In the 2003 Federal Budget, Education, Science
and Training Minister Brendan Nelson announced proposals to allow
universities to charge fees for up to 50 per cent of most
undergraduate courses. In response, the Australian
Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AV-CC) stressed the need to seriously
address the participation rates of equity groups within the higher
education sector given the possible adverse impact of this proposal
on students from lower socio-economic groups.(1) The
analysis in this paper suggests that 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. If the proposal to reshape higher education is passed by
the Senate, it will be especially important to monitor the effect
of the partial deregulation of undergraduate fees on the
composition of the student body, and on equity of access to it.
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.