Elisa Rose Birch

Student Outcomes at University in Australia: A Quantile Regression Approach

Students’ success during their first year at university is largely influenced by their university entrance score. Personal characteristics and secondary school characteristics also impact on success. This paper uses quantile regression to investigate how the effects of these factors vary along the grade distribution. It finds that the factors which influence grades have a more pronounced impact on the success of low-achieving students than on that of high-achieving students. These results have implications for student selection and also for the way scholarships may be used to attract talented high school students.

The influence of type of high school attended on university performance

It is widely reported that the main determinant of success at university is the score on university entrance exams. Recent studies have argued that the outcomes at university also differ according to the type of high school attended. This paper examines the impact of attending a non-Government school on the marks of first-year university students. Non-Government school students are found to have lower marks at university than Government school students, with the mark differential being slightly larger for those who do not perform well at tertiary study. The main factors influencing the size of the gap between the university marks of students from Government and non-Government schools are university entrance exam results and attendance at same-sex high schools.

HECS and HECS-HELP: Equity Issues

There have been many changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) since its introduction in 1989. The most significant of these is possibly the reforms announced in the 2003 Federal Budget, which allow universities to increase the contributions required of students by up to 25%. This paper considers the distribution of deferred HECS liabilities according to the socioeconomic status of students. An algorithm is presented for converting area‐level data to its individual‐level equivalent. It is found that students of lower socioeconomic status defer a much larger proportion of their HECS than students of higher socioeconomic status. The adverse side effects of HECS identified in the literature will therefore be more acute for low socioeconomic status background students than for their wealthier counterparts.

Revisiting the earned income gap for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian workers: Evidence from a selection bias corrected model

Indigenous Australians perform worse in the labour market than non-Indigenous Australians, particularly in terms of earned income. Improving Indigenous Australians’ earnings is paramount to improving their health and living standards and for the Closing the Gap targets. Most literature on this issue is now outdated or controls for limited variables. This article revisits the earned income gap for Indigenous Australians using the standard Oaxaca decomposition. It also estimates the gap using decompositions that correct for selection-bias in the fact that a population of workers is a non-random sample. It finds that two-thirds and three-quarters of the earnings penalty experienced by Indigenous men and women working full time is explained by differences in their endowments, especially education levels, compared to non-Indigenous Australians. The remainder of the earnings gap, being 9.3% for males and 4.3% for females, is potentially linked to discrimination and selection bias as Indigenous people have low full-time employment rates. Increasing Indigenous Australians participation in higher education is imperative for reducing the earnings penalty they face. Selection-bias is also important for examining earnings, and whilst it has interpretive problems, it may contribute to explaining the underlying earnings gap faced by Indigenous workers.