Higher education access: a gendered issue
Growing Strong
by Jazzlyn Breen Last year the Liberal-National party successfully passed a higher education amendment bill, increasing the cost of particular degrees while decreasing others, and introducing a variety of new parameters on students’ access to government loans to cover the cost of study (HECS-HELP loans). The bill was passed by one vote after a staunch campaign against it by staff and students alike. The bill was framed by the LNP as a move towards encouraging more students to study in ‘employable’ subject areas such as science and engineering, while economically disincentivising students away from the humanities, communications and law. The bill also included changes to who can access HECS-HELP loans, with new restrictions seeing those who fail 50% of their subjects unable to access the low interest government loans most students use to access higher education. While the government spun the bill as an improvement to higher education, the campaign against it argued that these changes will make it harder for those facing any kind of systemic disadvantage to access higher education. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds wanting to study the humanities will have to make the choice between a lifetime of debt, or a degree they aren’t passionate about. The campaign against the bill particularly highlighted the disproportionate impact the changes will have on women trying to achieve a university degree. In their submission against the bill the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences stated that “HASS [humanities, arts and social science] fields that face the largest fee increases tend to have substantially more women than men enrolled in them.” The council raised the argument that because these are the subject areas which have been increased in price, a greater percentage of higher education debt will fall onto women. Women statistically already pay back this debt slower than men due to a number of systemic reasons, namely lower average pay and extended time away from the workforce due to gender disparities in childcare. Critics of the bill argue that this is a clearly gendered failure of the policy. Changes to the accessibility of HECS-HELP loans have also been criticised for the way they will disproportionately impact students struggling because of systematic disadvantage. The changes, which see students who fail 50% of their units in a year denied further access to HECS-HELP, will financially punish students who aren’t privileged enough to have the support they need at university. Students who work to support themselves, those with caring duties and especially students affected by sexual violence will be hit hard by this new change, which effectively sees their disadvantage punished monetarily. A campaign launched last year by The University of Sydney Women’s Collective highlighted the impact the HECS-HELP loan changes will have on survivors of sexual assault trying to complete study at univeristy. The collective argued that more needs to be done to systematically help survivors navigate trauma recovery; kicking them off of government support for education due to a drop in university performance is a step in the opposite direction to this. Reform around universities responses to sexual violence has long been a fight of feminist organisations, as it has been well established that this gendered issue significantly impacts the ability of survivors to continue studying at university. Failure and drop out rates of survivors of sexual violence are higher than the rest of the student population, which speaks to an existing systemic issue around the support available for students in need. While there are allowances made at many universities to apply for a non-fail grade due to difficult circumstances, these systems are often not good enough, or not easily accessible to the average student in need. These institutional problems will only be exacerbated by policies which further punish struggling students. This new bill, while framed by the LNP as ‘future proofing’ higher education, will really see those from the most disadvantaged sections of society systematically barred from accessing a university degree.
14 U S y d Wo C o 2 0 2 1
