By Rob Miller
The media have become fond of comparing university students today with their counterparts in the '60s and early '70s and concluding that students now are much more conservative. This is usually explained by the inane "the '60s were the decade of revolution, the '80s were the decade of greed" theory which establishment journalism uses to interpret everything from fashion trends to the collapse of the Soviet Union. There has been very little analysis of the impact of the drastic changes to higher education on the willingness or ability of students to become politically active.
Over the last 10 years there has been a massive expansion of the higher education system. Total enrolments rose from 341,390 in 1982 to 534,585 in 1991. At the same time, the federal ALP government has also sought to reduce the level of government funding per student by making students pay for their education through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) and by forcing Universities to find non-government sources of funds.
The ultimate aim of this policy is to create a higher education system which "produces" the sort of graduates the private sector requires while reducing government expenditure on education.
The changes to higher education have taken place in a period when unemployment has rarely dropped below 10% and the rate of youth unemployment is even higher. The proportion of 15-19 year-olds in full-time work has fallen from 59% in 1966 to 32% in 1983, to 19% in 1992. Correspondingly, school retention rates to year 12 rose from 34.5% in 1980 to 71.3% in 1991.
Ironically, the more students who complete year 12, the less this qualification means in terms of guaranteed employment. With such a high unemployment rate, employers can demand even higher levels of academic achievement and longer work experience, if only to reduce the number of applications they have to consider. This pushes more students to go on to higher education in the hope of compensating for their lack of work experience.
The drying up of employment in manufacturing has also led to a sharp decline in the number of apprenticeships, directing even more young people towards higher education as the only path to secure employment.
Thus the imperative of gaining employment permeates the attitude of tertiary students more than ever before. The idea that a university degree will guarantee secure employment is obviously very attractive to young people who see little other prospect of getting a permanent job. Whether it is true or not is another matter altogether.
As is the case with completing year 12, the more people who gain a qualification, the less it becomes a guarantee of employment. This fact is reflected in the number of graduates who undertake postgraduate studies. According to the Graduate Destination Survey 1991, of those who graduated with their first degree in 1990, 24% were studying full time on April 30, 1991, and 15% were still unemployed.
However, the federal government has actively promoted the idea that a degree equals employment with its clever country rhetoric. It has also skilfully exploited it to reintroduce tertiary fees through the HECS scheme and reduce expenditure on Austudy through the Austudy loans scheme. The basic premise on which both schemes are based is that university graduates all earn above average incomes.
This premise serves a number of useful purposes for the government:
- it identifies students as a privileged minority who deserve to pay for their education;
- it is something that many students themselves will want to believe, even if it isn't true;
- it reinforces the idea that the purpose of higher education is to secure employment;
- it directs students to those courses which promise high income employment and are "economically useful";
- it encourages students to finish their courses within the minimum possible time.
Of course it is not true that a degree guarantees high income employment or even any employment at all. Those people who don't go into a high paying job immediately after graduating are punished for their poor choice, as they will carry a debt until they earn enough to pay it off. This particularly affects women, who are concentrated in the lowest paid professions, such as teaching and nursing.
The employment imperative places the most pressure on students from a disadvantaged background, as they are less likely to gain employment through "connections" and have to rely more on their academic credentials. They also have to support themselves and their dependents while studying, which often means going into debt.
The collapse of the youth labour market has prolonged young people's financial dependence on their parents, adding further to the pressure to secure employment. This is even more acutely felt by people on low incomes and those young people, particularly women, who are subjected to sexual and physical abuse by other family members.
The inadequacy of Austudy affects financially and socially disadvantaged students the most. Austudy remains well below the poverty line. This is justified by the government on the basis of the myth that students can just walk into part-time jobs — despite the disappearance of much of the part-time and casual work that used to be available to students. For example, the number of jobs advertised through the Student Employment office at RMIT declined from 2100 in 1989 to 700 in 1991.
Increasingly, students are competing for these jobs with unemployed people and are at a disadvantage because of the restrictions study places on their availability. The unreliable nature of part-time and holiday employment also means that students have no guarantee that their job will be there next week, let alone for the entire three or four years of their course.
Financially and socially disadvantaged students have also been hard hit by funding cuts to universities. The decline in funding per student, combined with the increase in student numbers, has led to overcrowding and inadequate library resources. The use of computers in virtually every discipline has left students who can't afford to buy their own computer reliant on inadequate university computer facilities.
As a result of funding cuts, students are now expected to pay for course materials which were previously free. Although this is officially illegal under the Higher Education Funding Act, if the materials are essential to the course, most universities turn a blind eye to this fundraising unless it is brought to their attention by the Student Union.
For example, the enterprising Department of Hospitality Studies at RMIT in Melbourne required students to work in the department's restaurant as part of their course. The students received no wages for this work and were required to purchase the uniforms they had to wear while working. The department also made money by catering at functions for other university departments using "free" student labour.
Declining government funding has also forced universities to raise money from sources other than students. This has taken forms ranging from academic staff acting as consultants to, or undertaking research for, private firms, to soliciting sponsorships and donations. This often involves naming rights for the companies involved, so it's only a matter of time before a university has a Carlton and United Breweries Professor of Medicine.
Those academic disciplines which are most useful to business find this relatively easy; those that aren't have fewer resources. However, academic staff doing consultancy work for business sometimes have trouble making it to lectures, and often can't see individual students at all. This further compounds the problems faced by all students as a result of overcrowded lectures and "tutorials" of up to 60 students
The idea that higher education is mainly, if not entirely, a means to the end of employment also discourages students from thinking critically about what they are studying and how relevant it is to society as a whole.
However, the very conditions under which students have to study, the boring content of their courses, the obstacles faced by students from disadvantaged backgrounds and the realisation that there may not be a guaranteed job at the end of it, also have the potential to draw students into political activity. The changes to higher education do not guarantee a passive student population; if anything, they have given students more reason to become politically active.