Choice of University and Choice of Course in Australia Essay

After the Bradley story which was written sideline the review of high-pitcheder teaching method system in 2008, the Australian politics has introduced many policies and financial assistance for this demographic in hope of change magnitude the elaborateness range to 20 per pennyime by 2020 ( plane section of Education, Employment, and Workplace dealing, 2008, p. xiv). However, patronage steady increases in overall tertiary participation, the inequalities still remain. People with funky-spirited socio-economic attitude ar non as successful in applying or gaining access to to a greater extent than prestigious institutions as those with medium or high socio-economic status atomic number 18 (James, 2007, p. ). It is non only participation at university aim that is affected with this imbalance. Significant social differences can be seen across diametrical universities as well as several(predicate) fields of meditate (Reay et al. 2001, p. 858). demand by Ferguson and Simpson (2011) has found, and James (2007) stand fors, that scholars with meek socio-economic background are not so successful in gaining entering into the courses with more competitive entry requirements standardised medicine, law or architecture.These students were more concentrated in courses such(prenominal) as grooming, nursing, IT and business (James, 2007, p. 7). James (2007, p. 7) believes that the same is true for the high demand universities, where minuscule socio-economic status students hold a share of only 11 per cent of all places. These differences can be somewhat accredited to the geographical mending of these more prestigious universities as they are mainly situated in the metropolitan areas. However, there are other factors that contribute to this imbalance more so.Some experts believe that students who come from deprived backgrounds may not purpose to attend these universities believing that it is not an achievable goal, or they may not perform academic ianally well tolerable for more competitive courses. other studies indicate that it is in fact the psychological factors which create socioeconomic imbalances in higher fostering participation. This paper will look at rates of participation, aspirations, ability and psychological factors and their affect on the decision making military operation of low socio-economic status students when it comes to higher knowledge.It will argue that there is enough supporting evidence to fold that this demographic does not bring forth a lot of impact on university participation, choice of university or choice of course. epoch overall higher education participation rates substantiate improved, socio-economically single out people are least represented group in Australian higher education. James (2007, p. 2) states that social class is the single most authentic predictor of the likelihood that individuals will inscribe in higher education at some stage in their lives.Undergraduate Applic ations, Offers and Acceptances Report from the division of Education, Employment and Work Relations, states that in 2011, 18. 6 per cent of all applicants were from low socio-economic backgrounds, compared to 30. 6 per cent of applicants from high socio-economic group (DEEWR, 2011, p. 15). It withal reports that even though applications by low socio-economic status applicants were up by 3. 4 per cent they were less presumable to result in an entreat. downcast socio-economic status applicants had an offer rate of 79. per cent compared to 83. 5 per cent for applications from high socio-economic status applicants (DEEWR, 2011, p. 15). plain though the rates for applications and offers to higher education for low socio-economic demographic deliver slightly increased, according to DEEWR (2011), this demographic continues to be the least represented at university level. One of the reasons that could explain the on-line(prenominal) higher education participation song by people fro m low socio-economic background is aspiration.It has to be turn overed as bingle of the principal issues in students decision making work at. agree to the English dictionary, to aspire, it means to have a strong desire to earn something. Consequently, to attend university, an individual postulate to aspire to do so. Bowden and Doughney (2010), in their study of secondary students in the western suburbs of Melbourne, have found that those with disgrace socio-economic status have fewer aspirations to attend university. Instead, they aspire to attend a vocational training institution or gain employment. Difference in spirations among different demographics is mainly influenced by individuals social systems, such as class, ethnicity, gender, customs and religion (Bowden & Doughney, 2010, p. 119). Furthermore, in his research for the Department of Education, cognition and Training, James has found that there is a strong relationship among parental education levels and young p eoples educational aspirations (DEST, 2002, p. 51). Bowden and Doughneys study results are consistent with James findings, as well as Bourdieus concept of pagan capital, which Harker et al. (cited in Webb et al. 002, p. 22) defined as culturally valued taste and consumption pattern. Therefore, it can be said that those who come from low socio-economic background are at a disadvantage when it comes to entering higher education due to the fact that they were not brought up with the idea of attending university. Academic act or students ability is seen as another important factor that subscribes to be considered when studying inequalities in higher education. This is because in Australia, university enrolment process relies heavily on individuals academic achievement.Students academic record is seen as a main way of entry into the university and acquiring all the benefits that come with having a degree. Teese (cited in Ferguson & Simpson, 2011, p. 33) proposed that most half of low socio-economic status students obtain scores in the last-place academic bands and that only small number of these students receives high academic scores. Ferguson and Simpson conclude that this is due to fewer resources, such as educational, cultural, social and financial, that are on tap(predicate) for this group of students, rather than lack of ability.Cardak and Ryan (2009) have come to the similar conclusion. They have found that academic scores of low socio-economic status students are discredit due to the fact that their early educational achievements are also subvert in comparison to the more advantaged students and their achievements (Cardak & Ryan, 2009, p. 444). Both Ferguson and Simpsons and Cardak and Ryans studies agree that students with same ability and same academic scores have the same likelihood of attending university regardless of their socio-economic status.They also agree that the part of academic results rises with the status. Thus, as they dont hav e access to as many resources as their more privileged peers, low socio-economic status students are at a disadvantage when it comes to securing a place at university. Although aspirations and academic ability are very important factors in higher education inequality, it could be said that the psychological factors have most of the influence on persons decision to attend university.Students from low socio-economic background are more conscious of the existence of barriers to their entering higher education (Harris, 2005, p. 4) and are not likely to encounter diverse influences that might persuade them to participate in higher education (DEST, 2002, p. 50). James believes that students from this demographic are more likely to be doubtful about their academic ability and achievement and they would possibly be lacking financial support (DEST, 2002, p. 50).He also states that they have less confidence in parental support and a stronger interest in earning an income as soon as they leave school. The perceptions and beliefs held by people with low socio-economic status can all be regarded as habitus, which is described as embodied predispositions that are learned early in the life of a young person (Harris, 2005, p. 4). As they lack subroutine models, it is very difficult for these young people to see university participation as something that is relevant to them or something they could achieve (Harris, 2005, p. ). In their UK based study of work class secondary students, Reay et al. (2001, p. 865) have found that this group of students were choosing universities where they were most likely to fit in, as they felt more comfortable attending such university and where they could find intellectual and social peers. Psychological factors play an important routine in the decision making process due to the emotions attached to them. Low socio-economic status students seem to have a lot more to consider when deciding on their higher education pathway.As the evidence wou ld suggest, students from low socio-economic background, have very little impact on university participation, choice of university or choice of course at present time. According to the government reports, students from disfavour backgrounds are highly under-represented at university level. Thus, higher education in Australia is farthermost from being level playing field for some demographics. The most current review of higher education shows that the participation rates at university in general, as well as different courses and institutions are considerably lower for those ith low socio-economic status. The difference between low and high socio-economic status groups is quite an significant, despite the governments efforts to improve these numbers by implementing unused policies and strategies. As discussed in this paper, the reasons for inequality are varied and complex. However, most of the researchers agree that it is the family attitudes that are at the core of the problem. These attitudes have enormous influence on students decision making process. However, there is always a possibility for change.Australian universities, in conjunction with schools and governments help, need to focus on developing new social networks and transforming set beliefs of disadvantaged students. These changes could be achieved through the use of early interventions and positive role models during put schooling. Only with successful attitude changes will the higher education participation numbers improve for this particular demographic. References Bowden, MP & Doughney, J 2010, Socio-economic status, cultural diversity and the aspirations of secondary students in the western suburbs of Melbourne, Australia, High Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 115-129, SpringerLink, viewed 2 October 2012. Cardak, BA & Ryan, C 2009, involvement in higher education in Australia equity and access, Economic Record, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 433-448, Wiley Online Library 2012 amply Collection, v iewed 25 September 2012. Centre for the domain of Higher Education 2008, Participation and Equity A Review of the participation in higher education of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous people, Universities Australia and the Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE), University of Melbourne, viewed 4 October 2012, <http//www. niversitiesaustralia. edu. au/resources/271/290> Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations 2008, Review of Australian higher education Executive summary report prepared by D Bradley, H Noonan & B Scales, Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), Canberra, pp. xi-xviii, viewed 25 September 2012, <http//www. innovation. gov. au/HigherEducation/Documents/Review/PDF/Hig