Go8 Grads Earn No More Than Technology Uni Grads (2 Viewers)

[brent012]

Interesting read. The bit I find particularly interesting was that they say that graduates from neither Go8 or "technical universities" (by which I will assume they are referring to ATN unis) do earn less.

I'd be interested to know if that includes unis part of the IRU group and/or non rural unis like UWS. But they dont really mention specifics like that in the article.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...universities-says-report-20141012-1150w1.html

http://grattan.edu.au/report/mapping-australian-higher-education-2014-15/

 

[enoilgam]

It couldnt have anything to do with those uni's attracting a higher achieving students. Having been on the job market and in the workforce recently, I pretty much groan whenever I hear the old "Go8 vs everyone else" debate because the debate seems so naive. Barring a couple of niche fields, it means next to nothing and that trend is continuing. With graduate programs becoming even more competitive, most people are going for entry level jobs which dont require a degree. A degree for most graduates these days will come in handy later in their careers, where prospective employers couldnt care less about the uni brand or even grades.

 

[Crobat]

You know it makes sense since, all things considered, the degree gets you as far as the entry level job and everything that comes after comes (usually) as a result of diligence.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Interesting article indeed.

I'm not too knowledgeable about the job market... but I'm not sure why 'income' would differ significantly anyways?

Like once you're 'in', you're in?

However, income is just one aspect.

I think we also need to consider the differences in 'employment rate' between universities for CERTAIN degrees and other factors too.

But there is a significant earnings difference when graduates from the Go8 or technology universities are compared to graduates from suburban and regional universities.

This statement from the article is definitely interesting. As Brent has said, we can only assume that this might be UWS, MACQ, UOW, etc?

"The report shows that when it comes to earnings, what you study matters more than where you study," Grattan Institute higher education program director Andrew Norton said.

"Studying engineering at any university is likely to lead to a higher salary than studying arts at a sandstone university," Mr Norton said.

Well, that's not too surprising

 

[Crobat]

Interesting article indeed.

I'm not too knowledgeable about the job market... but I'm not sure why 'income' would differ significantly anyways?

Like once you're 'in', you're in?

However, income is just one aspect.

I think we also need to consider the differences in 'employment rate' between universities for CERTAIN degrees and other factors too.

Well if you're a woman or an ethic statistically you will earn less than a white male over your life time.

And yes this but at the same time these statistics always need to be taken with a grain of salt since unis will probably overstate them.

 

[brent012]

Got around to reading a bit of the report. "Technology unis" does include Swinburne - turns out Swinburne must be the only technical uni not in the ATN.

"Other unis" includes all other unis, IRU, regional and unis not in a group.

IRU uni graduates on average earn 2% more than the "other" group (both go8 and technology unis were 6%)

Also of note was that after making some adjustments (mostly related to the effects of cutoffs), go8 and technical university graduates had almost the same employment prospects.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Well if you're a woman or an ethic statistically you will earn less than a white male over your life time.

And yes this but at the same time these statistics always need to be taken with a grain of salt since unis will probably overstate them.

I was thinking more of university-based influences

Got around to reading a bit of the report. "Technology unis" does include Swinburne - turns out Swinburne must be the only technical uni not in the ATN.

"Other unis" includes all other unis, IRU, regional and unis not in a group.

IRU uni graduates on average earn 2% more than the "other" group (both go8 and technology unis were 6%)

Also of note was that after making some adjustments (mostly related to the effects of cutoffs), go8 and technical university graduates had almost the same employment prospects.

Is there any real reason for 'technical/technology' universities being able to be on par with the Go8 in terms of employment prospect and income, while other unis aren't able to do so?

Assumed 'practicality' of courses/teaching in technology universities?
The funds for technology universities?
Facilities?

 

[Crobat]

I was thinking more of university-based influences



Is there any real reason for 'technical/technology' universities being able to be on par with the Go8 in terms of employment prospect and income, while other unis aren't able to do so?

Assumed 'practicality' of courses/teaching in technology universities?
The funds for technology universities?
Facilities?

I feel like any answer to that question would be speculation [emoji53]

 

[brent012]

They didn't really elaborate. The main conclusion was that the effect of prestige over here is nothing like in the US as the Go8 universities are not highly selective and unlike the Ivy Leagues (for example) can not have a much higher per student spending - that's despite stats they provide which suggest that the Go8s receive a very significant portion of all research grants.

The odd part is their naming of non technology or IRU unis as "other" though - it means in the conclusion they say this somewhat misleading sentence which could be misquoted or misinterpreted if only reading the conclusion:

We find that Group of Eight prestige has no reliable effect on full-time starting salaries or the chances of getting a fulltime job. Yet it is associated with other advantages. Group of Eight bachelor
degree graduates are more likely to get first jobs matching their qualifications Their lifetime salaries
are six per cent higher than graduates of Other universities. That provides some financial
capacity to pay higher fees.

Slight correction to what i've said before though: Macquarie is no longer an IRU uni - they left in 2008 and are lumped in with the "Others".

 

[acronical]

Lol no mention of unsw or some other universities. Have to admit though the result does not seem surprising. Once you leave uni its up to the experience you find. Really after that your degree is only relevant as a qualification. If you are qualified as to having completed basic and fundamental requirements then really your degree means the same thing no matter what university you went to. However in saying this, the attractive feature of other universities might be teaching quality, convenience, greater links and opportunities to broaden skill sets, etc. The actual university means nothing. If students can't drill into their head that by getting into a more "prestigious" university you should be using that opportunity to make the most of things there while you can, then really they are being blind. People who say that they are in a "prestigious" university and aren't making the most of their opportunities there to broaden their skill set or make the most of life while they are there are pretty much being arrogant and can't get over the fact that they went to a university with more opportunities without making most of the opportunities themselves and instead just boasting out to the public that they have everything at their finger tips when really they don't.
I know when I get to university I'll be seeking to make the most of everything I can there. Question every student here should be asking is whether they are making the most of their opportunities at university. If not then they are no better than a student at any other university doing the same thing with the same facilitation, resources, etc. By this I guess we have to assume that the quality of the university facilities are on par with each other. Of course this isn't always the case but when you are using the university you went to as a stand out point on your cv, then you pretty much failed to make the most of university.

 

[Crobat]

Lol no mention of unsw or some other universities. Have to admit though the result does not seem surprising. Once you leave uni its up to the experience you find. Really after that your degree is only relevant as a qualification. If you are qualified as to having completed basic and fundamental requirements then really your degree means the same thing no matter what university you went to. However in saying this, the attractive feature of other universities might be teaching quality, convenience, greater links and opportunities to broaden skill sets, etc. The actual university means nothing. If students can't drill into their head that by getting into a more "prestigious" university you should be using that opportunity to make the most of things there while you can, then really they are being blind. People who say that they are in a "prestigious" university and aren't making the most of their opportunities there to broaden their skill set or make the most of life while they are there are pretty much being arrogant and can't get over the fact that they went to a university with more opportunities without making most of the opportunities themselves and instead just boasting out to the public that they have everything at their finger tips when really they don't.
I know when I get to university I'll be seeking to make the most of everything I can there. Question every student here should be asking is whether they are making the most of their opportunities at university. If not then they are no better than a student at any other university doing the same thing with the same facilitation, resources, etc. By this I guess we have to assume that the quality of the university facilities are on par with each other. Of course this isn't always the case but when you are using the university you went to as a stand out point on your cv, then you pretty much failed to make the most of university.

Long ass sentence but I agree with the sentiment.

 

[acronical]

Sorry if it sounds like a rant. I get a bit cray cray when I'm short of time.

 

[brent012]

Just a tip, on forums percectly reasonably paragraphs seem huge and people feel tl;dr if its not the first post - that post is a good example. I used to be guilty of it myself.

Anyway, UNSW and Usyd are implied when talking about Go8 in NSW.

Another interesting fact (which confirmed by suspicions) from the report: In uni, students from public comprehensive schools on average outperform their peers of identical ATARs from private or selective schools.

Not much of a stretch to suggest that this means private or selective schools mean being better prepared for the HSC, not necessarily better educated.

 

[acronical]

Thanks Brent. Actually should look more into Go8 and what it means. Probably not much of an affect though any way. To be fair on the note of students coming from public comprehensive schools doing better later on, it may be due to the fact that they are more inclined to obtain a personal drive towards an education rather than having someone else encouraging them to do well. So it may be a motivational or personal reason as to why they would be better prepared for later on in life, rather than the odd or so higher percentage of selective students who feel less motivated to find their own ways after finishing high school.

There's a certain degree to which you can be spoonfed before you have to start making your own decisions. Any way, back to the topic on hand.

 

[Crobat]

Another interesting fact (which confirmed by suspicions) from the report: In uni, students from public comprehensive schools on average outperform their peers of identical ATARs from private or selective schools.

Not much of a stretch to suggest that this means private or selective schools mean being better prepared for the HSC, not necessarily better educated.

I'd argue that this is because public school students do not "grow up in a bubble" and are exposed to different socioeconomic levels, cultures, and confrontations that are unlikely to be as present as they are in private schools for obvious reasons. They pretty much gain more experiences which in turn promote their development into conscientious people who are capable of understanding more than 1 point of view.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Just a tip, on forums percectly reasonably paragraphs seem huge and people feel tl;dr if its not the first post - that post is a good example. I used to be guilty of it myself.

Anyway, UNSW and Usyd are implied when talking about Go8 in NSW.

Another interesting fact (which confirmed by suspicions) from the report: In uni, students from public comprehensive schools on average outperform their peers of identical ATARs from private or selective schools.

Not much of a stretch to suggest that this means private or selective schools mean being better prepared for the HSC, not necessarily better educated.

Note that we should consider the word ''identical'' ATAR.

So if we were to compare let's say a student who got a 90 ATAR at a comprehensive school against a student who got a 90 ATAR at a fully selective school... You could argue that it's harder to get a 90 ATAR at a comprehensive school (due to the effects of moderation and a less competitive environment), compared to a selective school. So the former student would be argued to be more academically capable, since they have achieved the same result in more disadvantageous circumstances, (theoretically at least) than the latter student and consequently, go on to do better at university?

Seems right enough.

Of course, people would still argue that selective kids are spoonfed, rely on tutors, etc. and these generalisations have led to them being less capable of independent learning --> thus, reducing their abilities in university studies.

Yet we probably see that most of the kids that get HD WAMs (or like 90+ or 95+ WAM), get on the dean's list, etc. are probably selective/private school students or kids who did well in the HSC due to good work ethic?

There's also the case where students might have a lower ATAR than their peers but have done better than their peers in a single subject that is the most relevant to their university course. E.g. A 95 ATAR student who got let's say 95 in 4U mathematics is theoretically going to outperform a 97 ATAR student who got let's say 85 in 4U mathematics in for example, ACTUARIAL STUDIES or ENGINEERING.

But yeah, I definitely agree that better prepared for HSC =/= better educated or better prepared for tertiary education.

I'd argue that this is because public school students do not "grow up in a bubble" and are exposed to different socioeconomic levels, cultures, and confrontations that are unlikely to be as present as they are in private schools for obvious reasons. They pretty much gain more experiences which in turn promote their development into conscientious people who are capable of understanding more than 1 point of view.

What's the argument for partial selective schools then?

They are exposed to even more variety you could say (especially when both the comprehensive and selective streams start to merge in Year 11 and Year 12)~

But that's a fair assessment and is probably the most popular view.

 

[JohnMaximus]

Usyd wins again

 

[Crobat]

But yeah, I definitely agree that better prepared for HSC =/= better educated or better prepared for tertiary education.



What's the argument for partial selective schools then?

That's the purpose of that study I suppose - or to say that 25k a year for your kid's private school tuition does them no better than the $200 it costs for public education. Although arguably the connections you can make in a private school are infinitely more beneficial than anything...

And I don't know what it is about partial selective schools but they just don't work apparently. You end up with too much conflict between kids who want to learn and those who don't (according to my girlfriend anyway). OzKo went to the same school so maybe he can shed some light on this area, but I seem to remember him talking about it in that thread about the plans to make North Sydney partial selective.

 

[OzKo]

That's the purpose of that study I suppose - or to say that 25k a year for your kid's private school tuition does them no better than the $200 it costs for public education. Although arguably the connections you can make in a private school are infinitely more beneficial than anything...

And I don't know what it is about partial selective schools but they just don't work apparently. You end up with too much conflict between kids who want to learn and those who don't (according to my girlfriend anyway). OzKo went to the same school so maybe he can shed some light on this area, but I seem to remember him talking about it in that thread about the plans to make North Sydney partial selective.

With partially selective schools, there are typically selective classes and normal classes. Classes are separated from Year 7 to Year 10, and then classes mix from Year 11 and 12. Generally, selective students tend to study the 'harder' subjects, so they effectively preserve that separation. Not sure whether this still holds, considering students being required to remain in school until Year 11?

If there's issues within the selective classes itself, then that's luck of the draw. It's usually easier to get into partially selective schools so the level of academic commitment is more likely to vary. My own grade was lauded within the school due to the cohesiveness of the students so I never really saw any issues while I was at school.

 

[Chronost]

With partially selective schools, there are typically selective classes and normal classes. Classes are separated from Year 7 to Year 10, and then classes mix from Year 11 and 12. Generally, selective students tend to study the 'harder' subjects, so they effectively preserve that separation. Not sure whether this still holds, considering students being required to remain in school until Year 11?

If there's issues within the selective classes itself, then that's luck of the draw. It's usually easier to get into partially selective schools so the level of academic commitment is more likely to vary. My own grade was lauded within the school due to the cohesiveness of the students so I never really saw any issues while I was at school.

This is pretty much, seperate classes. Once year 11 and 12 start alot of stay but alot of the really bright selective kids move to high ranking schools like Hornsby Girls/North Sydney etc..the rest get merged into classes and generally perform pretty well,and it's a pretty decent mix.