Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations
Pre-budget Submission
February 2016
Compiled with the assistance of the staff and office bearers
of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA)
and its affiliated member organisations.
Prepared by Vikraman Selvaraja from CAPA
Level 1, 120 Clarendon Street, Southbank, VIC, 3006
(03) 9254 1910 or 0431 280 817
www.capa.edu.au
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
4
Managing the Innovation Landscape
6
1) Improving access and developing
innovative capacity
7
2) Supporting research training and HDR
candidates
10
3) Ensuring the quality of teaching and
learning
15
Appendix
18
3
Executive Summary
The Australian higher education sector’s contribution to the economy and the long-term sustainability
of the expenditure needs of the nation are widely accepted in industry and government. The two biggest
contributions made by the higher education sector are;
a) The development of human capital as expressed by increasing overall skill levels of the
working age population by teaching and learning activities for coursework students
b) Creating new knowledge and innovative ideas ranging from fundamental sciences and
humanities to applied solutions for industry, performed by research postgraduate students
and academic staff
These two contributions are the absolute fundamental drivers of economic growth in economies at the
technology frontier, as Australia is, along with other high income, high Human Development Index
nations.
Postgraduate education, i.e. the development of higher levels of human capital among the working age
population is highly valued by the labour market with people possessing a postgraduate qualification
having significantly lower unemployment rates (81.1% looking for full time work six months after
graduation were successful compared to only 68.1% of bachelors degree graduates)1. People entering
the labour market with postgraduate qualifications also receive a dramatic wage premium on average
of ~25% depending on the industry over bachelors degree graduates1. These higher wages return to
federal and state budgets in the form of higher income and payroll tax receipts.
The volume and quality of the higher education sector’s research output ranks in the top ten OECD
countries2. This research output is produced by the second lowest public expenditures on higher
education in the OECD3 at a mere 0.7% of GDP. Research students contribute to the majority of
Australia’s research output in human resource terms at 57%. 4 Expanding support for research students
will benefit Australia through higher human capital formation and greater R&D capabilities within the
higher education sector.
1
Graduate Careers Australia, 2014, Postgraduate Destinations
2
Office of the Chief Economist, 2015, Australian Innovation System Report 2015 Tables.
3
OECD Indicators, 2015, Education at a Glance
4
Australian Government Department of Industry and Science, 2014, Australian Key Innovation Indicators Data
Card
4
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA), is the peak body representing the
interests of Australia’s 376,055 postgraduate students, with over 67,000 undertaking research degrees
and over 308,000 pursuing coursework or combined research programs5. Founded in 1979, CAPA is
a membership based non-profit organisation, our members include over thirty postgraduate
associations, and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Postgraduate Association
(NATSIPA). CAPA carries out its mission through policy, research and activism, communicating the
interests and issues of postgraduate students to the federal and state governments, major and minor
political parties and universities. CAPA is Australia’s longest continuously running student peak body
and has been in operation since 1979.
CAPA has identified three priority areas to inform the formation of the 2016-17 Federal Budget, where
funding will ensure continued strong growth of the Higher Education Sector as well as Australian
research.
Recommendations
1. Extending income support through the Youth Allowance, Austudy and
Abstudy programs to all domestic students regardless of course of
study costing 186 million dollars over 4 years
2. Supporting Higher Degree by Research (HDR) candidates to
successful completion and transition to the labour force with the
stability and security to innovate at a cost of 100 million dollars over 4
years
3. Ensuring that a fair level of income derived by universities from
teaching activities is spent on teaching and learning
5
Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2014, Student Data (All Students)
5
Managing the Innovation landscape
The end of the decade long terms of trade boom driven by anomalously high prices for
Australian mineral exports has put the Commonwealth and state budgets into recurring deficits
and has lowered the growth outlook for the Australian economy. Wages and productivity are
also in a period of weak growth. Boosting wages and productivity in the long term for
economies at the technology frontier like Australia requires a sustained focus on innovation,
research and development which will act to counteract the demographic and environmental
threats facing the Australian economy in the next 30 years. However, investment cycles in
these areas are necessarily focused on time horizons much longer than the electoral cycle
and as such require foresight and a sense of strategic priorities in fiscal decisions.
Universities are the site of most of the original and ground breaking fundamental research that
occurs in Australia. They respond readily to incentives set by the Commonwealth but are
naturally conservative institutions. As such, driving a focus on high quality innovation, research
and development within the higher education sector requires focusing on micro rules and
incentives. Careful policy making in the sector can drive sustained increases in output both in
terms of knowledge and human capital. However, short sighted decision making by policy
makers can result in split incentives and drive poor choices by university administrators.
The new focus placed by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on improving innovation
outcomes must be used as an opportunity to install incentives and rules to enable universities
to generate better outcomes. There a currently significant failings in the sector which create
barriers for the vast majority of Australians to access higher education and damage the
progress of ground breaking research conducted by postgraduate students. We believe the
following issues are significant and need to be addressed:




income security,
access to Commonwealth support,
quality of teaching and learning, and
the education to workforce transition for highly skilled research students.
6
1. Improving access and developing innovative capacity
The current system of income support for students engaging in a postgraduate degree is
deeply unsatisfactory6. The lack of income support is one of the main reasons that the
proportion of Australians who hold a postgraduate qualification is one of the lowest (25th out
of 31) in the OECD7.
Postgraduate Qualification % (25-64 year olds)
25
20
15
10
5
Chile
Turkey
Greece
New Zealand
Australia
Ireland
Canada
United Kingdom
France
Hungary
Norway
Denmark
United States
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
Israel
Sweden
Iceland
Italy
Spain
Finland
Slovenia
Belgium
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Switzerland
Estonia
Poland
Luxembourg
0
Masters CW
HDR
Figure 1: Proportion of 25 to 64 year olds in selected OECD nations who have postgraduate
qualifications, drawn from the Education at a Glance, 2015 report by the OECD. Masters Coursework
(CW) in blue and Higher Degree by Research (HDR) in red. Data included in Appendix 1
6
This has been detailed in multiple reports to the government in the last 8 years including the
University Student Finances 2012 report commissioned by Universities Australia, the Review of
Australian Higher Education by Prof. Denise Bradley and The Changing PhD report by The Group of
Eight.
7
OECD Indicators, 2015, Education at a Glance
7
Australia has a comparatively low level of people who have achieved Masters by coursework
programs. It is well accepted in the educational and economic literature that the primary barrier
to further education for most students in Australia is the lack of income support8. Less than
17% of postgraduate coursework students in Australia receive Youth Allowance, Austudy or
Abstudy, compared to close to 40% of undergraduate students. One of the reasons that so
few postgraduate coursework students are able to receive income support is that only very
few masters by coursework programs are considered a valid enrolment for the purposes of
applying for Commonwealth income support. This acts as a severe disincentive to enrolling in
a postgraduate coursework degree, despite the obvious labour market benefits9 to the
individual, and the benefits to the community of higher net human capital. This low participation
rate in postgraduate education also results in innovation and the long term sustainability of
our productivity as a society being negatively impacted10.
Additionally, the impact of this lack of income support for students is felt very acutely on the
students. The most appalling of these impacts is that 25.2% of postgraduate coursework
students go without food or basic necessities on a regular basis due to finances11. These
numbers present a shocking trend within students of the higher education sector particularly
for older students that do not receive income support. This has deeply negative effects on the
mental health of postgraduate coursework students, who report mental health problems far
above the level in the rest of the community12
With 78.6% of fulltime postgraduate coursework students employed it is of major concern both
to the individual students and to the community as a whole that one quarter of them miss
classes due to work scheduling conflicts and over half believe that work adversely affects their
study13. This reduces the quality of teaching and learning activities they receive thus reducing
8
Universities Australia, 2013, University student finances in 2012
9
Graduate Careers Australia, 2014, Postgraduate Destinations
10
Ian Watt AO, 2015, Review of Research Policy and Funding Arrangements to the Australian
Government
11
Universities Australia, 2013, University student finances in 2012
12
Helen M. Stallman, 2010, Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general
population data in Australian Psychologist Vol. 45, Issue 4
13
Universities Australia, 2013, University student finances in 2012
8
the overall value of the educational program. It also tends to blow out completion times14 for
postgraduate qualifications preventing students from receiving recognition and the
commensurate higher incomes from their greater levels of human capital, which is a net loss
for the entire economy.
The Bradley review15 recommended that income support should be extended to all
postgraduate Masters Students regardless of their course. It was estimated in 2008 that this
will come at a cost of $186 million over 4 years however the resulting increase in completion
rates and overall enrolments will result in higher wages and a more productive labour force in
the long term, addressing the need for a sustainable basis for future prosperity.
Recommendation 1: Extend the eligibility of income support to all
students studying a masters degree by coursework
Budget expenditure estimate: $186 million over 4 years
Key supporting reasons:
1) Postgraduate students generate innovation both through their direct research and also
via increasing their human capital and taking those skills into different sectors of the
economy. Australia ranks very low in the proportion of adults possessing postgraduate
qualifications. Availability of income support payments incentivise this increase in human
capital to fuel innovation.
2) Improves educational outcomes for existing postgraduate students by allowing them
focus primarily on their education instead of working full time to support themselves.
3) Improves mental health for postgraduate students by providing them with a stable base
level of income such that they are not put in stressful situations due to lack of income
security.
14
Universities Australia, 2013, University student finances in 2012
15
Denise Bradley, 2008, Review of the Australian Higher Education: Final Report to the Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
9
2. Supporting research training and HDR candidates
In the national innovation and science agenda unveiled by the Prime Minister in December
2015, the government announced that in response to the recommendations made by the Watt
Review16, significant changes will be made to the funding mechanism for research undertaken
in higher education institutions. The new arrangements will replace the existing six research
block grants with two streamlined programmes. The Research Support Programme (RSP) will
provide around $885 million in 2017 to Australian universities as a flexible funding stream to
support the systemic costs of research and the Research Training Programme (RTP) will
provide around $948 million in 2017 to support the training of the next generation of
researchers and innovators. We are heartened by the government’s support of research
training and the commitment to restore a small portion of the cuts made in previous budgets
to indirect research funding.
We believe however, that the Watt review took a very short sighted view of the indirect costs
of research funding and urge the government to restore the commitment to funding 50c in the
dollar for indirect research costs. As these costs are currently opaque at many institutions, we
currently refrain from making a specific budgetary request on the public purse but call on the
government to ensure that universities make their financial arrangements open and
transparent, such that these costs can be calculated with accuracy. Many of the indirect
research costs in a review done by Allen Consulting17 are directly linked to the training of the
next generation of high quality researchers. The report found that up to 80% of the time spent
by academics on their research was actually spent on research training and supervision18.
These are very valuable activities and if the government intends to commit seriously to
improving the quality and outcomes for HDR candidates so as to grow the innovation
ecosystem, supporting the indirect costs of research is crucial.
16
Ian Watt AO, 2015, Review of Research Policy and Funding Arrangements to the Australian
Government
17
Allen Consulting Group, 2009, The indirect costs associated with university research funded
through Australian Competitive Grants to the Australian Government Department of Innovation,
Industry, Science and Research
18
Denise Bradley, 2008, Review of the Australian Higher Education: Final Report to the Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
10
We are concerned though, that the commitment to hand over administration and minimum
standards in scholarships for HDR candidates to universities to set as recommended in the
Watt review for the Research Training Programme (formerly the APA and IPRS programmes),
could lead to a significant reduction in the living standards, security and stability of HDR
candidates. Research has shown that HDR candidates are on average much older (on
average about 35 years old) and much more likely to have dependents (more than 45% report
having dependents to care for) than the average student population19. The average full time
HDR candidate reports working on their research at least 40 hours a week20, beyond the
Australian community’s expectation that a full time work week is 38 hours of work. It is
reasonable that the minimum wage should be available for those working full time hours. The
minimum wage represents generally understood community and government standards of
fiscal sustainability and is important to individual welfare.
It is possible to envision that in the environment of competing university resource needs, the
ability for academic and professional staff to unionise and bargain effectively with the
university administration may protect their wages and conditions. However, HDR candidates,
despite contributing the majority of the workforce hours in research at higher education
institutions lack such bargaining powers and as such are in a position of weakness to contest
what their minimum scholarship income and conditions may be. As such it is incumbent on
the Commonwealth to protect HDR candidates from short sighted decision making by
university administrators and mandate minimum standards of income and conditions for HDR
students in receipt of a scholarship.
We believe that the income level should be, at the very least, linked to the minimum wage
determination made by the Fair Work Commission after tax, an amount that would be
equivalent to 598$/per week in 2016. This would allow HDR candidates and their families to
live with the stability and security that the Australian community expects for people in full time
work and encourage the timely completion of their HDR program. Currently, less than 60% of
those who enrol in a HDR program complete it within 5 years21 and the main reason specified
19
Universities Australia, 2013, University student finances in 2012
20
Ibid
21
Group of Eight, 2013, The Changing PhD
11
for lack of timely completions by candidates of HDR programs is financial insecurity22. Even
improving this rate marginally would pay significant dividends to both the individual pursuing
the program and the community by allowing the individuals recognised qualification to be
utilised effectively in the labour market. It would also allow HDR candidates to build sufficient
financial capacity to engage in unpaid innovative activities (e.g. startups and collaborative
research) outside of their research workload and immediately after the completion of their
candidature.
We also consider that the Watt Review recommended to the government that funding of $12.5
million per annum be provided to create a small programme to support universities to increase
numbers of industry placements for PhD students. The programme should commence in 2017
and the Department of Education and Training should develop the details of the new
programme arrangements in consultation with the university and business sectors. We believe
that this program answers the need that many HDR candidates have expressed to take their
skills and apply them to innovative problem solving for various sectors of the economy. In
addition, the evidence provided by iPreP program in Western Australia, which already
simulates on a smaller scale a program similar to this recommendation23. However, CAPA
believes that the skills developed by HDR candidates and their innovative talent should not be
limited only to business but also be open to be accessed by non-profits and government
departments and agencies as the productivity improvements required to sustain Australia’s
economic growth need to come from all sectors of the economy and not just businesses. As
such the program mandate will need to be broadened from the recommendation in the Watt
Review to achieve those systemic benefits of placing highly skilled researchers and innovators
into the broadest cross-section of the economy as possible.
The final piece of the innovation puzzle that the Prime Minister has suggested needs further
attention comes from the commitment in the innovation statement to enhance the visa system
to attract the best and brightest entrepreneurial talent and skills to Australia by delivering
pathways to permanent residency for postgraduate research graduates with science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and information and communications
technology (ICT) qualifications. It was suggested that Australian doctorate-level and masters
22
Universities Australia, 2013, University student finances in 2012
23
Ian Watt AO, 2015, Review of Research Policy and Funding Arrangements to the Australian
Government
12
by research qualifications in STEM and specified ICT or related fields will be awarded extra
points under the points tested skilled migration programme to strengthen their pathway to
permanent residence. We believe that this is a very worthwhile commitment which will greatly
expand the pool of innovative research talent in the Australian community.
However, in the environment of global competition for highly skilled and mobile intellectual
talent, we believe that the scheme would be far more effective if it is constructed to be more
certain, in a manner similar to the existing Canadian program24 and the program that the
Obama administration has introduced by executive action in the USA25 which guarantees PhD
graduates from Canada and US universities respectively permanent residency upon
completion of their program. In Canada, which has a comparable number of international
students in their HDR system to Australia, roughly 10,000 of these visas are issued every
year26, or less than the number of people who permanently settle in Australia every fortnight27.
We believe this scheme should be replicated in Australia and extended to include all HDR
candidates regardless of field of study due to the complex and interdisciplinary nature of most
modern research making it very difficult to separate different types of research conducted. The
Australian community, through taxpayer support to higher education institutions and
competitive research funding already subsidises the research training received by HDR
candidates, thus their departure from Australia after completing their qualifications is a
massive loss to the community in terms of their investment in the person. As such, this
measure would be hugely beneficial to the Australian community by ensuring that high quality
junior researchers from all over the world who complete their HDR program in Australia would
24
Ontario Immigration Nomination Program, Human Capital, retrieved from
http://www.ontarioimmigration.ca/en/pnp/OI_PNPSTUDENTS_PHD.html on the 20/01/2016
The President’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions & Their Impact on Asian American
Immigrant Communities, 2014, retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/12/16/fact-sheet-president-s-immigration-accountability-executive-actions-thei on the
20/01/2016
25
26
Ontario Immigration Nomination Program, Human Capital, retrieved from
http://www.ontarioimmigration.ca/en/pnp/OI_PNPSTUDENTS_PHD.html on the 20/01/2016
27
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Migration Programme Statistics, retrieved from
https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/live-inaustralia/migration-programme on 1/02/2016
13
be more likely to remain in Australia due to the security and stability provided by permanent
residency and thus more likely to contribute to our national innovation effort.
Recommendation 2: Supporting Higher Degree by Research (HDR)
candidates to successful completion and transition to the labour force
with the stability and security to innovate by:
Budget expenditure/savings/allocation: $100 million over 4 years
1) Committing to funding indirect costs of research at higher education institutions to 50c in
the dollar in line with previous recommendations to the government
2) Mandating that a minimum level of income through the scholarship program linked to the
minimum wage after tax be paid by universities to HDR candidates in receipt of a
scholarship
3) A substantial program of encouraging internships and placements, subsidised by the
commonwealth, for HDR candidates in businesses, non-profit and community
organisations, and government agencies and departments
4) A guarantee of permanent residency in Australia for any HDR candidate who wishes to
upon the successful completion of their program
14
3. Ensuring the quality of teaching and learning
To ensure that Australia’s higher education system is continuing to serve the needs of the
nation, it is critically important to ensure that the high quality of teaching and learning provided
to postgraduate coursework students is maintained. As discussed earlier, the two crucial
purposes of the higher education system is to generate human capital in terms of a highly
skilled workforce and to generate new knowledge. At the modern Australian university
however, it is the case that the two purposes can and do come into conflict. Inadequate
resourcing for the indirect costs of research has driven universities to cross subsidise their
research activities from the Commonwealth Grants Scheme for higher education institutions,
HECS contributions by domestic students and international student fees.
It is the prerogative of a university to determine the extent to which a university cross subsides
its activities. However, it is a common refrain from vice-chancellors that the declining quality
of higher education provided to students is due to inadequate resourcing of teaching and
learning activities through low Commonwealth support and insufficient HECS contributions.28
The underfunding manifests as blowouts in the size of tutorials, ageing and poor quality
teaching infrastructure and low quality technology based educational innovation. This was
even put forward by the vice-chancellors as one of the key reasons that university fees should
be deregulated, such that the additional revenue may be spent on smaller and more
personalised tutorials, more academic face time and investments in the latest technology29.
The conflation of funding shortfalls in teaching and research is misleading and leads to
situations where students are forced to bear further costs. The income and revenue already
exists between Commonwealth and student contributions to teaching (especially in the case
of full-fee HECS contributions by postgraduate coursework students) to stop the continued
decline of teaching quality at Australian universities. It is not a point that is totally ignored within
the higher education sector though, as high profile vice-chancellor and Nobel Laureate, Brian
Schmidt said in 2014,
28
Knott, M, 2015, University Vice Chancellors Must Step Up on Higher Education Reform in Sydney
Morning Herald 19 January, accessed online http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/politicalopinion/universityvicechancellors-must-step-up-on-higher-education-reform-20150119-12sxkm.html
29 Ibid
15
“our undesirable method of research funding is unfair to students, who believe they are
paying for their education but are in fact paying for the country’s research.”30
However, few university administrators and higher education policy makers believe that the
system is at a critical point, as discussed in both the Bradley review and the Lomax-Smith
Base Funding Review31, as of 2010, it was thought that somewhere between 6-10% of income
accruing to universities on the basis of teaching and learning activities from domestic students,
i.e. through the CGS and the HECS contributions was being used to subsidise the indirect
costs of research. This view is now clearly outdated as the mechanics of university funding
has changed dramatically since the introduction of the demand driven system which
incentivises universities to enrol as many students as they can to grow their revenue base,
which can then be spent on research activities instead of teaching and learning. Widespread
student dissatisfaction is observed in university campuses across the country on account of
the poor quality of their learning experience, as evidenced in the very poor results obtained by
the Go8 universities in particular on teaching satisfaction in the Good Universities Guide32.
Thus we believe that to ensure higher education institutions continue to provide a high quality
teaching and learning experience to students (particularly postgraduate coursework students),
and to truly increase the human capital which is being produced by our higher education
system, the Commonwealth should mandate a minimum proportion of the domestic student
contribution and Commonwealth contribution that must be expended by universities on
teaching and learning purposes. This would ensure that this cross-subsidisation of research
activity and university budgetary surpluses33 from teaching related income is capped at a
reasonable amount ensuring that both students and the general community is getting the
human capital development that they are paying for. We propose that universities be allowed
30Schmidt,
B, 2014, If not funding then teaching in Nature Outlook
31
Lomax-Smith, J, 2011, Base Funding Review
32
Good Universities Guide, 2016, The Educational Experience – Teaching Quality, accessed online
on the 20/01/2016 at
http://www.gooduniversitiesguide.com.au/ratings/perrating?ratingType=teachingQualityUG&type=UG
&actionSearch=Search#.Vp84n_l95aQ
33
The Australia Institute, 2015, Not ‘how high’ but ‘for what’? to the Higher Education and Research
Reform Bill 2014 Senate Inquiry
16
to spend no less than 95% of the domestic student contribution and CGS grants on teaching
and learning activities.
Recommendation 3: Ensuring that a fair level of income (95%) derived
by universities from teaching activities is spent on teaching and
learning
Budget saving/expenditure/allocation: Revenue Neutral
Key supporting reasons:
1) Teaching and learning is already underfunded at universities, as evidenced by both
statements from university administrators and student satisfaction with the quality of their
teaching
2) The cross-subsidy from teaching and learning related income to the indirect costs of
research is already significant (6-10%) and growing rapidly due to the demand driven
system
3) The community and students expected, fairly, that their investment in higher education
increases both the quantity and quality of human capital available to push forward the
innovation agenda. This cannot be done with low and declining quality of teaching and
learning in higher education
17
Appendix
Appendix A: Human resources devoted to R&D in higher education
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Academic staff
11,854
12,817
14,979
17,037
19,059
21,300
23,305
Other staff
6,780
6,832
7,787
8,038
8,181
8,530
8,897
Postgraduate students
27,654
29,963
32,438
33,830
34,533
39,561
42,467
Total HR devoted to R&D (PYE)
46,287
49,612
55,204
58,905
61,773
69,392
74,669
Table 1 Compiled by CAPA based on Research and Experimental Development, Higher Education
Organisations, Australia, 2012, www.abs.gov.au
Appendix B: Percentage of Employed Coursework Postgraduate students that agree of
strongly agree with the statement
Fulltime
Part-time
My work commitments adversely affect my performance at uni
50.1
64.4
I Regularly miss classes because I need to attend paid employment
25.7
31.6
Chose work because it will progress my career goals
42.5
75.7
My work is of little value except for the money
40.4
15.8
Table 2: Compiled based on University student finances in 2012: A study of the financial circumstances
of domestic and international students in Australia’s universities, from Universities Australia, 2013.
Retrieved
from
https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/commissioned-studies/Australian-
University-Student-Finances-in-2012/Australian-University-Student-Finances-in-2012#.VNLQntKUcuc
18
Appendix C: Income Support Sources for Domestic Postgraduate Students Compared to
Domestic Undergradaute Students in 2012
FT
Coursework PT
coursework
FT
PT
Undergraduate
Undergraduate
students (%)
students (%)
students (%)
students (%)
Youth Allowance
22.7
1
33
3.3
Austudy
16.9
1.3
12.7
4.3
ABSTUDY
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.9
11.8
11
6.3
22.6
35.3
7.3
35.2
19
3.7
3.8
7.8
4.2
5.6
2.1
7.8
3.7
41.5
76.1
39
64.4
46.9
24.3
54.1
34.6
Other Government
support
Health care card
Government
Scholarship
University
Scholarship
None of These
Receive
income
support from family
Table 3: compiled based on University student finances in 2012: A study of the financial circumstances
of domestic and international students in Australia’s universities, from Universities Australia, 2013.
Retrieved
from
https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/commissioned-studies/Australian-
University-Student-Finances-in-2012/Australian-University-Student-Finances-in-2012#.VNLQntKUcuc
19
Appendix D: Percentage of Domestic Postgraduate Coursework students that applied for
government income support in 2012 and the success rate
Domestic coursework (FT)
Domestic coursework (PT)
% Who applied for Youth Allowance
33
3.2
Received the full rate
47.1
15.9
Received the partial rate
25.5
20.3
Rejected
27.4
63.8
% Who applied for AusStudy
29.9
5.3
Received the full rate
43
16.2
Received the partial rate
15.5
15.3
Rejected
41.5
68.6
Table 4: compiled based on University student finances in 2012: A study of the financial circumstances
of domestic and international students in Australia’s universities, from Universities Australia, 2013.
Retrieved
from
https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/commissioned-studies/Australian-
University-Student-Finances-in-2012/Australian-University-Student-Finances-in-2012
20