Student+Poverty+-+The+Price+For+Tertiary+Success

= = = = = =


 * __ Cultural artefact __**

This cultural artefact is an image of a work by an English free hand graffiti street artist Banksy. The image depicts a young girl of school age under the phrase “NO FUTURE”. The young girl in the art work has a balloon attached to her hand via a piece of sting which also represents the letter “O” in the word “NO”. The phrase and the usual connotation of a child and a balloon provide an interesting contrast. The balloon signifies happiness but the image and the phrase provide an overwhelming juxtaposition of hopelessness and the idea of having no future.


 * __ Public health Issue __**

Banksy centres his pieces around social justice and poverty each of which are open to their own interpretation. However, after analysis of the phrase “NO FUTURE” it can be deduced that this cultural artefact represents the ideas of poverty and what a future, if any can be amounted out of such living conditions. = = The central them of this article is student poverty within Australia. The main focus within this topic is the barriers placed preventing students of low socioeconomic status and the barriers creating financial hardship, and prevention of poverty stricken students from gaining academic success in the tertiary environment.


 * __ Literature review __**

Student poverty and its effects on tertiary success and attrition rates is a major public health issue in Australia. The Purpose of this review is to bring student poverty back into the sphere of public health to encourage the public to recognise the ongoing nature of this issue. Over the past ten years from 2003 to 2013 student poverty has grown due to the lack of recognition it receives in policy agendas. This article will cover the some of the factors that lead to tertiary students living in poverty and how these aspects impact their ability to achieve success in the tertiary environment. Student poverty in Australia has been brought on by the governments shift towards a ‘user pays’ form of tertiary education (Birrell, Dobson, Rapson & Smith, n.d). This approach to providing tertiary education in addition to factors such as living away from home, the need to modify work schedules = = (Bessant, J. 2003), and finally to review all aspects, the methodologies and limitations of using the methodologies.

= =
 * Increased costs of living**

Over the past ten years many articles regarding the tertiary success of students suffering from financial hardship and poverty have concluded that student poverty does have negative implications. The two main factors that attribute to the acquisition of student poverty as mentioned before include, housing (Lewis, Dickson-Swift, Talbot & snow 2007), and part-time work during semester time (Applegate, Daly 2006, Joo, Durband & Grable, 2008). In a study reported by La Trobe University living away from home poses a great deal of financial stress for university students. According to Hillman and Marks (2004) suggest that housing creates particularly problems for students who move from regional areas to study in the city. This evidence can be collaborated with findings from Hurley’s (2003) interview on student housing. It found that housing is a primary cause of financial stress as it increases living expenses. According to literature, the increased cost of housing and general expenses is the catalyst for the need to work outweighing the need for studying.


 * Semester time work**

Once out of the family home most students are independent paying for their own academic fees, books, transport, and daily living needs. In some instances for the sake of affordability students choose houses in outer suburbs although this may be a good idea, Hurley (2003) indicated that the benefits gained of living in the outer suburbs may be lost due to increasedtravel expenses. Greater financial Burdens lead to student drop outs, or at least, reduce course work to devote more time to paid work (Joo, Durband &Grable 2008). Applegate and Daly (2006) examine the relationship between casual or part-time work and its effects on tertiary success in more detail. The two articulate that its not only the students that bare concern over their declining results due to part-time work, but the teachers as well. Bessant (2003) reports two separate studies, one in 2000 from La Trobe University, and the other from the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). The results respectively are as shown, 27% 6-10 hours, 15% 16-20 hours, and 10% 26 – 35 hours a week. There wasa slight shift in 2005 with 32% working 6-10 hours, 17% 16-20 hours and 5% more than 26 hours. Evidence shows that working more than 15 hours a week during term time has negative implications on tertiary results, but without it students living in poverty will spiral further into debt or have to drop subjects or whole courses just to live. Applegate and Daly (2006) provide insight to this “ one of the largest costs involved in taking part in higher education is the opportunity cost of foregone earnings”.


 * Methodologies and limitations**

Each of the articles uses similar methodologies to gather the information and data on the incidence and prevalence of student poverty. Using mostly surveys, the articles specifically look at the percentage of students that feel negatively affected by financial hardship.

Lewis et al (2007) used a large-scale survey, with a focus on both qualitative and quantitative questions. The survey was distributed to 680 students at the La Trobe University. The survey titled “Financial Status and Well Being Survey” included sections regarding: personal information, university experience for the year 2003, coping with financial stress, and what could be done about financial stress. Although the method provided an array of statistical results on the topic of student poverty and in what areas are the principal suspects of ongoing student poverty, the results are limited to the a single rural university. The survey looked at a very narrow target group, and no consideration for student placements or the differences in money spent to take part in a course.

Joo et al (2008) also use a survey, the rationale being to examine the characteristics of students who experienced dropping out of university or reducing hours due to financial reasons. The authors used a web-based survey that went out to 9 universities with a total of 540 participating students. The results of this survey were limited as the two questions asked: have you ever reduced your course load to pay off other debts, and have you ever dropped out to work more and pay off debts. There is no way to determine if the student is in some sort of familial poverty cycle due to no knowledge of the students financial history, or personal characteristics.

In the explored literature the main catalysts for student poverty are agreed upon, the costs of becoming independent from parents, housing, and the less time to participate in employment during semester time. Research could have been more comprehensive by gaining the socioeconomic status of the student’s parents and weather or not the students received benefits from either thegovernment or handouts from their parents. It can be concluded that financial hardship is due to the increased living costs and having to sacrifice work for study creating a deficit for many students, but for some students work maintains precedence over study creating high attrition rates amongst school leavers.


 * __ Cultural and Social Analysis __**

Through out history there has always been a status divide and a social theory behind why it is necessary for the running of society. Two theories can be applied to student poverty and the reasons behind its existence.


 * Conflict Theory**

Karl Marx and freidrich Engels established conflict Theory in 1848. Conflict theory is basically the struggle of powers between those who have nothing and those who have everything (Kurtz, T. 2007). The poor against the rich. Those who can’t afford to go to university will drop out and fall into mediocre occupations, forever in the same socioeconomic status, perpetuating the division in social classes. Kurtz (2007) stats that conflict theory is another about competition of resources. In this circumstance those students suffering in poverty lose academic resources to further their education, which reiterates that the rich control the wealth.


 * Functionalist theory**

The functionalists’ perspective examines social groups and the way they contribute to society and its ability to function. For society to function as a whole, Emile Durkheim states that the population has to find stability in solidarity (source). This means that for society to function every social class has to be present. Without those who are living in poverty there would be no socioeconomic perspective. Functionalism provides a detailed hierarchy. Functionalism allows the population to see social like rungs on a ladder and not just black and white like conflict theory. The poor are the lowest rung and the rich are the top, with the others fitting in between the two.


 * __ Analysis of artefact and own learning reflection __**

The chosen cultural artefact depicts a child living in poverty who (as mentioned in the picture) is believed to have no future prospects. This represents the ongoing cycle of poverty. If your born into poverty, you will grow up with poor education, go to university in financial hardship, have to drop out due to poverty, have low income because of a lack of education, have children that are forced into poverty, and so goes the cycle. This depicts student poverty because as the little girl is said to have no future, nor do those students suffering from financial hardship.

As a result of this assessment piece I have learnt that the high instances of attrition from students of low socioeconomic status is more prevalent then I knew. After not even knowing what the meaning of attrition was it came as a great surprise that the rates due to costs of living and forgone earnings was so high as I thought government subsidies were able to bridge most of the gap. After completing this assessment I don’t think I will change my learning, rather, be more compassionate and change my attitude about those who drop out of university, as it may be fore reasons out of their control.


 * __ References __**

Applegate, C. & Daly, A. (2006). The impact of paid work on the academic performance of students: A case study from the University of Canberra. //Australian Journal of Education, 50//(2), 155-166.

Bessant, J. (2003). The problem of poverty amongst tertiary students: why it is missing from the policy agenda. //Melbourne Studies in Education, 44//(2), 69-87.

Birrell, B., Dobson, I., Rapson, V., & Smith, T. (n.d). //Higher education at a crossroads.// Retrieved on the 30/10/2013 [|www.arts.monash.edu.au/sociology/cpur/publication/higher_education_crossroads.pdf].

Joo, S., Durband, D. & Grable, J. (2008). The academic impact of financial stress on college students. //J. College student retention, 10//(3), 287-305.

Kurtz, T. (2007). Sociological Theory and Sociological Practice. //Acta Sociologica, 50//(3), 283-294.

Lewis, C., Dickson-Swift, V., Talbot, L. & Snow, P. (2007). Regional tertiary students and living away from home: A priceless experience that costs too much?. //Australian Journal of social issues, 42//(4), 531-547.

__**Reflection**__
https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64696348.

https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64696296.