Explaining domestic student enrolment growth in Australian private universities and colleges

ABSTRACT

Australia established a demand-driven funding model for government-subsidised undergraduate places at public universities between 2012 and 2017. This allowed public universities to expand subsidised undergraduate places over this period. However, private universities and colleges did not have access to demand-driven funding but nonetheless grew domestic student enrolments by 38% over the same period, an unexpected difference given that demand-driven funding allowed public universities to expand enrolments with few limitations. To explain differences in growth by institution type, a supply and demand model relevant to public universities and private universities and colleges is developed. The model is used to understand enrolment dynamics and how providers responded to the demand-driven funding environment. Drawing on novel higher education statistics, four hypotheses for the unexpected enrolment growth in private universities and colleges are tested: reputational factors; disciplinary specialisation; price; and appeal to disadvantaged student groups. The data reveal some support for each hypothesis but show disciplinary specialisation is the strongest explanation of enrolment growth outside public universities. The findings illustrate how less established private institutions can grow and compete with more established public universities by responding to market demand and offering specialised programmes to meet that demand.

KEYWORDS:

• Non-public universities
• private higher education providers
• enrolment growth
• demand driven funding

Acknowledgment

We thank the editor Geoffrey Elliott and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and advice. We are grateful to Steve Nerlich and his team at the Department of Education, Skills and Employment for providing and assisting with the data. Any remaining shortcomings are our own. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors’ respective institutions.

Disclosure statement

Dr Sally Burt is employed by the Independent Higher Education Australia (IHEA) which is the peak body representing independent higher education providers in Australia. These providers fall into the categories of private universities and private colleges studied in this paper.Dr Matt Brett and Associate Professor Buly Cardak are respectively employed by Deakin University and La Trobe University. These institutions fall into the category of public universities studied in this paper.

Notes

1. Socioeconomic status enrolment data based on commencing home address, as per Cardak et al. (2017), was not used as it is only available for 2016–2018.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Buly Cardak

Dr Buly Cardak is an Associate Professor of Economics at La Trobe University Australia. His research interests include the economics of education and the attitudes of households towards risk. He has published research on widening participation in higher education in Australia.

Matt Brett

Dr Matthew Brett is Director of Academic Governance and Standards at Deakin University and an adjunct fellow with the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education at Curtin University. He has a longstanding commitment to student equity spanning roles in research, policy and practice.

Sally Burt

Dr Sally Burt is IHEA’s Policy and Research Manager. She received her PhD from the Australian National University in has published in US diplomatic history. She has lectured at the University of New South Wales, Canberra, and had Visiting Fellowships in the US. She currently researches Australia’s higher education and VET sectors.