Equity and excellence are notmutually exclusive

A discussion of academic standards in an eraof widening participation

Gail WhitefordSocial Inclusion, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Mahsood ShahThe University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, and

Chenicheri Sid NairCentre for Advancement of Teaching and Learning,University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – Social inclusion policies in the higher education sector are implemented to ensure that allpeople – irrespective of socioeconomic background – have rights of access and the opportunitiesneeded to participate and, ultimately, succeed. In Australia, and in other countries such as the UK, theUSA, New Zealand and South Africa such policies are reflective of a commitment to the government’ssocial inclusion agenda particularly aimed at improving access and participation of those fromdisadvantaged and low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Such a commitment arrives at an historicmoment in countries like Australia and the UK when there is a concurrent national renewal of qualityassurance in higher education with a particular focus on academic standards. The purpose of thispaper is to stimulate discussion on the extent to which a national social inclusion agenda may impactacademic standards and student outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors argue that contemporary trends such as increasingstudent diversity, changing pattern of student participation, differentiated levels of preparedness fortertiary education and new modes of learning, will continue to grow and will not in and of themselvesaffect academic standards. The authors contend that it is the responsibility of higher educationinstitutions to respond proactively to the diverse needs of students whilst ensuring that academicstandards are maintained. In this way, the fulfilment of an essentially transformative moral purpose inhigher education may also be achieved.

Findings – The evidence presented in this paper from various contexts suggests that a socialinclusion agenda related to increasing the equity of access and participation of disadvantagedstudents does not have a negative impact on academic standards and outcomes. However,such commitment to widening participation requires the active “buy in” of a number ofstakeholders.

Originality/value – The paper shows that institutions of higher education need to plan for andactively support the development of environments in which all people can realise their potential andare provided with the knowledge and skill sets they in turn will require in order to contribute tosociety.

Keywords Disadvantaged groups, Social inclusion, Higher education, Government policy,Academic standards, Australia, United Kingdom

Paper type Viewpoint

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Equity andexcellence

299

Received 4 April 2012Revised 22 June 2012

5 February 2013Accepted 2 April 2013

Quality Assurance in EducationVol. 21 No. 3, 2013

pp. 299-310q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0968-4883DOI 10.1108/QAE-Apr-2012-0020

IntroductionGovernments in many countries such as Australia, the UK, the USA, New Zealand andSouth Africa have set targets to increase the access and participation of disadvantagedstudents in higher education. The Australian Government has set a target for 2020 toincrease the enrolment of low-socioeconomic background student in undergraduatelevel by 20 per cent (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations(DEEWR), 2009) whilst President Obama aims for USA to become the world’sbest-educated country by 2020 (The Chronicle, 2010). In the UK, the government aimsfor at least 50 per cent of young people (aged 18-30) to enter higher education and toincrease the participation rates of young people from poorer backgrounds (Departmentfor Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS), 2009). Similarly, in New Zealand thegovernment plans to increase the success of Maori and Pasifika students in tertiaryeducation (Ministry of Education, 2010). This focus on access and participation ofdisadvantaged students comes at a time when governments are also renewing theirapproach to quality assurance with a focus on improving the quality and standard ofhigher education. Such a renewal also aims to enhance the reputation andcompetitiveness of higher education and to ensure that higher education institutionsare accountable for public funding with a focus on increased transparency andrelevancy in meeting broader societal needs (such as workforce development).

The renewal of quality represents a significant challenge to higher educationproviders in Australia, however, as it is contiguous with the federal governmentrequirement to improve the access and participation of disadvantaged students. Whilstthere has been additional funds made available to stimulate increasing participation ofstudents from such backgrounds through Higher Education Partnership andParticipation Program (HEPPP; DEEWR, 2009), there has also been a clearindication that such increased student enrolments of disadvantaged students mustnot compromise quality outcomes. Not only will there be no tolerance of a standardsdecline, but there will be penalties if this is seen to be the case. In both Australia andthe UK, governments have warned that increased enrolments in universities ofdisadvantaged students with low quality and outcomes will result in universities beingdirectly penalised (DBIS, 2009; The Age, 2011; Trounson and Hare, 2011).

The challenge of increasing the participation of disadvantaged students andmaintaining academic quality and standards is a cause for concern for universityleaders. Recently, two prominent Vice Chancellors in Australia spoke publicly on theissue, warning that the focus on increasing the quantity of graduates to meet targets mayrisk the quality of graduate outcomes and exit standards (Campus Review, 2010;Coaldrake, 2011; Trounson, 2012b). Similar views were also expressed by the opposition,and the elite Group of Eight (Go8) universities who argued the need to increase thefunding of academic support for disadvantaged students in universities (Hare, 2012;Mason, 2012; Trounson, 2012b). On the other hand several Vice Chancellors haverecently argued that student entry score is not an accurate indicator for quality outcomes(Campus Review, 2012). They argued that disadvantaged students required additionalsupport; however, such support is not an indicator of their intelligence or aptitude.Another prominent senior academic suggested that studies in her institution showed thatstudents with lower entry score were able to perform on a level comparable with higherranked students. However, attention to inclusive curriculum, greater academic support,quality teaching and counselling was required (Trounson, 2012a).

QAE21,3

300

Additionally, the concurrent rise of private higher education providers who provideaccess and opportunity for students who may not have direct access to tertiaryeducation due to interrupted or poor academic achievement (Shah and Nair, 2013),increases competition within the sector. Increased competition in the context of thestandards and equity agendas nationally does indeed predicate a need to consider howuniversities might engage with students in different ways as they move into the future.

So what does the future hold when it comes to demographic realities and patterns ofparticipation in higher education? An overview suggests the following characteristicsin the Australian higher education context:

. A changing demography. The student population will be more diverse withdomestic students from 175 countries by birth and international students from180 countries (Shah and Nair, 2013).

. A changing level of participation. The pattern of student participation will changewith more students in part time or full time work while studying thus looking forflexible study options. A study in Australia of first year students in universitiessuggested that 61 per cent of students studying full time were working anaverage of 13 hours a week (James et al., 2010. p. 49).

. A growth in demand for blended learning. There is a growing demand foralternative mode of education other than traditional face to face learning withonline and distance learning ( James et al., 2010. p. 21).

. A changing level of preparedness. Evidence suggests there will be an increasednumber of students who may be unprepared for tertiary education (Shah et al.,2011).

. A new approach to partnerships. Developments point to the rise of collaboration,partnerships and pathways between vocational, higher education and with othertypes of education providers who have differing entry requirements fromuniversities (Shah and Nair, 2013).

. An increase in staff-student ratios. An uncapped environment will impact onstudent enrolment numbers and most likely on staff-student ratios. This in turnmay impact negatively on the student experience and student achievement oflearning outcomes in higher education (Shah et al., 2011).

Whilst there are more issues in relation to the above list than we are able to discussfully in this article, preparedness is one that is key and generating a good deal ofactivity in the sector. In essence, where alternate entry programs have been developedto provide direct pathways for disadvantaged students into higher education, there is aconcomitant need to provide robust transitional programs. To be really successful,transitional programs need to include not just academic literacy development, but alsostructured opportunities for mentoring, peer assisted learning and socialconnectedness (Trotter and Roberts, 2006). Universities, therefore, need to ensurethat students arriving through non-traditional pathways are actively supported toattain the same learning outcomes and graduate capabilities as their fellow students.This is achievable, whilst students from disadvantaged backgrounds may be higherservice users, their levels of educational achievement are, over time, no different fromtheir peers or perhaps, indeed slightly better.

Equity andexcellence

301

Despite the development of entry programs addressing disadvantage nationallyhowever, access remains an issue. For whilst a commitment to an agenda of socialinclusion may be seen as central to the moral purpose of all higher education institution(Shah et al., 2011; Keohane, 2006) the research literature to date suggests that minoritystudents from disadvantaged backgrounds have had generally poor access to eliteeducation. An analysis undertaken by Shah et al. (2011) on three elite and threepost-1987 universities in Australia, for example, suggested that elite universities havean average of 7 per cent of students from low-socio-economic background compared to21.5 per cent in three post-1987 universities. The same study showed thatperformance-based funding between 2005 and 2008 in Australia based on measuressuch as student retention, progression and student satisfaction of all domestic studentswas mostly enjoyed by elite universities sharing 48 per cent of the reward. In otherwords, the most elite universities with high student admission criteria, high retentionrates, well-developed and mature academic and support services, benefited the mostfrom the controversial learning and teaching performance fund. Of course, an analysisundertaken at the end of the current round of HEPPP funding in 2014 may point to asignificant change in access and participation rates (and one would hope that it does)but it is worth noting that despite a strong widening participation agenda in the UK,the participation of poorest students in elite universities in the UK such as Oxford andCambridge remains at less than 1 per cent (The Guardian, 2010).

One of the difficulties for the social inclusion agenda is the internationalpre-occupation with ranking and league tables. Currently, ranking and league tablesacross the world do not include social inclusion and diversity as a measure ofinstitutional quality outcomes. Rather, it seems to lower the ranking of universitieswho provide access and opportunity with differential entry criteria for disadvantagedstudents (Brink, 2008). The debate on whether social inclusion outcomes should be partof rankings highlights two divergent views; one that diversity may be viewed as aningredient of quality; the other that it diminishes quality and overall represents areputational risk. Such debates are set to continue for some time as the popularity ofleague tables and ranking systems continues unabated.

Traditional views on social inclusion and its impact on academic standardsLeaving aside discussion of league tables, the social inclusion in higher education agendafaces other challenges. One of these is the traditional view that access and participationof disadvantaged students in higher education may result in higher attrition rates, poorstudent performance and progression, and significant resourcing of academic supportservices. Various scholars have written extensively on how socioeconomic backgroundaffects student learning and their progression in higher education. Scholars recognisethat success in educational achievement is dependent on individual abilities and theirbackgrounds such as: social class; language; literacy; parent’s education and income;financial support; career advice; access to school and tertiary education (Hossler et al.,1989; Perna, 2006; Dynarski, 2002; Marable, 2003; Orfield and Eaton, 1996; Perna andTitus, 2004). Researchers have also found that students with parents who completed acollege degree tended to receive higher grades in college than those from first-generationfamilies (Ethington and Smart, 1986; Mullen et al., 2003), whilst Hoffer et al. (2003) pointto the difficulty for first-generation students in accessing doctoral education due to theinteraction between academic achievement, aspirations and social class. Another scholar

QAE21,3

302

argues that the restriction of such groups is as a result of tacit messages about “who hasa place in the academy and who does not” (Kosut, 2006, p. 249) and Gardner and Holley(2011) suggest that a student who accumulates disadvantages throughout theeducational experience may encounter barriers to access and success in future careers.Similarly, Liu et al. (2004), argue that students with lack of capital and advantage mayalso face classist prejudice from more privileged peers, a way in which to “keep peopleout” of one’s economic culture which may result in fear of, and guilt from, failure. Theyargue that such internalized classism “results from violation of the values, norms, andexpectations of an individual’s economic culture” (p. 109).

Economic culture may be an important element in successful completion, but so tooare the ethnic and sociocultural backgrounds from which students come. Studies in theUSA with Black, Hispanic and Native American students (Swail et al., 2003), in TheNetherlands with ethnic minority parents from Antilles, Morocco, Surinam or Turkey(Hofman and Van Den Berg, 2003), and in Australia with Indigenous students (Shahand Widin, 2010) for example, suggest that minority students are less likely tocomplete programmes of study, have lower retention rates and may take longer tograduate. A study by Grebennikov and Skaines (2008) in a large multi-campusuniversity in Australia suggested that such issues are associated with studentcharacteristics such as: a non-English speaking background, gender (male students)and low-socio-economic status. In the UK (Shiner and Modood, 2002), found that theattainment gap is due to the fact that ethnic minority students enter UK highereducation with lower entry qualifications, therefore requiring more support and oftentaking longer to complete.

Despite recent research which shows comparable academic outcomes betweentraditional and non-traditional students, the literature has historically reflected a viewthat enhancing the accessibility of an institution to disadvantaged students may bedamaging to its reputation and profile. Embedded within such a perspective seems tobe a tacit assumption that disadvantaged students will be underperforming studentsand that time spent on them by academics disadvantages higher performing students.Conversely, some scholars argue that academic rigour should advantage all students(Shah et al., 2011) and not limit educational access and opportunity for non-traditionalstudents, but that means of assisting students to achieve higher levels of learning needto be addressed simultaneously (Wasley et al., 1997). Crebert et al. (2004), argue thatacademic rigour and standards-based quality assurance must ensure that traditionaland non-traditional students are facilitated to engage in learning and develop genericskills such as critical thinking and self-directed learning as a priority during theirstudies. Such a standpoint is more consistent with an egalitarian approach toparticipation in higher education which we discuss in the next section.

Egalitarian views on social inclusion, widening participation and itsrelationship to academic standardsThe egalitarian view, informed by a social inclusion agenda in which capabilitydevelopment and opportunity and resource provision is central (Social Inclusion Board,2011) is that inequality of access and participation of any individual in highereducation is unacceptable in a democratic society. Central to such a view is the beliefthat the delimitation of opportunities for students because of previous educationattainment, disability, ethnic and cultural background, geographic location or

Equity andexcellence

303

socioeconomic status represents a denial of basic human rights. As is evident in theWidening Participation agenda in Australia, a range of measures – and resources –have been put in place to ensure that this is not the case as we move into the future(DEEWR, 2010).

Such an egalitarian standpoint and its attendant commitment to social change, canbe supported by a small but growing corpus of evidence internationally. In the USA,for example, a study undertaken by Griffin et al. (2010) with Afro-American males (agroup underrepresented in higher education), suggested that such students now havebetter academic records and greater confidence in their skills and abilities than theirpeers who entered college in earlier decades. Similarly, researchers have found thatfirst-generation students rely heavily on self-motivation, self-efficacy, and aninternalised locus of control to persist (Naumann et al., 2003); as noted however,studies documenting the successful achievement of such student cohorts are few.Grebennikov and Skaines (2008) findings in Australia suggest that despite poor gradesof a group of non-English speaking background students, they carry on with theirprogram even if they have academic difficulties, while traditional students with fewerdifficulties are more likely to withdraw. This, at least in part, confirms one finding ofMcKenzie and Schweitzer (2001, p. 29) who stated that “high academic achievement isnot necessarily related to retention and poor academic performance does not alwaysresult in attrition”. According to Richardson (2012), ethnicity is almost certainly not theeffective variable influencing student’s academic attainment; rather it is a proxy forother factors that have yet to be identified. A study by Fike et al. (2010) of theachievement of Hispanic students in a school of pharmacy suggested that such groupsof students are underrepresented in health care professions. Hayes (2008, p. 3) suggeststhat increased ethnic and cultural diversity in health professions is needed, noting that:

[. . .] evidence indicates that diversity is associated with improved access to care for racial andethnic parents, greater patient choice and satisfaction, better patient/providercommunication, and improved educational experiences for health professions students.

Edwards and Coates (2011) similarly contend that the major indicator of productivityof university education is the extent to which it can enable people from disadvantagedbackgrounds to successfully complete a university degree. They also argue that thetransformative power of university study is fully evidenced when people who startfrom behind are able to succeed at the highest level (p. 154). It has also been argued thateducation institutions need to reconsider the profile of academic staff suggesting thatteacher failure to acknowledge the values and beliefs held by disadvantaged studentsmay actually undermine their success in class (Harbour et al., 2003).

Various scholars have suggested that culturally diverse universities create richlyvaried educational experiences that help students learn and prepare them forparticipation in an increasingly diverse world (Astin, 1993; Bowen and Bok, 1998;Gurin et al., 2002). More recently, Wells et al. (2008) reported that the most importantoutcome of their diverse high school experience was being more accepting andcomfortable with diverse people, which in turn better prepared them for anincreasingly diverse workforce and society. Similarly, Chang (2001) argues that havinga diverse student body increases the chances that students will become more involvedin diversity-related activities and will socialize more often with diverse peers, which, inturn, will both have a positive impact on students’ development.

QAE21,3

304

Diversity, or lack of it, was highlighted in the now landmark Bradley, Noonan,Nugent and Scales, Review, (2008). Based on an analysis of the representational diversitywithin Australian universities the review suggested the need for inclusive policies toimprove and access and participation of disadvantaged subpopulations in highereducation (DEEWR, 2008). The review suggested that by providing access to higherlevels of learning to people from all background, social and economic disadvantage canbe addressed directly. The report also suggested that by engaging with scholars fromother countries and educating people from other countries, it helps create a nationconfident and engaged both with its geographic region and the wider community ofnations (DEEWR, 2008. p. 5). The egalitarian view of a social inclusion agenda in highereducation related to the internationalisation of higher education is that it: prepares globalcitizens; prepares graduates to be globally mobile; and delivers a net social and economicbenefit. More importantly, a social inclusion agenda in higher education ultimately hasthe potential to enhance our collective ability to tackle issues of global significancethrough an active valuing of diverse knowledge systems (Whiteford and Pereria, 2012).

Evidence of successGlobally, there is a growing corpus of evidence to suggest that social inclusion initiativesrelated to equity, access and participation of disadvantaged students have worked wellwithout compromising quality outcomes. In South Africa, for example, variouspreparatory programs have played a key role in improving access and success forstudents at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. The science foundation programme (SFP)was developed to assist disadvantaged Black students engaged in science studies attertiary level. The experience in South Africa suggest that 1,101 (or 71.8 per cent) studentswho completed the SFP programme enrolled into the tertiary study and went on to furtherstudy after graduation at postgraduate level (Downs, 2010). Another South Africanexample is a program developed at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, in whichdisadvantaged students were admitted to the university on alternative admissions projectwith flexible access, active support, and extra tutorial support, walk-in consulting rooms,better staff-student ratios, and extended degree programmes. Students admitted undersuch programs successfully completed their degree with the aid of tailored supports withequal exit standards on graduations compared to other students (Brink, 2008).

In the USA, a study by Whitla et al. (2003) with fourth year medical students inHarvard University and the University of California suggest that interaction with adiverse student body greatly enhanced their educational experiences in medical school.These students strongly supported maintaining or strengthening current affirmativeaction policies in admissions at their respective schools. Another study in the USAsuggested that black and Hispanic students benefit academically by the size ofminority enrolment, which demonstrates the role of racial and ethnic context inimproving academic performance of minority students (Hallinan, 1998). Most recently,a study by Denson and Bowman (2011) in Australia concluded that Australianuniversities are in a unique position to develop the next generation of citizens andleaders, and to understand the ways in which they can use the diversity of the studentpopulation as a strength. They suggest that institutions play a pivotal role in fosteringhigh-quality intercultural interactions amongst their students and high qualityengagement in diversity activities, which, in turn, will help prepare students for anincreasingly diverse global society (p. 13).

Equity andexcellence

305

Whilst representing a markedly different educational milieu, there have also beensuccesses reported in the UK. At Newcastle University, for example, students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds with lower school leaving results have been admitted intomedical school in the Partners Programme. A positive outcome was suggested by thefact that 92 per cent of the 2002-2004 cohorts of the partner’s alumni graduated with afirst or second class degree, comparing well with the overall average of 95 per cent for thesame three years (Brink, 2008). Similar successful outcomes have been reported at theKing’s College London where disadvantaged students are admitted with a school leavingresult of three C-grades and put through an extra year of study. Despite lower entry andslower start, study has shown pass rates are comparable to those of conventionalstudents (Garlick and Brown, 2008). Similar initiatives and outcomes were also found atthe Universities of Bradford and Leeds in the UK (Beedham et al., 2006).

ConclusionThe evidence presented in this paper from various contexts suggests that a socialinclusion agenda related to increasing the equity of access and participation ofdisadvantaged students does not have a negative impact on academic standards andoutcomes. However, such commitment to widening participation requires the active“buy in” of a number of stakeholders. First, there needs to be a fiscally supportivegovernment policy environment, such as has been seen in Australia with theintroduction of HEPPP funding, which supports outreach and transitional programsfor disadvantaged students entering higher education and the provision of wellcoordinated support services once they enrol. Second, schools, parents, teachers andcareer advisors all play a central role in both raising aspirations and ensuringadequacy of preparation for a demanding higher educational environment. Third,universities need to plan for, and commit to, resourcing targeted academic supportprograms alongside initiatives which enhance social connectedness and belongingwhich can be particularly challenging for first in family cohorts. There is also a needfor academic and support staff to recognise the growing diversity of students and theirchanging expectations about learning and engagement in higher education with theview that learning as a social and profound experience which transforms learners withfocus on excellence rather than success.

Such synergistic efforts between stakeholder groups do produce results. As we havediscussed in this article, there is a growing amount of practice and research-basedevidence that suggests that alternate entry opportunities for disadvantaged studentsinto the university does not result in lower graduate exit standards. There is alsostrong evidence that an orientation to social inclusion and the access and equityagenda is critical for any successful economy now and into the future. Further, theresearch also suggests that student diversity is important in preparing students for theglobal workforce that is increasingly characterised by diversity including diversity ofethnicity, language, religion, cultural values and belief systems. Accordingly,institutions of higher education need to plan for and actively support the developmentof environments in which all people can realise their potential and are provided withthe knowledge and skill sets they in turn will require in order to contribute to society.

Ultimately, increasing access and participation in higher education may beunderstood as not just a good thing to do for reasons of increased productivity,economic gain and cultural diversity, but rather as the right thing to do. In other words,

QAE21,3

306

the moral purpose of the academy has always been an essentially transformative one,and as we have argued in this article, ensuring that those with capacity and motivationcan participate in higher education whatever background they may come from – areable to do so and succeed.

References

(The) Age (2011), “Quality must not be sacrificed to quantity”, The Age, 2 March, p. 5.

Astin, A.W. (1993), What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Beedham, C., Diston, A., Cottrell, D. and Drew, C. (2006), “Widening participation in medicine: theBradford Leeds Partnership”, The Clinical Teacher, Vol. 3, pp. 158-162.

Bowen, W.G. and Bok, D. (1998), The Shape of the River: Long-term Consequences of ConsideringRace in College and University Admissions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Brink, C. (2008), “‘Standards will drop’ – and other fears about the quality agenda in highereducation”, paper presented at Keynote Address at 2008 Conference of the InstitutionalManagement in Higher Education (IMHE) Programme of the OECD in Paris.

Campus Review (2010), “From mass to universal higher education”, Campus Review, 19 July, p. 14.

Campus Review (2012), “Low ATARs will not hit standards say VCs”, Campus Review, 30 April.

Chang, M.J. (2001), “Is it more than about getting along? The broader educational relevance ofreducing students’ racial biases”, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 42,pp. 93-105.

(The) Chronicle (2010), “Obama: education is the economic issue of our time”, The Chronicle, 11August, p. 46.

Coaldrake, P. (2011), “A tricky balancing act”, The Australian, 18 May, p. 29.

Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C. and Cragnolini, V. (2004), “Developing generic skills atuniversity, during work placement and in employment: graduates’ perceptions”, HigherEducation Research and Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 147-165.

DBIS (2009), “Higher ambitions: the future of universities in a knowledge economy”, Departmentfor Business Innovation and Skills, available at: www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-ambitions

DEEWR (2008), Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report, Department of Education,Employment and Workplace Relations, available at: www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/PDF/Higher%20Education%20Review_one%20document_02.pdf

DEEWR (2009), Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System, Department of Education,Employment and Workplace Relations, available at: www.deewr.gov.au/highereducation/Pages/TransformingAustraliasHESystem.aspx

DEEWR (2010), Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, Department ofEducation, Employment and Workplace Relations, available at: www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Programs/Equity/Documents/AdministrativeInstructionsforProviders.pdf

Denson, N. and Bowman, N. (2011), “University diversity and preparation for a global society: therole of diversity in shaping intergroup attitudes and civic outcomes”, Studies in HigherEducation, May.

Equity andexcellence

307

Downs, C. (2010), “Increasing equity and compensating historically academically disadvantagedstudents at a tertiary level: benefits of a Science Foundation Programme as a way ofaccess”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 97-107.

Dynarski, S.M. (2002), “The consequences of merit aid”, NBER Working Paper No. W9400,National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Edwards, D. and Coates, H. (2011), “Monitoring the pathway and outcomes of people fromdisadvantaged backgrounds and graduate groups”, Higher Education ResearchDevelopment (HERDSA), Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 151-163.

Ethington, C.A. and Smart, J.C. (1986), “Persistence to graduate education”, Research in HigherEducation, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 287-303.

Fike, S.D., McCall, L.K., Raehl, L.C., Smith, R.Q. and Lockman, R.S. (2010), “Improvingeducational outcomes of Hispanic student in a professional degree program”, Equity andExcellence in Education, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 527-538.

Gardner, K.S. and Holley, A.K. (2011), “Those invisible barriers are real: the progression offirst-generation students through doctoral education”, Equity and Excellence in Education,Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 77-92.

Garlick, B.P. and Brown, G. (2008), “Widening participation in medicine”, British Medical Journal,Vol. 336, pp. 1111-1113.

Grebennikov, L. and Skaines, I. (2008), “University of Western Sydney students at risk: profileand opportunities for change”, Journal of Institutional Research, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 58-70.

Griffin, A.K., Jayakumar, M.U., Jones, M.M. and Allen, R.W. (2010), “Ebony in the Ivory Tower:examining trends in the socioeconomic status, achievement, and self-concept of black,male freshman”, Equity and Excellence in Education, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 232-248.

(The) Guardian (2010), “Just 1% of poorest students go to Oxbridge”, The Guardian, 5 August,p. 42.

Gurin, P., Dey, E.L., Hurtado, S. and Gurin, G. (2002), “Diversity and higher education: theory andimpact on educational outcomes”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 72, pp. 330-366.

Hallinan, M.T. (1998), “Diversity effects on student outcomes: social science evidence”, Ohio StateLaw Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 733-754.

Harbour, P.C., Middleton, V., Lewis, C. and Anderson, K.S. (2003), “Naming the other: howdominant culture privilege and assimilation affect selected underrepresented populationsat the community college”, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 27,pp. 829-842.

Hare, J. (2012), “Rush for more a threat to quality”, The Australian, 7 March, p. 31.

Hayes, B. (2008), “Increasing the representation of underrepresented minority groups in UScolleges and schools of pharmacy”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 72No. 1, pp. 1-4.

Hoffer, T.B., Sederstrom, S., Selfa, L., Welch, V., Hess, M., Brown, S. and Guzman-Barron, I.(2003), Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2002,National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, IL.

Hofman, A. and Van Den Berg, M. (2003), “Ethnic-specific achievement in Dutch highereducation”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 371-389.

Hossler, D., Braxton, J. and Coopersmith, G. (1989), “Understanding student college choice”,Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 5, pp. 231-288.

James, R., Krause, L.K. and Jennings, C. (2010), The First Year Experience in AustralianUniversities: Findings from 1994 to 2009, available at: www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/experience/docs/FYE_Report_1994_to_2009.pdf

QAE21,3

308

Keohane, O.N. (2006), Higher Ground: Ethics and Leadership in a Modern University, DukeUniversity Press, Durham, NC.

Kosut, M. (2006), “Professorial capital: blue-collar reflections on class, culture, and the academy”,Cultural Studies-Critical Methodologies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 245-262.

Liu, W.M., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K. and Pickett, T. (2004), “A new framework tounderstand social class in counseling: the social class worldview model and modernclassism”, Journal of Multicultural Counselling and Development, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 95-122.

McKenzie, K. and Schweitzer, R. (2001), “Who succeeds at University? Factors predictingacademic performance in first year Australian university students”, Higher EducationResearch and Development, Vol. 20, pp. 21-32.

Marable, M. (2003), The Great Wells of Democracy: The Meaning of Race in American Life,BasicCivitas Books, Cambridge, MA.

Mason, B. (2012), “Quality must not be sacrificed to quantity”, The Australian, 22 February.

Ministry of Education (2010), “Tertiary education strategy 2010-2015”, available at: www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/TertiaryEducation/PolicyAndStrategy/TertiaryEducationStrategy.aspx

Mullen, A.L., Goyette, K.A. and Soares, J.A. (2003), “Who goes to graduate school? Social andacademic correlates of educational continuation after college”, Sociology of Education,Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 143-169.

Naumann, W.C., Bandalos, D. and Gutkin, T.B. (2003), “Identifying variables that predict collegesuccess for first-generation college students”, The Journal of College Admission, Vol. 181,pp. 4-9.

Orfield, G. and Eaton, S.E. (1996), “Dismantling desegregation”, The Quiet Reversal of Brown v.Board of Education, The New Press, New York, NY.

Perna, L.W. (2006), “Studying college access and choice: a proposed conceptual model”, in Smart,J.C. (Ed.), Higher Education Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XXI, Springer,Amsterdam, pp. 99-157.

Perna, L.W. and Titus, M.A. (2004), “Understanding differences in the choice of college attended”,The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 501-525.

Richardson, E.T.J. (2012), “The attainment of White and ethic minority students in distanceeducation”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 393-408.

Shah, M. and Nair, C.S. (2013), “Private for-profit higher education in Australia: widening accessand participation and opportunities for public-private collaboration”, Higher EducationResearch and Development Society (HERDSA), Forthcoming.

Shah, M. and Widin, J. (2010), “Indigenous students’ voices: monitoring indigenous studentsatisfaction and retention in a large Australian University”, Journal of InstitutionalResearch, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 28-41.

Shah, M., Lewis, I. and Fitzgerald, R. (2011), “The renewal of quality assurance in Australianhigher education: the challenge of balancing academic rigor, equity and quality outcomes”,Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 265-278.

Shiner, M. and Modood, T. (2002), “Help or hindrance? Higher education and the route to ethnicequality”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 209-232.

Social Inclusion Board (2011), available at: www.socialinclusion.gov.au/

Swail, W.S., Redd, K.E. and Perna, L.W. (2003), “Retaining minority students in highereducation”, AHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1-187.

Equity andexcellence

309

Trotter, E. and Roberts, A.C. (2006), “Enhancing the early student experience”, Higher EducationResearch and Development, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 371-386.

Trounson, A. (2012a), “Failed students could hold universities liable under new consumer laws”,The Australian, 14 March, p. 35.

Trounson, A. (2012b), “Low entry scores a quality risk”, The Australian, 7 March, p. 32.

Trounson, A. and Hare, J. (2011), “Minister Chris Evans warns universities ahead of uncapping”,The Australian, 2 March.

Wasley, P., Hampel, R. and Clark, R. (1997), Kids and School Reform, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,CA.

Wells, A., Duran, J. and White, T. (2008), “Refusing to leave desegregation behind: fromgraduates of racially diverse schools to the Supreme Court”, Teachers College Record,Vol. 110, pp. 2532-2570.

Whiteford, G. and Pereira, R. (2012), “Society, inclusion and participation”, in Whiteford, G. andHocking, C. (Eds), Occupational Science: Inclusion, Participation and Society, Wiley,Oxford.

Whitla, K.D., Orfield, G., Silen, W., Teperow, C. and Reede, J. (2003), “Educational benefits ofdiversity in medical school: a survey of students”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 78 No. 5,pp. 460-466.

Corresponding authorMahsood Shah can be contacted at: shah_mahsood@hotmail.com

QAE21,3

310

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints