EducationNews.org

It’s a bad idea to use extreme policies of social inclusion to decide who will go to university, writes Kevin Donnelly

A KEY reason for Kevin Rudd’s success in last year’s federal election was that he acted like
a John Howard mini-me. Fiscally responsible, economically conservative and an education
traditionalist, on many issues it was impossible to tell the difference.

But the politics of tertiary entry is one area where there is a yawning gap between the two
parties, and the ALP has reverted to form. The Federal Government has stopped universities
admitting full-feepaying local students and shifted the debate to the best way to get more
students from disadvantaged backgrounds into tertiary study.

It’s no accident that Education Minister Julia Gillard is also Minister for Social Inclusion. In
several speeches Gillard argues it is wrong that universities are the preserve of the wealthy and
that the participation rate for disadvantaged students, now static at 15 per cent, must be
increased. How best to do it?

Historically, university study was for a select few, entry was based on academic merit, and
one of the main functions of the senior school years was to identify and prepare those students
best suited for further study. That is no longer the case.

Based on the mantra of equity and social justice, equality of outcomes and increased
participation, every student, regardless of ability, interest or motivation now has the right to
tertiary study.

Gillard has established a National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education at the
University of South Australia, sponsored a conference on the issue and signalled that a key
measure of school success, especially in disadvantaged areas, will be how many at-risk
students undertake tertiary studies. Given that universities are reliant on the Commonwealth
Government for their financial survival, it’s understandable why many, such as the
Group of Eight, fully support Gillard’s call for action.

Professor Alan Robson, vice chancellor of the University of Western Australia, argues that the
existing merit-based approach should be expanded to ensure more disadvantaged students are
successful. Other academics argue that universities will admit more disadvantaged students if
such equity schemes are fully government-funded.

Options include discriminating in favour of indigenous Australians, students from rural and
regional areas and working class and migrant students by introducing quotas. Other
suggestions include guaranteeing entry to students from disadvantaged schools and looking at
parents’ occupation and educational qualifications.

Based on the observation that students whose parents have worked hard to achieve success in
life — by undertaking further study, being ambitious and getting well-paid jobs — have a
better chance of getting into university, the suggestion is that these students should be
discriminated against.

Such an example of social engineering might sound bizarre but, as proven by a recent example
in the UK, where a student was denied entry to the medical faculty at Sheffield University
because her parents have degrees, it’s obvious that there are still those from the cultural Left
committed to the politics of envy and the class war.

Governments interfering with tertiary selection by positively discriminating in favour of so
called disadvantaged groups is misplaced and wrong for a variety of reasons. The reality is
that not every student deserves or will benefit from tertiary study and increasing participation
for its own sake often leads to falling standards.

As proven by the academic success of Asian-background students, it’s also true that any
disadvantage caused by socio-economic status can be overcome by hard work, a
commitment to achievement and a willingness to deny current distractions for future success.

Handicapping some students, simply because of who their parents are, where they were lucky
enough to grow up or what school they attended, is also unjust and unfair as students lose out
because of things over which they have no control.

It also sends the message that hard work, talent and application are less important than being a
member of a ‘‘victim’’ group that has to rely on government action to achieve success.

Dr Kevin Donnelly is director of Melbourne-based Education Strategies and author of
Dumbing Down.