On delayed gratification
Maybe it's time to raise some ethical questions about university admissions
You could almost set your watch by the timing of the abolish-the-ATAR articles. For an explainer of this university entry measure, you can check out this post. But it’s basically Australia’s converted SAT-style measure, which ranks students for the purpose of university admissions. A couple of days ago, ATARs were released to students and like the rising of the sun, we see a range of vested interests speaking out against its efficacy.
Sometimes these people include education consultants who profit from offering shiny new things that ostensibly add value to education - a far easier ‘sell’ than improving outcomes. Sometimes they include public education advocates who grossly underestimate the power of money to bolster ‘learner profiles’ and non-standardised achievement-based applications, moves that would entrench educational disadvantage. But today it’s Verity Firth, Executive Director, Social Justice at University of Technology, Sydney, who writes here about the emphasis on ATAR.
Her argument is interesting. She cites a correlation between ATAR and SES, but this is so obvious that it confuses her argument. To me, it suggests that bright parents work in high paying roles and have reasonably bright children, who then go on to work in high paying roles after completing rigorous university courses (possibly then having bright children etc etc). But ATAR is designed to scoop up bright children and it is a predictor of academic success, which usually leads to financial success. In other words, ATAR is doing its job. I’m not sure why we wouldn’t want capable people in our top university courses and I’m also not sure that getting rid of ATAR would reduce societal disparity beyond that already offered by alternative pathways.
On one hand she says the emphasis on ATAR is destructive, but then goes on to explain how the academic barriers are largely a myth, with a multitude of alternative entry options already available. In theory, this mechanism helps universities to scoop up students who may have underperformed in the HSC for whatever reason. Many students and teachers already know this. In the area where I work, students can gain access to a credit system that reduces the required ATAR by being considered regional students and living very close to their urban choice of university, essentially double dipping. Behind the scenes, the universities themselves are already well on the way to dismantling ATAR.
To me, the vested interest is obvious. Freddie De Boer writes about the ways that ditching academic entry would be a money maker in the US. In Australia, the Commonwealth contributes eye-watering amounts per student to higher education, and student debt is an unregulated form of credit. It would be unthinkable for a bank to provide a 17 year old these levels of credit, and yet removing the financial and academic bar to study for many who might be ill-equipped to finish courses, is not questioned often enough. Often, these degrees don’t lead to high paying jobs that can sustain 10 or so years of debt, potentially compounding intergenerational disadvantage.
I’ve heard and acknowledge the cases for early entry. Some students have significant anxiety issues and having an early offer takes the pressure off. But wouldn’t a diagnosed disabling condition be covered under alternative entry? Likewise any form of disadvantage? As Firth says, these alternatives already exist. I take a more cynical view of the motives for ditching the ATAR, the bottomless pit of income for universities being the first.
My brain sometimes space-jumps when considering how to pull the world of education together for this newsletter. And when thinking about early entry and the competition for students, the famous marshmallow experiment came into my head. I thought of the way that early entry is a form of instant gratification for students. I wonder how many receive that offer and become emotionally invested in that university. I also wonder whether the relief of the offer reduces the habits of striving needed to secure a better offer, ultimately killing that possibility. Consider this benefit of instant gratification:
By seeking the immediate relief that comes with avoidance, a person is succumbing to the pull of instant gratification over the larger reward from overcoming the fear and anxiety that caused the avoidance.
Are universities playing on student anxiety and avoidance in order to gain ‘early entry’ to their fees and funding? And what of status quo bias? How many students pull out of the achievement game altogether, knowing that every child wins a prize?
I was the beneficiary of alternative entry when I decided to retrain. By that time, I had about $30K of debt resulting from poor course decisions in my youth. I was the first in my family to attend university and my parents had no idea how to advise me. It took about 20 years for me to repay this debt. I’m not blaming universities for this, but I do often wonder what would have happened if student debt was regulated like the credit industry. It’s time to ask, who wins?