
of the resources for self-financing'.(51)
On the basis of these studies it may be inferred that
women, especially women from lower socio-economic backgrounds, are more
sensitive to the cost factors of education and consequently more debt
averse than their male counterparts. Because of this it is important
to bear in mind the potential impact of differential course fees on
gender differences in enrolment patterns. For instance, raising the
cost of male-dominated courses like engineering may make them less accessible
to female students and thus more male dominated. Female students, particularly
those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, may be more likely to opt
for the cheaper band courses in teaching and health. In the new fee
system announced in the 2003 Budget, these courses will be quarantined
from increases in the new funding arrangements in a new HECS 'National
Priority Band'.(52) If this happens, it will probably work
against the aim of raising the number of women who enter non-traditional
courses, despite a $2.5 million increase in funding to the Higher Education
Equity Programme (HEEP). This program seeks to support categories of
students recognised as having disadvantaged access to higher education.
They include: indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, people
from non-English speaking backgrounds, people from rural and isolated
areas, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and women in non-traditional
areas.(53) There is some justification for adding to this
list men in non-traditional areas, as discussed below.
Male university students are dramatically under-represented
in the broad fields of education and health. Their under-representation
in education has particularly important social consequences for the
teaching profession. Between 1991 and 2001, the percentage of male teachers
in primary education in Australia
fell from 26.3 per cent to 21.3 per cent.(54) The problem
is not just a lack of male teachers, but a chronic gender imbalance
in teacher supply. Teachers are educated in universities, yet less than
a quarter of students currently enrolled in teaching courses in Australian
universities are male. In fact, men's participation in the broad field
of education has dropped over the last two decades. This is both in
terms of the numbers of men actually enrolled, which decreased from
25 369 in 1983 to 17 971 in 2000, and in terms of the proportion
of education students who are male: down from 34 per cent in 1983 to
24 per cent in 2000.(55) This is one field of tertiary study
where the gender gap is widening.(56)
The relative absence of men from primary school teaching
has been raised as an issue of concern by Minister Nelson,
who wants boys to have access to positive male role-models in early
childhood.(57) In recognition of the gender discrepancies
in fields like teaching, the Minister has flagged the possibility of
introducing male-specific scholarships in teaching courses to encourage
more men to take up careers as primary school teachers. However, if
more men are to be encouraged to enter teaching careers, then other
factors which underscore their under-representation in teaching also
need to be addressed. These include the low status and pay of primary
teaching, and the stigma of suspicions that men who work with young
children may be paedophiles.(58) While there are good equity
reasons for recruiting more men into primary school teaching to balance
the gender composition of this workforce, the issue is not just about
quantity. Simply increasing the number of male teachers alone will not
address the qualitative concern to recruit appropriate role models:(59)
good teachers who, regardless of their gender, are sensitive to the
developmental needs of boys and girls.(60) Nor will it address
the factors that support good teachers, and good teaching, which are
sensitive to the powerful ways in which formal and informal school culture,
curriculum and organisation can otherwise produce systemic gender biases,
such as in subject and career choice.(61)
While women have made some gains in entering non-traditional
fields, such as science, business, agriculture and architecture,(62)
they remain chronically under-represented in engineering.(63)
For instance, from 1983 to 2000, while the number of women entering
engineering courses rose from 1280 to 7777, as a proportion of engineering
students women still only account for 15 per cent of all enrolments.(64)
While this meets the conservative target of 15 per cent set in 1990,(65)
it is still far short of achieving more general gender equity objectives
(where the number of women in the student body would reflect their proportion
of the general population). Not all the gender disparities in higher
education are traditional. New ones are constantly being produced within
universities, which require monitoring and equity intervention. For
example there are marked gender differences in new fields such as information
technology and related courses.(66) If there is an argument
for creating scholarships for men in fields where they are under-represented,
then surely the same argument applies to women in fields where there
are new and old gender divisions.(67)
The gender differences in 2002 undergraduate enrolments
reviewed above suggest that the divide between 'traditional' male and
female areas of study is still strong in the fields of engineering,
information technology, health and education. In education the gender
divide is growing. This is the case even though men are no longer actively
discouraged from entering fields such as teaching. Likewise, women are
no longer actively discouraged from entering fields traditionally thought
of as masculine professions, such as engineering, as previously may
have been the case. Yet they continue to be poorly represented in the
traditionally masculine courses which generally lead to better employment
security, opportunity and income.(68)
In its response to the proposed reforms set out in
the 2003 budget, the AV-CC has argued that a less regulated university
sector needs to seriously address equity issues such as those outlined
above.(69) The AV-CC has also suggested that 'substantial
contestable funding be made available to support students from under-represented
groups to ensure that their barriers to participation are addressed
and their participation in higher education improved'.(70)
Under this proposal universities would be rewarded for supporting disadvantaged
students. If the gains in the representation of students from disadvantaged
groups (among them women in non-traditional fields and men in non-traditional
fields) are not to be eroded in a less regulated university sector,
it will be important to monitor the effect of the proposed changes to
the higher education sector, on the composition of the student body.
Some insight of the effect of partial de-regulation on the composition
of the student body can be gleaned from an analysis of its impact on
postgraduate study.
Analysis of the most recent
postgraduate student enrolment data shows that the patterns of gender
difference in the undergraduate student population are mirrored in the
postgraduate student body. This is not surprising since an undergraduate
qualification in the same discipline is usually a prerequisite for entry
into a postgraduate degree program, particularly in postgraduate research
degrees. Of the approximately 226 000 students enrolled in postgraduate
degrees in Australian universities in 2002, the overall numbers of male
and female postgraduate students are almost exactly evenly divided (men
make up 51 per cent of all postgraduate students, women make up
49 per cent). However, significant differences emerge when the postgraduate
student population is analysed by field of study.
Gender differences in postgraduate
education are analysed here by two categories: postgraduate research
students (those students undertaking doctorates and Masters degrees
by research) and postgraduate coursework students (those students undertaking
Masters by coursework, as well as graduate diplomas and certificates).
These two cohorts differ considerably, not just with respect to the
kind of study involved, but also in terms of funding structure, fee
structure and income support.(71) In particular, it is
important to note that fees for the majority of postgraduate coursework
degrees are now fully deregulated, and until recently had to be paid
up front. It is argued below that the deregulated fee structure of postgraduate
coursework is an important factor in explaining the patterns of gender
difference which analysis of the most recent postgraduate coursework
enrolment data highlights.
Source:
DEST, Students 2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, 2002: Table
21All Students by Level of Course, Broad Field of Education and Gender
2002.(72)
In total, there
were just over 44 000 postgraduate research students in Australia in 2002.(73) The relative proportions
of men and women exactly replicated the proportion of men and women
in the total postgraduate population. However, as the following analysis
shows, men tend to be heavily concentrated in disciplines such as engineering
and information technology, while women tend to make up the vast majority
of students in disciplines such as education and health (see Figure
6). Some of these are old gender divisions, but others, such as the
dominance of men in technology postgraduate courses are new.
The two biggest fields of postgraduate research study
in 2002 were 'society and culture' (which includes disciplines in the
humanities and social sciences), and the 'natural and physical sciences'.
A significant finding which emerged from analysis is that these two
fields of study were the most evenly split by gender. In the broad field
of 'society and culture', 56 per cent of students were female and 44
per cent male while in the natural and physical sciences, around 55
per cent of students were male and 45 per cent female. The latter figures
are particularly encouraging since the sciences have traditionally been
male-dominated domains.
However, other traditionally male-dominated fields
remain heavily so: in engineering men made up 80 per cent of all postgraduate
research students. Similarly, areas of study such as health and education
remain dominated by female students: women make up 62 per cent of research
students in each of these fields. Additionally, new gender divisions
have emerged in information technology where men comprise 75 per cent
of students enrolled in research degrees.
Postgraduate research has been a burgeoning field in
the last decade. The total number of students enrolled has more than
doubled since 1991, when 19 000 research postgraduates were enrolled
in Australia's
universities (there were over 44 000 enrolled in 2002).(74)
Macquarie University
academic Ruth Neumann
suggests that this reflects a broadening of higher degree research study,
which was traditionally viewed as a full-time activity which followed
on directly after an honours degree. While full-time study in postgraduate
research degrees still predominates, Neumann points
out that part-time and distance study has grown, making postgraduate
research more flexible than it once was.(75) While it is
probable that this kind of increasing flexibility in postgraduate research
has been of benefit to women wishing to pursue postgraduate research
degrees,(76) gender equity has not yet been achieved in this
area of Australian higher education. In fact, there is evidence to suggest
that recent changes to the funding structure of postgraduate research,
in the form of the Research Training Scheme (RTS) introduced in 2001,
may have adversely affected gender equity in this area.
The RTS funding formula places considerable emphasis
on the completion of postgraduate research degrees. Under the scheme,
50 per cent of government funding for postgraduate research is tied
to completions.(77) This measure was in response to a perception
that postgraduate researchers took too long to complete their degrees,
and too many of them failed to complete altogether.(78) However,
research conducted by Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations
(CAPA) researcher Hilary
Pearse in 2002 demonstrated that the
emphasis placed on completion in the RTS funding formula has led some
universities to pursue policies which are likely to significantly disadvantage
women postgraduate researchers, and in doing so have an adverse impact
on gender equity in the postgraduate research environment.(79)
For example, Pearse demonstrated that some universities
have chosen to divert RTS places and scholarships away from some areas
which are dominated by women (including education, the humanities and
social sciences) and towards discipline areas which tend to be dominated
by men (including the science and technology fields). This is because
students in the former disciplines have tended to have lower completion
rates and longer completion times than students in the latter fields.(80)
Pearse also found that several universities had conducted their own
surveys on postgraduate completion, which suggested that students enrolled
part-time and/or by distance education are less likely to complete their
degrees. Some universities had decided to restrict part-time and off-campus
enrolments as a consequence. Yet the opening up of postgraduate research
to part-time and distance students since 1991 were identified as key
factors which have led to increased participation by women in postgraduate
research. Thus, as Pearse points out, these developments raise 'serious
concerns regarding students' equity of access to postgraduate research
education'.(81)
A further development in the postgraduate research
field since the RTS came into effect has been the introduction of full-fee
paying postgraduate research places by some universities. This has often
been in direct response to a reduction in the number of government funded
research places under the RTS.(82) The advent of full-fee
paying postgraduate research student places has important equity implications.
It will be important to continue to monitor the effects of the RTS on
the participation of women (and members of other equity groups) as more
long-term data on its implementation becomes available.(83)
In total, there were just over 182 000 postgraduate
coursework students in Australia
in 2002, with the balance between men (51 per cent) and women (49 per
cent) once again almost evenly split. Again, however, an analysis of
gender difference by area of study reveals stark differences (see Figure
7).
As Figure 7 shows, the patterns identified in the undergraduate
and postgraduate research student bodies are replicated in the postgraduate
coursework arena: fields such as engineering and information technology
are heavily dominated by male students. Men represent over 80 per cent
of postgraduate coursework students in engineering, and over 70 per
cent of students in information technology. On the other hand, postgraduate
education and health studies are, again, similarly dominated by women
students. Like the under-representation of men in undergraduate education
courses, their under-representation in postgraduate education coursework
studies is of concern because postgraduate coursework degrees in education,
such as the Graduate Diploma in Education (or Dip. Ed.),
are teacher training courses. Thus the under-representation of men in
these courses has a flow-on effect for the under-representation of men
in the primary and high school teaching professions, as discussed above.
A significant finding which emerged from the analysis
of the postgraduate coursework student data is in relation to the biggest
field of study in postgraduate coursework education: management and
commerce. Students in this field of study alone make up over 40 per
cent of the total postgraduate coursework population. The gender difference
in this field was more marked than was the case for the biggest fields
of study in the postgraduate research student body. As Figure 7 shows,
almost 60 per cent of students enrolled in postgraduate management and
commerce studies are men.
Source: DEST, Students
2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Commonwealth of
Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course, Broad
Field of Education and Gender 2002.(84)
A brief explanation of developments in postgraduate
courseworkand in particular the deregulation of postgraduate coursework
feesin recent years helps to explain the results of this analysis of
the 2002 postgraduate coursework data. The deregulation of postgraduate
coursework began with the reforms to the Australian higher education
system under Education Minister John
Dawkins in 1988. It was extended by
the Labor government in the early 1990s and was further intensified
when the Coalition government came to office in 1996. In the 1996 Federal
Budget, the Coalition government made cuts to universities' funding,
removed the majority of government-funded postgraduate coursework places
(some HECS places were maintained in the fields of teaching and nursing),
and allowed universities to set and charge up front fees for the majority
of postgraduate coursework degrees to make up the funding shortfall.
This has resulted in a substantial decrease in the proportion of government-funded
placesand thus an increase in the proportion of full-fee paying placesin
the domestic postgraduate coursework load: in 1996 77 per cent of postgraduate
coursework places were government funded, in 2000 only 38 per cent of
places were government funded.(85) That is, by 2000, over
60 per cent of domestic student places in postgraduate coursework degrees
were funded by up front fees paid by students.
The increasing proportion of students paying up front
fees was accompanied by a decrease in overall domestic enrolments between
1996 and 2000,(86) though this decrease in domestic enrolments
was largely masked by a major increase in overseas student enrolments.(87)
The decline in domestic enrolments has been unevenly distributed through
the discipline groups. The majority of discipline groups have declined
in numbers, while enrolments in only two areasmathematics and computer
science, and management and commerce (the biggest field of study in
postgraduate coursework)have increased. The increases in these two
areas can be accounted for by increases in the international student
population, as research conducted by CAPA in 2000 showed that there
is a correlation between declining HECS places and declining domestic
enrolments.(88)
There is evidence to suggest that the deregulation
of postgraduate coursework has been particularly detrimental for women
students, and for women wanting to take up postgraduate coursework study
(but who may have been prevented from doing so because of the cost of
up front fees). A 2001 Senate Committee report, Universities
in Crisis, found that:
women are less likely to be the beneficiaries of employer
incentives for undertaking postgraduate study. Men are more likely to
be given time off to study, and are more likely to have their fees paid
by their employers. Women are less likely to be regarded as 'good investments',
with men being more highly valued as providers of future financial return.
The consequences are that women are more heavily represented in postgraduate
coursework [degrees] that are HECS liable than are men, although they
are likely to be less able than men to pay off these debts expeditiously.(89)
That is, the deregulation of postgraduate coursework
fees has meant that the majority of postgraduate coursework students
now pay full fees. Yet women are less likely than men to be able to
access at least one source of assistance in paying these fees: contributions
from employers. The introduction of the Postgraduate Education Loans
Scheme (PELS)an income contingent government loans scheme for postgraduate
studentsin 2002 at least removed the 'up front' element out of full-fee
paying postgraduate courses. An increase in postgraduate coursework
enrolments in 2002 suggest that the introduction of PELS has had some
success in overcoming the deterrent of up front fees for postgraduate
courses.(90) At the same time, however, there is evidence
to suggest that universities have taken advantage of the perceived increase
in affordability and accessibility of postgraduate coursework created
by the introduction of PELS, and increased fees for some postgraduate
coursework degrees.(91) If this becomes a trend, it will
lead to increased levels of debt associated with postgraduate coursework
studies which will have important social and economic impacts.(92)
It is also important to bear in mind that debt aversion
can be a disincentive to taking up study, particularly in the case of
equity groups, as was discussed above in reference to undergraduate
students and HECS. While there is some debate about this in Australia,(93)
international research has shown this to be the case.(94)
Further, an income-contingent loans scheme necessarily means that of
those who do choose to take out student debt, those groups earning the
least will take longer to pay back their debts. Thus, women will take
longer on average to pay back their student debts than men, since, on
average, they earn less.(95) For example, a New Zealand parliamentary
committee inquiry in 1999 noted that the average male university student
would take around 17 years to repay a loan of $20 000, while it
would take the average female student 51 years to repay a loan of this
size.(96)
There are two key points which arise from the above
discussion. First, that postgraduate coursework is an area within the
Australian higher education sector where gender equity has not been
achieved. Second, this brief discussion of the relevant literature suggests
that, at best, the deregulated fee environment has not helped to achieve
gender equity in this area of higher education, and that, at worst,
means deregulated fees have hindered progress towards gender equity.
Thus, it will be important to continue to monitor patterns in this area,
particularly as more data on the effect of the introduction of PELS
become available.
While it is the case that female students in Australian
universities now outnumber their male counterparts overall, this is
not in itself a reason for complacency about gender equity in access
to higher education. While there have certainly been gains made in gender
equity in Australian higher educationfor example, there have been some
increases in women's participation in non-traditional areas, and in
women's representation at senior levels of academia and management in
Australian universitiesan analysis of the most recent student enrolment
data and staff figures shows that gender equity in the Australian higher
education is yet to be achieved. Additionally new gender divisions have
emerged in fields such as technology related courses at undergraduate
and postgraduate levels. This paper has also identified some areas where
there seem to have been backward steps. For example, men's representation
in teacher-training courses has decreased over the last twenty years.
This issue was highlighted recently as being of particular concern by
the Education Minister, Brendan
Nelson, because the under-representation
of male students in teacher-training courses necessarily has a flow-on
effect for the number of men in the teaching profession. While there
is an argument to support the creation of scholarships for men in this
field, the same argument applies with equal force to women in fields
where there are old and new gender divisions.
These examples highlight one reason why gender equity
is important: because of its implications for equity in the labour market.
There are also broader reasons why gender equity is important within
the Australian higher education system itself. As the AV-CC's 2002 policy
statement on gender equity pointed out, gender equity has important
implications for the quality and strength of our higher education system.(97)
This is because diversity is central to educational quality, and equity
is central to diversity. That is, the interplay between quality, equity
and diversity in education is essential. The importance of these three
principles, along with that of sustainability, was emphasised in the
Minister Nelson's
proposed changed to higher education announced in the 2003 Budget.(98)
This brief analysis suggests that in a less regulated
university sector equity issues will require a renewed emphasis, if
the gains in the representation of female students, students from disadvantaged
groups and the participation of men and women in non-traditional fields
of study, are not to be eroded. Moreover there are new and emergent
gender divisions in technology related courses which require equity
attention. In this context, it will be especially important to monitor
the effect of the partial deregulation of undergraduate fees on the
composition of the student body brought about by the proposed changes
to higher education.
1.
Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee (AV-CC), Excellence and Equity: Foundations for the Future
of Australia's Universities: The AV-CC response to the Higher Education
Reforms in the 2003 Budget, Canberra,
2003.
2.
Higher Education Division, Department
of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Equity
in Higher Education,
1999.
3.
See, for example, Higher Education
Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1999,
op. cit.
4.
Department of Employment, Education
and Training, A Fair Chance
for All Higher Education within Everyone's Reach, 1990.
5.
ibid., pp. 23.
6.
Higher Education Division, Department
of Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1999, op. cit., p. 18.
7.
Which is measured as a percentage
of total enrolmentsibid.
8.
Which is measured as the ratio
of the percentage of women in higher degree research and postgraduate
coursework degrees to the percentage of women in undergraduate programsibid.
9.
AV-CC 2002, ibid.
10.
Clare Burton, Gender Equity in Australian University Staffing, Department of Employment,
Training, Education and Youth Affairs, 1997; Tanya Castleman, Margaret
Allen, Wendy Bastalich and Patrick Wright, Limited Access: Women's Disadvantage in Higher Education Employment,
National Tertiary Education Union, 1995; Gretchen Poiner, Women and the academic procession:
questions of equality and opportunity, Women's Research Centre, University of Western
Sydney, Nepean, 1991; Felicity Allen, Women academics in Australian universities, AGPS, 1990.
11.
Overall, women make up 52 per cent of total university
staff, and men 48 per cent. These data were compiled from Department
of Education, Science and Training (DEST), Staff 2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2002: Table 9FTE for Full-time and Fractional
Full-time Staff by State, Institution and Type of Organisational Unit
2002.
12.
In 2002, women comprised 38 percent of all academic staff,
and 62 per cent of non-academic staff. By contrast men accounted for
62 per cent of all academic staff and 38 per cent of non-academic staffibid.
13.
Tanya Castleman et al, op. cit., p. 25.
14.
ibid.
15.
Or 25.6 per cent to be exactibid, p. 40.
16.
ibid.
17.
The DEST data excludes casual staff from the
figures.
18.
We have been unable to locate any data on the
relative proportion of tenured staff at the different academic levels
which would confirm that this is the case.
19.
Rebecca Scott, 'Jobs are still for the boys', The
Sydney Morning Herald, 22 May 2002.
20.
This percentage is based on a gender analysis of the
list of Senior Officers in Australian
Higher Education Institutions, 2003, produced by the AV-CC. Of the
38 universities listed we counted 610 males and 248 females. Unfilled
positions were excluded from the count.
21.
AV-CC, Australian
University Vice-Chancellors, 2003.
22.
Barry Sheehan, Anthony Welch and Fiona Lacy, The Academic Profession in Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, 1996.
23.
Ann Brooks, Academic Women,
Open University Press, Buckingham, 1997, p. xii.
24.
Claire Burton, op. cit., p. xi.
25.
ibid. p. 6; Tanya Castleman et al., op. cit., p. 16.
26.
Dorothy Illing, 'Too few women in the pool', The
Australian, 24 July 2002.
27.
Tanya Castleman et
al., op. cit., p. 15.
28.
See Ann Brooks, op. cit.
29.
See, for example, A. Pratt, Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA)
Vice-President, Senate Committees
Hansard, 2 July 2001, p. 771.
30.
See the DEST website summary of the National
Research Priorities: http://www.dest.gov.au/priorities/goals_summary.htm.
With the exception of health, the National Research Priorities prioritise
research work conducted in fields where men dominate, including information
technology and the sciences.
31.
Claire Burton, op. cit., p. 7; Tanya Castleman et al,
op. cit. p. 18. See also Pauline Gallagher, 'Gender Issues for Science', Australian Science, March 2003, pp. 412.
32.
Claire Burton, op. cit., p. xi.
33.
Tanya Castleman et al, op. cit., p. 17.
34.
ibid.; Claire Burton, op. cit., p. 7; Ann Brooks, op.
cit.; Pauline Gallagher, op. cit.
35.
See Robert Connell, Gender, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, 2002.
36.
Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, Higher
Education Students Time Series Tables, 2000: Selected Higher Education
Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001: Table 2Higher Education Students by Type of Enrolment and Gender 19492000.
37.
See, for example, Michael P. Kidd and Michael Shannon, 'The Gender Wage Gap in AustraliaThe Path of Future Convergence', The Economic Record, vol. 78, no. 241, June 2002, pp. 16174.
38.
DEST, Students 2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course, Broad
Field of Education and Gender 2002.
39.
Undergraduate students include
those students enrolled in Bachelor's programs, Associate Degrees, Advanced
Diplomas and Diplomas, other award courses, enabling courses and non-award
courses. Our analysis is based on data for the total student population,
including both domestic and international students. It might be argued
that international students should be excluded from this analysis because,
for instance, they represent a different student cohort in terms of
fee structure (overseas student tuition fees are completely deregulated),
and they will not have the same impact on the Australian labour market
as domestic students. However, we conducted a separate analysis of gender
discrepancies using only domestic student data, which revealed that
the relative proportions of men and women students were virtually the
same as for the total student population in almost all fields. The data
in our analysis was compiled from DEST, Students 2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course,
Broad Field of Education and Gender 2002, and Table 55All Overseas
Students by Level of Course, Broad Field of Education and Gender 2002.
40.
DEST, Students
2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Commonwealth of
Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course,
Broad Field of Education and Gender 2002.
41.
Cherry Collins, Jane Kenway and Julie McLeod, Factors Influencing the Educational Performance
of Males and Females in School and their Initial Destinations after
Leaving School, A project funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, Deakin University and University of
South Australia, July 2000.
42.
Under these new arrangements universities will be able
to charge students up to 30 per cent more than the HECS fee set by the
government.
43.
DEST, Students
2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Commonwealth of
Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course,
Broad Field of Education and Gender, 2002.
44.
Robert
Connell, op. cit. We are also grateful for Robert Connell's advice on this issue.
45.
The Hon. Brendan Nelson, Minister for Education, Science and Training, Our
Universities: Backing Australia's Future, 13 May 2003, p. 20.
46.
Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, Higher
Education Students Time Series Tables, 2000: Selected Higher Education
Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001: Table 7 Higher Education Students by
Gender and Broad Field of Study, 19832000. See also Justice Michael Kirby, 'Women LawyersMaking a Difference', Australian Feminist Law Journal, 1998, p. 128.
47.
Les Andrews, Does HECS
Deter? Factors Affecting Participation by Low SES Groups, DETYA,
1999, p. 18.
48.
ibid., pp. 1819.
49.
Richard Jones, Socioeconomic
Background and Higher Education Participation: An analysis of school
student's aspirations and expectations, DEST, 2002, p. 42.
50.
ibid.
51.
Cherry Collins et al, op. cit., p. 108.
52.
Under the new HECS system a fourth band of 'National
Priorities' courses will be created. The range for this band will be
from $0 to the current level of HECS for Band 1 ($3854).
53.
The Hon. Brendan Nelson, MP, op. cit., p. 33.
54.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education
and Training, Boys: Getting it
Right, Report on the inquiry into the eduction of boys, Commonwealth
of Australia, 2002, p. 154.
55.
Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, Higher
Education Students Time Series Tables, 2000: Selected Higher Education
Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001: Table 7 Higher Education Students by
Gender and Broad Field of Study, 19832000.
56.
In 1983, when the data were first collected,
men accounted for 34 per cent of students enrolled in the broad field
of education. In 2000 they account for only 24 per cent of these studentsibid.
57.
Sophie Morris, 'Nelson pushes for male teachers', The Australian, 19 May 2003, p. 1.
58.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education
and Training, op. cit.,
pp. 15557.
59.
See Christine Skelton, Schooling the
Boys: Masculinities and Primary Education, Open University Press,
Buckingham, 2001, pp. 11618.
60.
See Robert Connell, Dean Ashenden, Sandra Kessler and Gary Dowsett, Making the Difference:
Schools Families and Social Division, Allen & Unwin, 1983, pp. 1769. Again we are grateful for Professor Connell's comments in relation to this issue.
61.
See Jane Kenway and Sue Willis, Girls, Boys and Feminism in Schools, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1997, pp. 812,
pp. 8695; Connell et al, op. cit.
62.
Higher Education Division, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs 1999, op. cit.
63.
See also Cherry Collins et al, op. cit., p.
104.
64.
Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, Higher
Education Students Time Series Tables, 2000: Selected Higher Education
Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001: Table 7 Higher Education Students by
Gender and Broad Field of Study, 19832000.
65.
Department of Employment, Education and Training
1990, op. cit.
66.
See also Cherry Collins et al, op. cit., p.
104.
67.
While some universities offer scholarships aimed at encouraging women
into fields such as engineering, there is no universal scholarship program
for women in non-traditional areas of the kind which Minister
Nelson appears to be proposing for
encouraging men to enter primary school teacher training courses.
68.
This is also broadly the case for vocational
education and training outcomes more generally, which take into account
the greater participation of men in the TAFE and vocational training
sector. See Cherry Collins et al, op. cit. pp. 10232.
69.
AV-CC, Excellence
and Equity: Foundations for the Future of Australia's Universities:
The AV-CC response to the Higher Education Reforms in the 2003 Budget,
Canberra, 2003.
70.
ibid., p. 15.
71.
For example, research students
are eligible for scholarships to assist with living expenses, coursework
students are not; coursework degree fees are largely deregulated, and
until recently were up front, research students are usually exempt from
course fees; coursework students tend to be part time, postgraduate
research students are more likely to study full-time; and there are
far more postgraduate coursework students than research students: postgraduate
coursework students make up 80 per cent of the total postgraduate population.
72.
Postgraduate research students include those
students enrolled in Doctorates by research and Masters by research
programs. Like undergraduate students, we conducted a separate analysis
of gender discrepancies using only domestic student data, which revealed
that the relative proportions of men and women students were virtually
the same as for the total student population in almost all fields. The
data in our analysis was compiled from DEST, Students 2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course,
Broad Field of Education and Gender 2002, and Table 55All Overseas
Students by Level of Course, Broad Field of Education and Gender 2002.
73.
DEST, Students 2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course, Broad
Field of Education and Gender, 2002.
74.
Ruth Neumann, 'Diversity, Doctoral Education and Policy', Higher Education Research & Development,
vol. 21, no. 2, 2002, p. 167.
75.
ibid.
76.
The participation rates of women in postgraduate
research degrees indicate that this is the case. As we noted above,
women now represent almost exactly half of postgraduate research students
in Australian universities; in 1991, only 38 per cent of postgraduate
research students enrolled in Australian universities were women. Department
of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher
Education Students Time Series Tables, 2000: Selected Higher Education
Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001: Table 6Higher Education Students by
Gender and Broad Level of Course, 19492000, 2001.
77.
Hilary Pearse, Implementing the Research Training
Scheme: The consequences for postgraduate research students, CAPA
Research Paper, November 2002, p. 3. Available online via the CAPA website:
http://www.capa.edu.au/frameset.html?./papers/index.html.
78.
The Hon. David Kemp, Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Knowledge
and Innovation: A Policy Statement on Research and Research Training,
DETYA, 1999, p. 2.
79.
Pearse, op. cit. See also Jane Richardson, 'Research rules bad for equity', The
Australian, 18 December 2002.
80.
Pearse, op. cit., p. 6.
81.
ibid., pp. 245.
82.
ibid., p. 25.
83.
Note also that the higher education reform package
recently announced by Minister Nelson also included a commitment to
'comprehensively evaluating' the effectiveness of recent changes to
research funding, including the RTSThe Hon. Brendan Nelson, op. cit.,
p. 31.
84.
Postgraduate coursework students include those
students enrolled in Doctorates by coursework, Masters by coursework,
Graduate Diplomas, Graduate Certificates, and the DEST category of 'Postgrad.
Qual/Prelim'. As for other students, we conducted a separate analysis
of gender discrepancies using only domestic student data, which revealed
that, even though overseas students make up over 30 per cent of the
postgraduate coursework population, the relative proportions of men
and women students were virtually the same as for the total student
population in almost all fields. The data in our analysis was compiled
from DEST, Students 2002: Selected Higher Education Statistics,
Commonwealth of Australia, 2002: Table 21All Students by Level of Course,
Broad Field of Education and Gender, 2002, and Table 55All Overseas
Students by Level of Course, Broad Field of Education and Gender, 2002.
85.
Bradley Smith and Mark Frankland, 'Marketisation and
the new quality agenda: postgraduate coursework at the crossroads',
Australian Universities Review, vol. 43,
no. 2, 2000, p. 8.
86.
ibid.
87.
Simon Marginson, 'What's wrong with the Universities?', Arena Magazine, no. 61, OctoberNovember
2002, p. BB13.
88.
Smith & Frankland, op. cit., p. 10.
89.
Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business
and Education Committee, Universities
in Crisis, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001, p. 314.
90.
Patrick Lawnham, 'Postgrad numbers lift', The Australian, 27 February 2002; Catriona
Jackson, 'University enrolments up 14 pc, postgrads lead way', Canberra Times, 7 May 2002; Gerard Noonan,
'Postgraduate students flock to university', The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 May 2002.
91.
Tom Clark, 'Loans drive deregulated fees upwards', Campus Review, vol. 12 (29), 31 July6 August
2002, p. 6. See also Leisa Ridges and Emmaline Bexley, 'Talking about what we'd like' Campus Review, vol. 12 (42), 30 October5 November 2002, p. 19.
92.
ilary Pearse, The social and economic impact of student debt, Council of Australian
Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) Research Paper, March 2003. Available
online: http://www.capa.edu.au.
93.
See, for example, Les Andrews, Does HECS Deter?:
Factors Affecting Participation by Low SES Groups, DETYA, 1999. Available online: http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/occpaper/99F/does.pdf.
94.
See, for example, Universities UK, Attitudes to Debt:
School leavers and further education students' attitudes to debt and
their impact on participation in higher education, 2003. See
also Hilary Pearse 2003, op. cit.
95.
Hilary Pearse 2003, op. cit., p. 21.
96.
ibid., pp. 212.
97.
AV-CC 2002, op. cit.
98.
The Hon. Brendan Nelson, op. cit.