Attainment of higher education correlates with individual’s abilities in terms of talent and hard work. However in Australia this is not the case since political, economic and races influence the suggested meritocratic system. Social economic demography for instance opposes the suggestion. According to records, it’s evident that rich families get enrolled in expensive universities offering technical courses requiring talent contrary to meritocracy. In the same capacity, certain professions have gender based enrolment system where only a specific sex fit the opportunity. Thus meritocracy has no place in matters education in Australia. Statistics of undergraduate application in 2016 indicate that non direct entry for students pursuing health sciences and engineering recorded the largest acceptance rate. Natural and physical sciences in 2015 and 2016 registered more rates of offers than other courses. Additionally, the overall acceptance rates for all courses surpassed 75%, suggesting that majority of students have the talent and ability. The figures are not practical in meritocratic system where there is balance. Today in Australia, enrolment is based on the minimum qualification and the ability to pay for the tuition fee.
Socioeconomic status was a real issue in the application and acceptance process. Statistics suggest that students from medium socioeconomic statuses had the lion share of close to 50% allocations while low class received about 20% of the total allocation. Therefore it more apparent that meritocracy is not the case anymore. More opportunities are given those who have the ability to pay for the services and not sue to the students’ hard work (Rubin et al, 2014). Furthermore, in the same year, underrepresentation was evident in particular regions with those in the urban centres getting more chances compared to the non-metropolitan applicants. For the education system to be described as being meritocratic, equality of in dimensions should be considered besides giving more preference to talent and ability.
Social inclusion makes an important policy platform as part of the 2009 Rudd Government, naming higher education as the key driver to solving the indigenous disadvantages. The motive of the government was to increase the percentage of students from the low socioeconomic set ups from 14% to 20% by 2020. It however appears that the participation of student from the low socioeconomic environments might be a problem of access. The problem takes a different route for the indigenous students. Upon enrolment, the students form the low socioeconomic backgrounds perform almost as well as other students from other regions (Scull " Cuthill, 2010).
From the statistical records on the performance of the indigenous students within higher education, it’s evident that student admission is one part of the issue that facilitates the view of access without effective support and opportunity. Ensuring the students have access to quality services improves their experience through providing adequate support networks to the indigenous students. It’s not only important to widen the access to these institutions but also ensuring that students are given the best chances of success (Naylor et al., 201).
The pattern of outcome reflect that some universities show good performance in recruiting the indigenous student while others show high rates of completion among these students. It therefore poses challenge to the current policies governing higher education systems within the country, regarding the funding of education environment (Thomson, 2011). The system needs to encourage all the higher education institutions to improve their outcomes and follow the stated admission procedures to suit the distinct pattern that’s described (Norton and Cakitaki, 2016). The situation therefore calls for the new approach of addressing the balance in participation of lower economic status students in higher education institutions by encouraging then to focus on such enrolments and high completion rates. Critically, it calls for an effective response to the challenge of lacking tertiary preparations to the students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
The barriers that prevent the lower economic status students from accessing and success in higher education has been identified and written. The barriers however remain relatively unaffected and still persist in the modern day. The barriers are based on the financial challenges and pressures for the students living away from home. The barriers also go deep into health related problems, racism, discrimination. The students also schools low levels of academic readiness. The challenge is always coupled with high demands of education and insufficient academic support (Marginson, 2011).
Cultural aspects also play an essential role in the alienation of student experiences due to the conflicts between the indigenous and the non-indigenous students. The higher education staffs play a critical role in providing confidence among these students through teachings in various styles and pedagogies. Through teaching similar course contents, all the students are able to succeed in their learning processes. For many other students still attending the university, they continued to shape isolate experiences attached to the feelings of exclusion from the mainstream academic events.
The main efforts by the institutions of higher learning focus on minimising the differences that arise among the students from different socioeconomic classes. Past the statistical analyses, there is an attempt to understand the happenings across various universities and what help improve their academic standards. The universities therefore act as successful models that can be copied and expanded in every part of the country. In summary, lower socioeconomic student’s participation rates in higher education institutions remain to be significantly lower compared to their counterparts from the higher backgrounds. The completion rates are however different since the students from poor socioeconomic backgrounds have shown higher completion rates as compared to their fellows.
References
Australia. Department of Education and Training. (2016). Undergraduate applications and
offers, February 2016.
Marginson, S. (2011). Equity, status and freedom: A note on higher education.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1), 23-36.
Naylor, R., Baik, C., " James, R. (2013). A critical interventions framework for
advancing equity in Australian higher education. Canberra: Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. Retrieved September, 30, 2016.
Norton, A., " Cakitaki, B. (2016). Mapping Australian higher education 2016.
Melbourne: Grattan Institute.
Rubin, M., Denson, N., Kilpatrick, S., Matthews, K. E., Stehlik, T., " Zyngier, D. (2014). “I
Am Working-Class” subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and socioeconomic status in higher education research. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 196-200.
Scull, S., " Cuthill, M. (2010). Engaged outreach: using community engagement to
facilitate access to higher education for people from low socio‐economic backgrounds. Higher Education Research " Development, 29(1), 59-74.
Thomson, S. (2011). Challenges for Australian education. Research developments, 25(25), 2.
