Higher education students in part-time work in a Chinese city

Abstract

This article discusses students taking part-time work whilst studying higher education (HE). It suggests that cross-national trends can be observed in the purposes, types, benefits, negative aspects and outcomes of part-time work by HE students. The paper reviews literature on HE students working part-time in the UK and the US, and UNESCO studies of many nations, which raise questions of the benefits and negative aspects of students taking part-time work. The paper reports two sets of empirical data from Macau, an emerging economy in a territory that typifies global trends in HE in the provision of diversified public and private education and cross-border student populations. Many similarities found between practices in Macau and other countries suggest that cross-national trends might exist in the issues and practices of HE students working part-time. Data are provided from Macau to indicate how undergraduate student employment is an ironical interpretation of calls to integrate the worlds of HE and work, and is a widespread phenomenon. A research agenda is suggested for future study.

Keywords:

• higher education
• part-time work
• equity
• Macau
• China

Notes

1. By contrast, Riggert et al. (2006) report that the findings on the relationship between employment and levels of academic achievements are equivocal and or account for less variance than is often supposed, with methodological problems (pp. 76–85), such that it might be unwise to assume a simple or direct relationship between student employment and academic performance, as there are many prior, intervening, employment and outcome variables that might exert an effect on levels of achievement, in addition to the variables within the employment itself (Riggert et al., 2006, pp. 73–75; see also Bean and Metzner, 1985; Ford et al., 1995, p. 190). Riggert et al. (2006) suggest that student employment may have greater effects in terms of retention/dropout than grades achieved.

2. Indeed White (2007, p. 77) regards the appeal to meritocracy as ‘fraudulent’, since, it ‘leaves people's prospects at the mercy of natural endowments’ (p. 77) and overlooks structural features that affect equality of opportunity.

3. Cluster 1: Differences in aspirations and decisions are caused by perceptions of costs: (a) loss of earnings during study time (a bigger drawback for families and students from low-income households than for those from privileged backgrounds); (b) students from low-income households have to work harder than privileged students in order to compete with them; (c) students from low-income households must have greater ambition than privileged students in order to be successful in a higher social class; (d) the financial costs of HE, proportional to income, are higher for less advantaged students than for more advantaged students and families. Cluster 2: Differences in aspiration and decisions are caused by relative risk aversion: (a) the risk of failure in HE is greater for students from disadvantaged classes; (b) the risk of loss of further educational opportunities if failure ensures or incorrect options are followed is greater for students from disadvantaged classes than for students from more privileged classes; (c) the risk of loss of social solidarity is greater for students from working-class groups than for students from more privileged classes; (d) less advantaged students must have greater ambition than privileged students in order to be successful in higher social classes. Cluster 3: Differences in aspiration and decisions are caused by perceptions of relative benefit: (a) the opportunity for upward social mobility through HE is an attraction for students from lower class backgrounds; (b) HE is differentially necessary for preferred or likely employment for those from privileged and less privileged groups.