Do+you+love+cheap+booze?

Daniel Nillson

=**__Cultural Artifact:__**= This cultural artefact strongly relates to the constant struggles that, I think, majority of university students would encounter when it comes to money, budgeting and debt. The image depicts a person, a student, having to virtually drag along a massive rock, also known as debt. It would definitely demonstrate the constant struggle that students would have in their every day lives, hopefully getting less and less and time moves on.

=__**Public Health Issue:**__= The public health issue that will be focused on throughout the wiki is student poverty, and how it may effect chance for education or rates of drop out. On top of that, how engagement to a student may positively or negatively affect their academic rates. Students that come from a low-income background will generally lack or not engage in a chance for academic opportunity, compared to students from a high-income background. Why is this? Generally students from the high-income families will have more resources, hence more opportunity to learn and develop learning habits, compared to persons from the low-income families.

=__**Literature Review:**__= Firstly lets try and define what poverty is and how we see it. Although the word is commonly used and thrown around in everyday language without a thorough outright definition, it does not mean that people have a lack of understanding as to what the term is intended to capture. In surveys complete by the Social Policy Research Centre (n.d.), around three-quarters of Australians see poverty either in terms of not having enough to buy basic necessities, or being in a situation of constant battle to balance financial resources against needs (Saunders, 2011). What we have witnessed over the past 25 years or so is the changing focus of groups in society that are in particular risk of poverty. A transition has been made from the from the aged, sole parents, large families and children to the working (both education-based or self-employed) poor, non-aged singles or to the educated poor.

Birrel and Dobson (1997) have questioned whether students from low socio-economic backgrounds can surmount the financial hurdles of tertiary education. Students have a constant battle in their hands, having to juggle and balance work commitments and study while also trying to engage in both social and physical activities to keep them sane. Housing commitments especially is a big issue, seeing as most students are of age to move out closer to their university or jobs, to decrease travel times. Although it is normally a laughable statement, that students live off noodles and couches to scrape by, a survey by Universities Australia in 2013 had responses from over 11, 000 students saying that financial situation is a growing issue. The same report found that students, both undergraduates and postgraduates, owed on average around $37, 000 in debt, up $10, 000 from six years earlier (News Mail Bundaberg, 2013).

Jensen (2013) has said that the academic record of students who have lived in poverty is not good, with Taylor (2005) stating that in predicting levels of student income, family incomes continue to be reliable indicators. Students who live in poverty or low-income households are more likely to underachieve or not even compete at school, compared to those students who live in a middle to high socio-economic background. Students from affluent households have been seen to outperform those from low-income households across nearly all subjects. In the United States, those who are free from the federal free lunch programs because their parent's incomes are too high will generally have better test scores in the NAEP, which tests reading, writing, science, maths and US history (Taylor, 2005).

In 2009, the attrtion rate of students living in the United States of America from low-income families was about five times greater than the rate of students from high income families: 7.4% versus 1.4% (Chapman, Laird, Ifill & Kewal-Remani, 2011). However this is not a failure within the students themselves, more often than not it is the school or teachers that do not assist in keeping students in school (Jensen, 2013). Engaging students more often than not will increase their chance of passing classes, with Valentine & Collins (2011) finding that there is a consistently strong and significant correlation between student engagement and achievement, with studies showing every 2% disengagement rise, pass rates of high-stakes tests drop by 1%. All in all, student engagement is valued very highly by the students themselves (Appleton, Christenson & Furlong, 2008). Finn & Rock (1997) found that student engagement was also very successful among students from a low socio-economic background, saying it was a key factor as to why students chose to stay in school. Jensen (2013) defines seven engagement factors that correlate with student engagement and are strongly tied to socio-economic status: Manipulation of these factors should improve a student's chance of staying in school, while hopefully also increasing their capacity to learn and succeed both in their studies as well as future occupations.
 * Health and Nutrition: Students with a lower socio-economic status will normally face greater risks in regards to health problems (Sapolsky, 2005).
 * Vocabulary: Student's vocabulary is part of their brain's toolkit for learning, memory and cognition, helping them to represent, manipulate and reframe information.
 * Effort and Energy: Low income students are often characterized as being lazy or not reaching their potential, although they may value education as much as middle or high-income students do.
 * Mind-Set: Research has suggested that lower socio-economic status correlates with a negative view of the future and a sense of helplessness (Robb, Simon & Wardle, 2009).
 * Cognitive Capacity: Socio-economic status is strongly associated with a number of measures of cognitive ability, including IQ, achievement tests or literacy (Baydar, Brooks-Gunn & Furstenburg, 1993; Brooks-Gun, Guo & Furstenberg, 1993; Liaw & Brooks-Gunn, 1994; Smith, Brooks-Gunn & Klebanov, 1997).
 * Relationships: Students will often suffer from a insecure and stressed brain if they grow up in situations where they only have one parent or have chaotic experiences.
 * Stress Level: Students within a low socio-economic background are more likely to experience both acute and chronic stress, compared to affluent peers (Almeida, Neupert, Banks & Serido, 2005; Evans & Schamberg, 2009).

=__**Cultural & Social Analysis:**__= Two different theories can be related to student poverty: Conflict theory and Functionalist theory. Firstly, conflict theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power in producing social order, deriving from the work of Karl Max and Freidrich Angels in 1848. As Hungerford (2008) says, conflict theorists don't see the society as a single, united whole, rather a society made up of groups who have competing or conflicting interests and some of whom would in fact be better off if others were to do less well. Relating that to student poverty, this theory basically says that students who can't afford university will forever stay in the same socio-economic status, stuck in 'tradie' jobs and feeling like they are forever in debt. In other cases, students who cannot afford some opportunities for education that the higher-income students can may have lower grades or scores in tests. Secondly, Emile Durkheim, the main mind behind the Functionalist Theory, writes that one is continuously called upon to think of society as a distinctive entity in itself. Functionalists will tend to say that a society in which any one institution is not working as well as it could be, the whole society will suffer, rather than just the individual. Basically saying that for the society to function properly and as a whole, all segments must be present. Without those living in poverty or low-income households, there would be no socio-economic perspective. It provides a scale of socio-economic perspectives, where the poor are at the bottom and the more wealthy are at the top.

=__**Analysis of Artefact and Own Learning Reflections:**__= The image depicts a person (lets say a student) dragging behind a large rock that represents the struggles of debt. It helps to demonstrate the struggles, for me, a student has when they have their own debts or are born into a background that has been influenced by financial hardship. A constant struggle, that may or may not feel like you are carrying along a very large inanimate object, is something a lot of university students will feel during their times, unless they are already placed into a higher socio-economic status compared to others.

For me, I have learnt that socio-economic status plays a very large influence on the university life, not only with budgetting, living etc, but also with levels of education and rates of drop outs. For me, I will take this on board as I know myself I am stuck in a situation where money is a constant struggle, both for myself and my family. I will be more aware of the fact that sometimes students in a lower socio-economic background are at more of a chance to drop out or decrease learning opportunities, so I can implement new strategies on myself to ensure it doesn't happen.

=__**References:**__= Hungerford, G. (2008). Conflict Theory. //Culture Scope, 87, 29-31.// Retrieved from [] Birkwood, S. (2010, July 8). All Work and No Play. [Web Log Post]. Retrieved from [] Saunders, P. (2011). //Down and Out: Poverty and exclusion in Australia [EBL Version].// Retrieved from [|http://reader.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/(S(4pyuefgyqv55ospqrm13pdfx))/Reader.aspx?p=726881&o=96&u=oje0WulAxzhOaFateVenfw%3d%3d&t=1383474640&h=7D53A946AA5308493BB9CC08236AFA15DE2CF865&s=10643798&ut=245&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n#] News Mail Bundaberg. (2013, July 15). Student Poverty Shock: One in five at university skip food to pay the bills. //Australian Provincial Newspapers 2013.// Retrieved from [] Newton, J & Turale, S. (2000). Student Poverty at the University of Ballarat. //Australian Journal of Social Issues (Australian Council of Social Service), 251-264.// Retrieved from [] Birrel, B & Dobson, I. (1997). Equity and University Attendance: The Monash Experience. //People and Place, 5 (22), 49-57.// Retrieved from [] Jensen, E. (2013). //Engaging Students with Poverty in Mind: Practical Strategies for Raising Achievement [EBL Version].// Retrieved from [|http://reader.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/(S(ictml3zwphcxj5v2hspkdsk3))/Reader.aspx?p=1388954&o=96&u=oje0WulAxzhOaFateVenfw%3d%3d&t=1383470614&h=F014F4A24E8D60125DF3D87D183EB6CBE2129D85&s=10643257&ut=245&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n#] Taylor, J.A. (2005). Poverty and Student Achievement. //Multicultural Education, 12 (4), 53-55.// Retrieved from []

=Reflections:= http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/+%E2%80%9CSay+No+to+Drugs%2C+Say+Yes+to+Life%E2%80%9D http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/%27ask+yourself+what+or+who+may+be+affected%27