Senate Inquiry Into Higher
Education
Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1996
Transcript from the Committee Hearing - October 2003:
3I613 Stott Despoja, Sen Natasha
Senator STOTT DESPOJA: Mr Gascoigne, you mentioned women's magazines. What is FASTS doing to promote women in science?
Mr Gascoigne: One of our members is the excellent organisation WISENET, Women in Science Enquiry Network. At our last board meeting in Sydney about two months ago, we had a special section of the meeting, which ran for about an hour, devoted to the preparation of a position paper on women in science. That was a joint presentation from a number of women representatives. Some were board members and there were also representatives from the CSIRO Staff Association, from the National Tertiary Education Union, from the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers and from WISENET. There is an active group of half a dozen women now who are preparing an occasional paper setting out a position with recommendations to launch in the public arena. I think that is midway through completion.
3I614 Stott Despoja, Sen Natasha
SenatorSTOTT DESPOJA: Do they have a position on the legislation? My broader point would be: do you feel there would be a deleterious impact on the role of women in science or even the number of women taking on science degrees as a consequence of some of the changes that we are looking at today?
Mr Gascoigne: I do not know; I have not looked at it from that position. I do not know that the group would have looked closely enough at the legislation to have a position, but I will make inquiries and I will get back to you on that one.
3I615 Stott Despoja, Sen Natasha
Senator STOTT DESPOJA:If you could take that on notice, that would be appreciated.
Mr Gascoigne: The second brief thing I might mention is that the same group has organised two annual conferences of women in science. Both of them have been quite successful.
(Toss Gascoigne was then Executive Director of FASTS)
Questions from Senator Natasha Stott Despoja to FASTS:
(a) Would the proposed changes have any impact on women studying science at University?
(b) Do you feel there would be a deleterious impact on the role of women in science or even the number of women taking on science degrees as a consequence of some the changes we are looking at today?
WISENET responded:
Overall, the amendments proposed would significantly and severely disadvantage women. It is not possible to consider every situation that a woman would face but consideration needs to be given to the following points if upfront fees are introduced, or HECS is increased or deregulated.
(1) Segregation. The likely outcome of fees and HECS deregulation would be a segregation of students into 18 year olds whose parents could afford the fees and adults with savings. Both options work against women, especially women wanting children, for what we hope are self-evident reasons.
(a) Parental support. Where parental support is needed and cannot be given equally to each child, traditional attitudes in Australian and other cultures still tend to favour male children as having priority in education. This is in keeping with the male in the family being seen as the principal income earner.
(b) Financial security. Females tend to be less financially secure than males due to past inequities. Many would be deflected from a course of study requiring prepayment of fees, regardless of interest or aptitude.
(c) Mature age study. There is a culture in Australia where some women who chose to stay at home to care for young children for 5 – 10 years have returned to University to obtain better qualifications. Many have been attracted to socially useful science disciplines. They do not have savings. The introduction of higher fees and HECS would make this option completely prohibitive.
(2) Subject bias. Financial constraints may force people to take degrees that can be completed in less time and work against scientific disciplines that require long, laboratory based learning units over a minimum period of four years. Already plant breeders are finding an inadequate student flow in this (important to Australia) area. A continuation of this trend may lead to paucity of specialised scientists. Many females wishing to study part time to accommodate other necessary roles (supportive partners, mothers, and carers) would find financial constraints a disincentive.
(3) Career prerequisites. Most professional scientists are required to have a doctorate (PhD) as a prerequisite. By taking 7 – 9 years (4 years undergraduate, 3 – 5 years postgraduate) to complete the study, they lose 7 – 9 years earning capacity. If time is taken to have children, any debt is incurred for longer than for male counterparts. By extension, this would increase the time before any advantage can be recouped from the personal sacrifice and investment made towards completing study.
(4) Income threshold for HECS repayment. Lowering the income threshold to repay debts means women might not be able to purchase a house and look after themselves, let alone young children. Young women would delay University study and accept subordinate positions instead of seeking to become professional scientists. Female graduates may well avoid undertaking further studies or higher degrees which would limit their abilities to progress or attain promotion in science.
(5) Negative effects on the next generation. We could end up with a situation where graduate females take so long to pay off their debts, nothing is left to pass on to children to give them a start in life. This would make the next generation worse off than the one before… an embarrassing first for Australia?
(6) Real financial status. We present the following ledger projecting a realistic income profile for practising scientists in the first 20 years of their careers. This applies to males and females. However for females the added decision as to if and when to have children must be factored in:
 |
In conclusion We welcome a comparison with other occupations such as hairdressing, butchering, teaching, plumbing, bricklaying, sales, nursing, etc. A cursory glance at the Positions Vacant column showed that many of the jobs advertised in these areas have similar salary scales to those of scientists, yet very few of these professions demand such a high personal investment for such little reward.
Due to the time taken to complete, very few scientists are aware of the limited financial and professional future they have committed to. For women this can be exacerbated by responsibilities of carer roles. That their contribution to GNP is significant should be the subject of government analysis. That many scientists love their work should not be a reason for such extortion. Many other people love their work as well but are not financially disadvantaged by that fact.
It is clear that more debate and other options are required.
With thanks to Senator Stott Despoja for her perceptive concern.