A half-open door: pathways for VET award holders into Australian universities

Effective pathways from vocational education and training (VET) to higher education increase access both to higher qualifications and lifetime earnings for people holding VET awards. However, there is substantial variation in the proportion of students admitted to different higher education institutions on the basis of a VET award. This paper investigates the extent to which these differences are the product of factors associated with specific fields of study or the result of varying institutional policies and practices.

The authors use cluster analysis to identify three groups (clusters) of institutions with similar patterns of admission of VET award holders across most fields of education. The universities in Cluster 1 admit relatively high proportions of VET award holders in all fields of education. Cluster 2 contains universities where the rate of admission of VET award holders is more haphazard between fields of study but is close to the national average overall. The universities in Cluster 3 admit VET award holders at rates consistently below the national average for nearly every field of study. Not surprisingly, the Group of Eight Universities sits within Cluster 3, probably a consequence of their status and the high level of competition for places from school leavers.

Key messages

University policies and practices appear to influence the rate at which institutions admit students on the basis of a VET award. While all Australian universities have policies to promote VET to higher education pathways, there are subtle differences between universities in the way these policies are implemented.
Inconsistencies in the policies and practices of universities mean that access for VET award holders will differ and depend on the university to which they apply. Consequently, this may restrict the access of VET award holders to higher education in some regions.
The authors argue, on the basis of the wide variation in admission rates across universities, that their analysis dispels the view that some fields of study 'lend themselves' more to VET to higher education pathways than others.

Rod Camm
Managing Director, NCVER

Australia has a national policy framework to promote student pathways from vocational to higher education. Under the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) pathways policy, institutions in both sectors are expected to have 'clear, accessible and transparent policies and processes to provide qualifications pathways and credit arrangements for students' (Australian Qualifications Framework Council 2011, p.66). To be eligible under the FEE-HELP student loans scheme, vocational education and training (VET) courses at the diploma level or above must have at least one approved credit transfer arrangement to a bachelor degree with a higher education provider (Australian Government 2011).

But the effectiveness of a VET to higher education pathway cannot be assured through credit transfer arrangements alone. Some of the most generous credit transfer arrangements can be so poorly conceived that they may compound the disadvantage faced by students admitted to university on the basis of a VET award (Harris, Rainey & Sumner 2005; Watson 2006). A commitment by institutions in both sectors to create viable VET to higher education pathways and to support students on these pathways at critical transition points remains a key factor in supporting the successful transition into university by VET graduates. However, in the view of Walls and Pardy (2010), the institutional arrangements put in place by providers to create and support VET to higher education pathways are highly variable: 'the formal structuring of articulation between VET and higher education occurs on a spectrum ranging from well-organised to haphazard' (Walls & Pardy 2010, p.25).

While the proportion of students admitted to higher education on the basis of a VET award nationally is now around 10%, there is considerable variation in the rates of admission between higher education institutions. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which these differences were the product of the discipline mix of each university (that is, factors related to the field of study) or the result of institutional policies and practices (that is, factors related to the university), while acknowledging that the latter may or may not be the product of explicit decisions by universities based on their perceived 'competitive position'.

The first section of this report presents data on the distribution of VET award holders between universities and jurisdictions in Australia, the characteristics of VET award holders in higher education, and variations between fields of education.

In the second section of the report, the authors use cluster analysis to investigate differences between universities and fields of education. The analysis is conducted in three parts. First, clusters of institutions are identified; second, the fields of education are clustered to identify patterns of admissions within them; and, finally, each university is profiled by their institutional and broad fields of education cluster.

The third section explores the admission rates of VET award holders by field of education (FOE) and the interaction between the institutional factors and fields of education revealed in the cluster analysis, drawing on the findings of a detailed analysis of four broad fields of education (given in the support document).

The final section examines institutional policies and practices in regard to VET to higher education pathways, with the aim of understanding differences between the practices of universities in each cluster and how these may influence the admission rates of students on the basis of a VET award.

Findings

This study, which explores patterns of admission of VET award holders into 37 publicly funded Australian universities by institution and field of education, uses administrative data from the VET and higher education sectors.¹

The cluster analysis that examined differences in the proportion of VET award holders admitted to each university within the 12 broad fields of education enabled the authors to identify three groups (clusters) of institutions with similar patterns of admission of VET award holders across most fields of education.

The seven universities in Cluster 1 admit relatively high proportions of VET award holders in all fields of education, with an average rate of 19% overall. These universities enrol 24% of all undergraduate commencing students.

Cluster 2 contains 16 universities where the rate of admission of VET award holders is more haphazard between fields of study but is close to the national average overall (10%). While some universities in this cluster admit relatively high proportions of VET award holders in particular fields of education, unlike the universities in Cluster 1 the rates are not consistently high across all fields. Universities in Cluster 2 account for 38% of commencing undergraduate enrolments.

The 14 universities in Cluster 3 admit VET award holders at rates consistently below the national average for every field of study, with a few exceptions in specific fields.² Overall, the average rate of admission of VET award holders for Cluster 3 universities is 3%. Cluster 3 universities' share of the undergraduate commencing student load is 38%.

Australia's five dual-sector universities are distributed between Clusters 1 and Cluster 2, which dispels the common assumption that VET to higher education pathways are the 'business' of dual rather than single-sector universities.

The findings suggest that variations in the rate of admission of students on the basis of a VET award between fields of education are related to the policies and practices of universities, rather than to any characteristics specific to the field of education. Questioning the assumption that some fields of education 'lend themselves' more to VET to higher education pathways than others, the authors point out that the admission rates of VET award holders by Cluster 3 universities are consistently low across all fields of education, with only a few exceptions. They also note that in fields where Cluster 3 institutions are the dominant providers, the national admission rate of VET award holders is lowest, whereas in fields where Cluster 3 institutions have the lowest enrolment share, the national admission rate of VET award holders is highest.

From a review of institutional policies and practices, the authors conclude that, while all universities have policies to promote VET to higher education pathways, there are subtle differences in the way by which universities implement their pathways policies. Universities in Cluster 1, for example, have a central coordinating unit responsible for promoting the pathways policy that reports directly to a high-level central administrator such as a Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Cluster 1 institutions are also morelikely to have administrative structures in place to support VET to higher education pathways at the faculty level as well as lines of reporting that hold faculties to account for their admission and progression rates of VET award holders. While some universities in Clusters 2 and 3 also reported having a central person or office responsible for pathways, VET partnerships, or articulation agreements, the management and reporting relationships in these universities were not as clearly defined as for universities in Cluster 1. Strong central leadership and accountable line management, as well as close monitoring of student admission and progression rates, appear to be key features of institutional practice in universities which are successful in admitting high numbers of VET award holders across all fields of study.

The authors suggest that the low rates of admission of VET award holders in Cluster 3 universities should be a policy concern for several reasons.

First, as VET award holders' likelihood of gaining admission to higher education appears to be influenced by the policies and practices of individual universities, access to undergraduate programs for VET award holders is not equal across the higher education system. Thus VET award holders seeking admission to higher education within a given field of study will experience different levels of access, depending on the university to which they apply. As a VET award-holder's choice of universities will be determined by where he or she lives and works, VET to higher education pathways are not available to all potential applicants on the same basis, thus constraining the access of some VET award holders to higher education.

Second, the financial burden of supporting VET award holders admitted to higher education falls more heavily on some universities than others. One-third of universities provide two-thirds of the VET to higher education pathways, with 68% of VET award holders shared amongst only 12 Australian universities. The seven universities in Cluster 1 account for less than one-quarter (23%) of all undergraduate commencing students, yet enrol almost half (46%) of all students admitted on the basis of a VET award. As the creation of strong VET to higher education pathways and the provision of additional support — both pastoral and academic — to VET award holders during their first year of study consumes scarce university resources, the universities in Cluster 1 currently bear a disproportionate share of the cost of building and delivering VET to higher education pathways in Australia.

Finally, the low rates of admission of VET award holders in Cluster 3 universities could be exacerbating national skills shortages in occupations where these universities are the dominant providers. In the field of engineering, for example, the 14 universities in Cluster 3 account for well
over half of all undergraduate commencements; yet, these institutions admit only 3.3% of students on the basis of a VET award. In contrast, the Cluster 1 universities, which enrol one-fifth of all undergraduate commencing students in engineering, admit over 17% on the basis of a VET award and universities in Cluster 2 (which account for one-quarter of all engineering undergraduate commencements) admit over 10% of engineering students on the basis of a VET award. To the extent that the creation of strong VET to higher education pathways serves to increase the output of higher education graduates, the high enrolment share of Cluster 3 universities in fields experiencing national skills shortages, such as engineering, should be of concern to governments, industry and employers.

________________________________________________________

1 The authors used the NCVER Student Outcomes Survey and Commonwealth data on admission rates for commencing undergraduates in the 12 broad fields of education (FOEs) identified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in its Australian Standard Classification of Education (ASCED) 2001.

2 These exceptions include Monash University's education degree (FOE 7) where 24% of undergraduate commencements are admitted on the basis of a VET award and the University of Southern Queensland's engineering program (FOE 3) where 14% of commencing students are VET award holders — rates that are significantly higher than the national average rate for these fields.