Category Archives: Higher education

Does attending a prestige research university reduce earnings?

The latest HILDA statistical report has a finding that the AFR says:

threatens to undermine the prevailing view that it’s worthwhile for students sweat out a high ATAR score in year 12 so they make it into one of the elite Group of Eight universities.

What the report says is that Group of Eight graduates in their sample earn less than graduates who went to universities in the Australian Technology Network or Innovative Research Universities groups.

In my view the finding is not so much wrong as misleading. We did similar research at Grattan last year, using the same HILDA data source. We found a salary premium for the Group of Eight and Australian Technology Network universities of about 6 per cent, after controlling for various personal attributes and, most importantly, discipline.

I believe that the main reason the HILDA report is getting its result is that Group of Eight universities have enrolment skews towards relatively low paid disciplines such as arts and to a lesser extent science. As can be seen in the chart below, these tend to have lifetime earnings in the lower half of the income distribution.

earningsJPG
Source: Grattan analysis of ABS Census 2011 data. It shows the median lifetime private financial benefit of holding a bachelor degree in the stated discipline, compared to the median person of the same gender who finished their education at Year 12.

Just taking 2013 completions, 31 per cent of Group of Eight completions were in the ‘society and culture’ field that includes humanities compared to 23 per cent of IRU graduates and 14.5% of ATN graduates. For science, this field includes 16 per cent of Group of Eight graduates but only 8 per cent of IRU and 6 per cent of ATN graduates.

All this said, past research that does control for discipline has consistently found that the financial advantage of attending a Group of Eight university is less than we might expect, given their relatively high prestige. Despite some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, employers of new graduates don’t seem to pay a Group of Eight salary premium. And Grattan’s work using HILDA data found only a fairly small advantage in the long run. As we did not control for prior ability, even that small advantage might be over-stated due to partly reflecting the higher prior academic ability, as measured by school results, of the students who attend Group of Eight universities.

If a prospective student wants to maximise their income, the key advice is that what they study matters more than where they study it.

But for Group of Eight universities to come out worse in the long run on a discipline basis they would have to be doing significantly worse in adding human capital during their courses, bad enough to cancel out the positive effects of higher prior ability and whatever proxy value their brands have in the labour market. That seems pretty unlikely. I think if the analysis was done again including discipline we’d see a finding more consistent with theory and past research: a small Group of Eight advantage.

The science bubble finally shows signs of deflating

Since 2009, demand for science courses has been growing strongly. This is leading to a serious labour market over-supply, and so I believe there needs to be a correction. Unfortunately the information flows to prospective students for science contain a lot of misleading signals from STEM boosters, who persist in high-profile, but in my view incorrect, claims that this area of education needs encouragement.

The February 2015 applications statistics show some tentative signs that the market is adjusting to science realities. Through the tertiary admissions centres, there has been a 3 per cent decline in science applications. In reality, it is probably a larger drop than this, as I understand that a course reclassification that led to a big drop in environmental studies applications should have boosted science. Against this trend, however, there has been a 5 per cent increase in direct applications for science courses (for non-Year 12 applicants, there is a trend towards applying directly rather than through tertiary admission centres).

Feb demand

The biggest drop in demand if we don’t consider the environmental studies reclassification has been for education courses, down 9 per cent through tertiary admissions centres. This is probably because with a clear occupational outcome in teaching negative labour market information is transmitted much more effectively. Although this is a sensible adjustment, Kim Carr will still be on the warpath about nearly 900 education course offers to applicants with ATARs below 50.

Total applicants (as opposed to applications) are up 1 per on 2014, indicating a market that is essentially stable.

Pure research at universites increasing absolutely, but declining relatively

I have an article in The Conversation this morning arguing that policy over the last quarter century has made public universities more public than they would otherwise have been. Without external pressures, academics and universities would focus on a narrower range of objectives than governments and public opinion would prefer.

In response, Gavin Moodie observes

I am concerned at the diminution in the importance of pure basic research in Australian universities, which is now very much a minority activity. This is particularly worrying since while there are many other bodies established to conduct applied research, there is no other institution to conduct pure basic research.

While the share of all research that is ‘pure’ (definitions here) has gone down (see yesterday’s post), looking at the absolute spending gives a somewhat different picture. Spending on pure research doubled in real terms between 1992 and 2012, but this is a much lower growth rate than for the more applied types of research.

pure research
Source: ABS

Although I don’t think the trend is as negative as Gavin perhaps does, I have some sympathy for his broader point. While public universities can and should do more than academics are inclined to, their comparative advantage compared to other institutions is likely to be at the more pure end of research. If the government wants more applied research, it should probably steer much of that funding to more specialised organisations with clear commercialisation/practical problem solving goals.

Research commercialisation policy déjà vu

Australian is known as a nation that conducts high-quality basic research, and the Government wishes to maintain this reputation. … The Government considers, however, that a greater proportion of such research should be in fields that have the potential to improve the nation’s competitive position. …. We have a poor record in translating the results of basic research into effective application.

- John Dawkins, Higher Education: a policy discussion paper, December 1987

Overall, the Australian research sector is highly productive, internationally connected, and recognised globally for high quality research. … Despite this strong performance in producing excellent research, our ability to translate publicly funded research into commercial outcomes lags behind comparable countries.

- Christopher Pyne and Ian Macfarlane, announcement of a new research commercialisation strategy, May 2015

There are various perpetual critiques of Australian higher education, and the idea that we don’t do very well in commercialising research is one of them. As the ABS figures reported in the chart below show, there has been a significant shift in research towards the applied end of the spectrum. But it remains the case that Australian businesses infrequently report universities as a major direct source of innovation.

Research type

Perhaps some good will come of the latest round of policy initiatives, but I doubt it will be enough to stop similar analyses being offered 25 years from now. Universities just aren’t particularly well suited to producing commercially-oriented research. They attract people whose main interest is curiosity-driven research, not people who want to make money. Academics are much more likely to apply for grants that don’t involve collaboration with industry than those that do, even though industry grants are easier to get. The university status system is oriented around publications in theoretically-inclined high-prestige international journals, not solving the practical problems of Australian industry. While incentives for particular types of research activity matter at the margins, they are unlikely to change university culture.

No need to spend more than $2 billion promoting STEM subjects

Unfortunately Labor’s promise to write-off the HELP debt of 100,000 science, technology, engineering and maths graduates suggests that they have learned little from their previous mistakes in this area. Following a 2007 election promise, to boost science and maths they cut student contributions and introduced a HECS-HELP benefit, under which around $1,700 a year of HELP debt is written off if graduates work in specified occupations related to their degree.

The cut in student contributions was strongly promoted, and there has been on-going advocacy for STEM disciplines from the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb. There has been a big increase in science demand and domestic undergraduate enrolments – up 35 per cent between 2008 and 2013, or more than 21,000 full-time equivalent places. By far the largest increase has been in the biological sciences, which made up nearly 40 per cent of the total. Engineering, which did not have a cut in student contributions, increased by 32 per cent over the same period, with more than 8,000 additional full-time equivalent places. Science demand kept growing in 2013 and 2014, despite student contributions being put back up again.

As I have long argued, there has never been any evidence that we need a significant boost in bachelor-level science graduates. The latest employment data confirms that the surge of completions in science is only leading to serious un- and under-employment among science graduates, who have been hit especially hard in the general graduate employment downturn. So it is hard to argue that there is any general problem to solve in the first place.

sci take 3

Possibly there are still some niche employment issues in say secondary maths and science teachers – although they have fallen off the skills shortage list. But a promise to write off a few tens of thousands of dollars in student debt is unlikely to change how many people see a teaching career. Even for financially motivated students, the cost of university is not high relative to career earnings for full-time professionals. Perhaps the main thing that will drive graduates to teaching is that they may have few other options, thanks to the over-supply of graduates.

Course and career choices are primarily about interests and aptitudes, with long-term earnings a factor. These can be influenced – people have multiple interests and are not necessarily aware of all the suitable course and career opportunities. But this influence can be achieved without writing off more than $2 billion in student debt (we get similar numbers to the government). A few million dollars in marketing expenditure would probably have the same effect, if this was a desirable outcome – which it is not. Labor’s latest policy is, unfortunately, only likely to to encourage people to make choices that put them at high employment risk.

The Budget significantly understates likely student-driven higher education spending

Compared to last year, for higher education the 2015-16 Budget is uneventful. But the problem with the Budget papers is that they assume that several things that are unlikely to occur will happen. In particular, they assume that Commonwealth contributions will be cut, domestic undergraduate student fees will be deregulated, and that students at private universities and non-university higher education providers will enter the publicly-funded system. While I think only fee deregulation is completely impossible with the current Senate, on the government’s current legislative strategy it is not clear how any of these proposals will become law.

The government’s reform package not passing the Senate will have both positive and negative effects on the Budget forward estimates. The reform package had two significant costs: added subsidies from more students becoming eligible for Commonwealth-supported places, and added doubtful HELP debt from fee deregulation. From this perspective, the Budget is over-stating likely higher education spending.

However, the Budget is also assuming that per student subsidies will be lower than in fact they will be, as the government is still pursuing per student funding cuts averaging 20 per cent. It is also, I think, assuming an efficiency dividend (I can’t see it mentioned but I have not seen an announcement that it is no longer being pursued), and a change to the grant indexation system (although this change would not deliver any significant short term savings). From this perspective, the Budget is under-stating likely higher education spending.

Calculating the net effects of these changes is difficult on the information presented in the Budget. We have used varying scenarios about public university-only student numbers, indexation and the efficiency dividend. Based on these scenarios, the forward estimates understate likely government spending on the Commonwealth Grant Scheme by between $2.5 billion and $3.7 billion. In other words, universities will receive between $2.5 billion and $3.7 billion more than the Budget papers suggest.

On currently available information, we cannot provide a sensible revision to projected HELP costs. Compared to information on HELP published late last year, HELP’s costs have been revised down. The 2015-16 Budget papers suggest that VET FEE-HELP borrowers will shrink from 225,500 to 128,000 between 2014-15 and 2015-16. If so, that is a remarkable response to current efforts to clean up the vocational education industry. They are also predicting fewer HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP borrowers.

The ‘performance indicator’ for the proportion of new HELP loans that are expected not to be repaid has been reduced by two percentage points across the comparable forward estimates years, so that by 2017-18 it is anticipated to be 21 per cent instead of 23 per cent. While an improvement would flow from fewer VET FEE-HELP borrowers, these proportions still look to be on the optimistic side.

Corrected post: Most HELP debtors still owe less than $20,000, but big debts are increasing

The ATO personal income statistics provide information on how much debt students and former students are holding. Although debt levels are increasing, the vast majority of HELP debtors (71 per cent in 2012-13) still owe $20,000 or less.

The modal amount of debt is below $10,000, with more than 40 per cent in this category in all years. However, this is a poor guide to what the typical student will end up borrowing, as it includes people who are early in the borrowing phase and towards the end of their repayment phase (plus probably quite a few people who did not borrow much in the times when HECS was much cheaper, but have not repaid).

HELP debt levels

The share of HELP debtors owing more than $40,000 has increased from 3.5 per cent to 5.6 per cent between 2010-11 and 2012-13, or just over 100,000 people in 2012-13.

Fewer people are repaying their HELP debt

A few months ago I argued that flat graduate incomes and an initial threshold that was indexed to average weekly earnings was going to mean fewer graduates making a repayment. The 2012-13 taxation statistics that came out today shows that this is already a problem. The total number of people who made a HELP repayment that year dropped by over 2,000 compared to 2011-12, while the total number of debtors increased by more than 142,000.

Help debtors and repayments

The surge in enrolments since 2009 means that it is inevitable that a lower percentage of debtors will make a repayment, since it takes time for people to finish their courses and enter the workforce. But this is only the second time since HECS/HELP started in 1989 that the absolute number of people making a repayment went down, other than due to a deliberate policy shift (increasing the threshold for 2004-05). Total repayments did go up by $24 million, or about 1.6%.

The falling number of debtors making a repayment highlights again the need for a lower threshold and measures to reduce the manipulation of HELP repayment income.

Would restoring or increasing discounts for up-front student contribution payments improve’s HELP’s finances?

The Australian this morning is giving a lot of attention to this paper by Neil Warren and Richard Highfield on HELP repayment.

It is a good paper, analysing ‘bunching’ of HELP debtor incomes below important repayment thresholds. The significance of this (for both the government and the debtor) is that if the debtor’s income crosses one of the thresholds they have to pay a higher percentage of all their income in repayment.

This has turned out to be a valuable aspect of HELP’s repayment system compared to those of other countries, where students pay at the margins (eg 9% of income above the threshold). In Australia, anyone who consistently earns above the initial threshold (about $53K this year) is likely to eventually repay all their debt, as they will pay back $2,000+ each year. But in other countries, earnings slightly above the threshold result in only very small repayments. This is one reason that, bad as Australia’s student doubtful debt figures are, they are not as bad as England’s.

However, because crossing a threshold has a high cash cost there are temptations to keep income below it. I have to admit that long ago I considered turning down a pay increase because I thought it would reduce my take-home pay more than I can afford, as someone who at the time had a very tight financial situation. In the end, what was to my boss a generous increase boosted my take-home pay by some token amount (and of course sped up my HECS repayment). What Highfield and Warren present is evidence that some people are using deductions for education, work and charity to bring their taxable income below thresholds.

Their policy suggestion is to change the definition of HELP repayment income so that some or all of these deductions are not included. This is a strategy the government has adopted before to tackle negative gearing and fringe benefits. I need to think more about the education and work deductions, but support removing charitable deductions (the taxpayer would still get the deduction for income tax purposes).

Another suggestion is to revisit the issue of discounts for paying student contributions upfront. The discount was cut from 25 per cent to 20 per cent in 2005, and then to 10 per cent in 2012, with a bill to eliminate it entirely stalled in the Senate. Money never lent will never cause repayment problems, so this has an obvious attraction – if the savings from the reduced lending outweigh the discount’s cost.

However, I am not convinced that the discount is having a big enough effect in encouraging up-front payment to warrant keeping it. The proportion of students paying upfront is in long-term decline, as seen in the chart below. The halving of the discount in 2012 did cause the biggest year-to-year decline in upfront payment in this time series, but it really only sped the trend up, rather than marking an obvious major turning point. We are talking perhaps about 1 to 2 extra percentage points of students paying upfront if they had a stronger financial incentive.

HECS-HELP discount

Cutting the discount has been based in part on the assumption that many of the people paying upfront are not principally motivated by a financial calculation. They are parents paying for their kids, employers paying for their staff, or individuals who don’t want to hold debt even on very low interest rates. Overall, the government is probably better off trying to collect the full student contribution amount via HELP than giving windfall gains to people who will pay upfront anyway.

While it has always made sense to borrow under HECS or HELP, due to the very favourable lending conditions, I am not entirely sure why we are seeing such a strong trend. An increasing share of low SES students might explain some of it, but I suspect there is more going on.

Public opinion on special admission standards for Indigenous university applicants

In the United States, racial preference in university admissions is a highly controversial issue. But in Australia universities have long had special admissions programs for Indigenous applicants, with little obvious controversy. So far as I am aware the latest ANU Poll, on Indigenous affairs, is the first to ask the general public what they think.

As the chart below shows, a small majority of respondents, 54%, favoured special programs and admission standards for Aboriginal people. This was lower than support for governments helping Aboriginal people find employment (69%) or who think the private sector should do more to employ Aboriginal people (66%).

It’s hard to explore the reasons for these results from within this survey. However there are common ideas around minimum entry standards (as seen in the annual January low ATAR debate), and using ranked prior academic performance to allocate scarce places, that would influence views on university admission more than staff hiring practices.

Indigenous