1. Introduction. 2. Methodological framework. 3. The selection process. 6. Concluding remarks

Transcription

1 Social Cohesion Bulletin 2 / 2009 Inequalities in Access to Tertiary Education in Greece: An Approach Based on the Official Statistics ( ) Manolis Chrysakis (1), Dionisis Balourdos (2), Antoinetta Capella (3) National Center for Social Research Institute of Social Policy (INSPO) Messoghion Av. Athens 11527, Greece Tel.: inspo@ekke.gr INSPO LABORATORY Monitoring Social Cohesion Policies Editorial Board Balourdos D. (Dep. Director) Chrysakis M. Kappi C. Kikilias E. Tzortzopoulou M. Ziomas D. 1. Introduction Contents 2. Methodological framework 3. The selection process 4. Inequalities in access to tertiary education in Greece for the period Inter-university and inter-institutional differentiation of inequalities in access to the Tertiary Education. 6. Concluding remarks Laboratory Coordinator: Kappi C. Manuscript completed on 1 April 2007 ISSN National Center for Social Research, 2009 (1) Economist PhD, Research Director at the Institute for Social Policy, National Centre for Social Research, echrysakis@ekke.gr (2) Economist-Demographer PhD, Research Director at the Institute for Social Policy, National Centre for Social Research (3) Sociologist, National Centre for Social Research

2 1. Introduction An analysis of the socially defined inequalities regarding the access to tertiary education institutions in Greece, based on official statistics provided by the National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG), indicates that such inequalities not only persist, but also increase over time (Chrysakis, Soulis, 2001b; Chrysakis, Balourdos, 2007). These access inequalities appear to be even more complex and severe when the analysis is narrowed to universitylevel education, instead of tertiary education as a whole. In this case, the students social background has proven to be the defining factor for determining the relative likelihood of access to Greek Universities, known also as Higher Education Institutes (A.E.I.) and Technological Education Institutes (T.E.I.). It is noted that these socially determined access inequalities generally appear to be more defining than the corresponding genderbased ones (Chrysakis, Soulis, 2001a; Chrysakis, 2005). There are also indications, however, that geographically based inequalities in this sector contribute to basic central/peripheral social differentiations 1. The analysis outlined in this article is divided into four sections, and the tertiary level students social background is determined on the basis of their fathers occupation. Specifically, in the first section, we undertake a brief clarification of the study s methodological framework. The limitations, which 1 According to the first results of the research undertaken by the Institute of Social Policy of E.K.K.E. focusing on "Inequalities in Access in the Tertiary Education in Greece and the effect of educational reforms" (scientific coordinator M. Chrysakis) it is implied that in the wealthier regions of the country, where the success in the third degree education is relatively increased, socially determined inequalities of access are presented more accentuated. It is marked in any case that these are preliminary findings that require further analysis that is already being processed while the present working paper is being written. Further recent data regarding the interregional differentiation of the mean scores realized at the admittance examinations per county are provided in the studies: a) Initiative for the establishment of Educational Priority Zones: Trade unions and local society facing educational inequalities (KANEP - GSEE, 2007) and b) Education, Poverty and Social Exclusion (KANEP - GSEE, 2008). accompany the use of the NSSG statistics for such a study, also become apparent during this discussion. In the second section, the basic characteristic elements of the selection and admission processes for the tertiary education in Greece (A.E.I. & T.E.I.) are presented. The changes that arose in this sector during the period in question ( ) are also discussed. This includes past developments altering the number of candidates and admittance to universities during the same period. This latter discussion aims to demonstrate the degree to which the amalgamation of all levels of tertiary educational affects inequalities in access to both Universities (A.E.I) and Technological Educational Institutes (T.E.I.). Moreover, the third section presents a series of indicators which relate the development of inequalities in access to the students social background. The classification matrix used for this purpose is based on the students fathers occupation. The fourth section of this working paper concludes the analysis of available official statistical data encompassing an inter institutional comparison of socially defined inequalities regarding the access in each university or technological educational institution in Greece. Finally, instead of an epilog, a series of points are presented which refer to the possibility of reversing the identified trends, thereby diminishing socially determined unequal access to tertiary education institutions in Greece.

3 2. Methodological framework Inequalities in access to tertiary education belong to a category of inequalities for which there exist obtainable official statistics. Such figures help outline the development of the relevant inequalities. Although the above-mentioned figures, produced by each country s statistical service, continues to reflect the national perceptions of inequalities that existed when these statistical systems were being formed. As a result, the classification matrices which are still used today refer to older theoretical approaches. As such, they neglect to take into account the developments concerning the conceptual definition as well as the particular types of inequalities (Fitoussi, Rosanvallon 1996, pp 75-81). From the beginning of the sixties, the societal request for further democratization of higher education (university and non-university) is linked to the need for a less uneven and therefore a more just distribution of educational goods, as well as an analysis of the inequalities which relate to an individual s social background (Fountedaki, Sarafianos, 2000, p. 47). Simultaneously, a series of empirical studies indicate that, from a statistical point of view at least, the socio-occupational situation of the parents significantly defines the outcome of their son/daughter s studies. Often, schooling cannot sufficiently reverse pre-existing social inequalities, and in fact, it often legitimizes and reproduces them (Mylonas, 1998, p ). It is noted that those who investigate the phenomenon of educational inequalities in addition to inequalities in access to tertiary education, use a broad spectrum of methodological approaches to classify the student s social background. Particularly, when using figures from empirical studies, the student s social background has, by chance, been based on the socioeconomic status of their family, their father s socio-occupational prestige or class, their geographical origin etc. (Katsilis, Rubinson, 1990, p. 273). Still, however, when the available statistical data does not allow for complex models which define the student s social background, researchers can use published or unpublished figures that arise from their parents (usually the father s) occupation (Boudon, 2001, p 155). Though they have some limitations, they often offer better, if not the best, results for studying the development of socially defined inequalities in access to university education over time (Chrysakis, 1990, p. 183). On the other hand, using the father s occupation as an indicator of the students social status has certain weaknesses and involves some limitations. These, however, do not invalidate the interpretive worth of the aforementioned approach. In addition, to the evaluation of the findings, such studies must take into account the specifications required when using NSSG statistics, which are the only ones allowing for the long-term analysis of this phenomenon in Greece. First, one basic weakness which arises from the use of father s occupation as the defining social criterion, is that the classification of NSSG occupations does not befit a tidy set of social categories (Droukopoulos, 1989, p. 23). Instead, it results in a conventional classification and grouping system, which is determined on the basis of employment. More specifically, when dealing with analyses that span a number of years, comparisons of National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG) figures are not always easily feasible. This is mainly because a new International Statistical Classification of Occupations (ISCO) system was applied in 1993, which replaced the previous occupational classification of 1981 (NSSG, 1995, p. 9). In this study, the above-mentioned weaknesses in the available statistical information, will be confronted and altered in order to render them more comparable. More precisely, the non-comparability of the two aforementioned ISCO resides in the different groupings at the single-digit level of the corresponding employment groupings at the two and three-digit levels. As a result, in ISCO-92: a) no single digit employment categories like businessmen and salesmen exist; b) all smallbusiness (up to nine individuals) are grouped together under public and private sector governing bodies, administrators and supervisors, regardless of their occupation in the single digit category; and c) the new category technicians and technical assistants was added, which had been previously included under the group professionals and liberal occupations. To establish comparative figures for the adjustment periods immediately before and after the introduction of the new ISCO (1993), occupations and the Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 1

4 corresponding employment situation of individuals were grouped in to six large categories: 1. non manual (white collar) workers (professionals, liberal professionals, supervisors, office employees, businesspeople, service attendants) 2. manual (blue collar) workers (technicians and labourers) 3. farmers 4. unemployed 5. non - active population (mainly pensioners) 6. non classified The above classification renders comparisons during the entire reference period ( ) feasible. It also confronts the problem of unclear distinctions between the social classifications that are based on NSSG s employment groupings. The classification of students according the above categorization of their fathers occupational status is considered to be a useful proxy for our research, which could better suit the existing stratification in the Greek society. 3. The selection process qualifying examination 2. In addition, students who reach the age of 22 are eligible to be admitted to the Greek Open University by lottery 3. It must be noted that Vocational Education and Training (T.E.E.) graduates are not eligible to seek admittance to Greek universities, but can be admitted to TEIs. An investigation of the tertiary education admittance systems, which were in use up including the most recent educational reform, indicates that these systems are basically revisions of the one which was applied in 1964 (Drettakis, 1979; Chrysakis, 2002), adjusting only marginally the basic characteristics of the selection process (Tsakloglou, Cholezas, 2005; Chrysakis, Balourdos, 2007). All of these systems are centrally and collectively organized, and selection criteria are standardized on the basis of the analytical programs currently applied. However, the higher education institutions (A.E.I. and T.E.I.) cannot formulate neither justify the way in which their students are selected (Drettakis, ibidem). The State oversees and arranges these one-sided selection processes, which are based on the orders of the residing government s educational policy. This policy, some say, is extremely dependent on the disposition of those who appoint each other to the position of the minister at the National Ministry of Education and Religion (Dimaras, 1979, p 5). The selection process which is followed in order to 2 The period of reference of the present working paper gain access to university-level education ultimately ( ) coincides with the application of two reflects the structure and mainly the philosophy of different, on their details, systems of entrance in the the education system itself (Hopper, 1977, p 154). tertiary education, which however present certain The structure of the Greek education system is variants from year in year. More precisely, the System of presented in Figure 1. The Greek educational General Examinations (commonly known as «Δέσμες») system is highly centralized despite limited efforts was in use up until the academic year 1999/2000. at decentralization (Avdela 2000; Zambeta 2000; Following the most recent educational reform, students are eligible to take the exams foreseen during the last two Kontogiannopoulou- Polydorides et al. 2000). There years of high school (Λύκειο) participating to the new have been many attempts to modernize and postmodernize the educational system (especially in as «Πανελλαδικές»). This last system of entrance has system of Pan-Greek Examinations (commonly known 1964, 1976, , and 1997) in order to be been introduced starting from the academic year adjusted with the changing larger political, 2000/2001 and it is still in use, regardless some changes, economic and social context (Giamouridis, Bagley, mainly regarding the number of qualifying courses 2006). (diminishing gradually from 14 to 9 and finally to 6), as well as the restriction of the examinations only to the last Tertiary level, education in Greece is divided into year of high school 9starting from the academic year two sectors: Universities (A.E.I.) and Technological 2004/2005) and finally the recently introduction (starting Education Institutes (T.E.I.). Universities and TEI from the academic year 2006/2007) of an absolute admit students only after they pass a state-wide average grade clause (minimum 10 in a 20 grade scale). 3 Unfortunately, data concerning the students social background for the Greek Open University are not provided by NSSG. Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 2

5 Figure 1: The structure of the Greek education system. Source: Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs, (2005); Giamouridis, Bagley, 2006 Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 3

6 More specifically, for the duration of the period in question, the residing Minister of Education is explicitly authorized to coordinate, along with Presidential Decrees and Ministerial Orders, all the details surrounding the selection process. Such details include designating departments/schools for which entrance examination proceedings are conducted, the required courses for these exams, the testable material, the exam questions, the committee selection for the carrying out of the exam, the time allotted, the examination location, the assessment criteria evaluating the candidates progress, the marks, the grading factors and methods for written work, the student selection and the delivery of results, and finally, the registration of admittees to universities etc.. The Minister is also authorized to designate the cases in which registration into a tertiary education institution is allowed without an entrance examination, and without following the specific proceedings which would normally ensue. The Minister also regulates the selection proceedings, and each time exceeds the pre-determined number of admittances for a broad category of cases (e.g. students of Greek origin coming from elsewhere, foreigners, physically disabled individuals, children of Greeks living abroad etc). Strong arguments have been made, criticizing the degree of centralized control afforded to the Education Minister, with respect to the admittance numbers to tertiary education. Specifically, for the entire duration of the period in question, the Minister is afforded the power and responsibility of enacting the numerus clausus, thereby setting the magic number of acceptances for each educational institution without justifying his decision. The yearly controversy which arises between the Minister, the institutions governing bodies, and the general/popular opinion is literally reminiscent of an ad hoc method, commonly known as the pass-the-buck («Κολοκυθιά») method (Kasimati, 1987, p 10). Serious doubts are also expressed about the private interests that are served by the lack of a concrete selection system. The absence of such a system results in changes to the details of the admission process with every change in government, and often even with a change of Education Minister. Such interventions usually occur suddenly in the middle of the academic year, without justification (Zagorianitis, 1989, p. 11), thereby neglecting not only societal, but educational consequences as well (Kassotakis, 1986, p. 18) 4. To sum up, regarding the selection process, we can determine a general interventional ideological starting point, as well as a general centralized administrative practice encompassing all the systems which were in place at different points in time during the period in question. The differences that are noted relate specifically to the details of the selection process (Chrysakis, 2002). It should be mentioned that the selection process and admission system for tertiary education are directly related to the formation of socially defined education inequalities. More specifically, it is interesting to see whether meta-adjustments render the selection process more antagonistic, thereby favoring those who are already socially advantaged. Despite of the official declarations, one of the persistent problems in the Greek public educational system still concerns restricted admissions policy (numerus clausus) aiming at the rationing of the very strong demand for tertiary education (Tsakloglou, Cholezas, 2005, p. 4). This problem is getting worse due to the traditional inefficiency of the Greek public education system, fact that leeds parents to hire private tutors for their children to ensure that they graduate from high school and pass the qualifying examination that blocks their way to tertiary-level education. Consequently, the students whose parents cannot afford to hire a tutor are having less chances of passing the qualifying examination. As far as the restricted admissions policy is concerned, Greece continues to have the most restrictive admissions policy to higher education in the European Union, even though, at the level of secondary education, the 4 This, of course, is not accidental given the fact that is very rare for the residing Education Ministers, who usually hold the title for short periods of time, to be experts in the field of educational issues. Moreover, although they ignore the preliminary work and undertakings of their predecessors, and they usually neglect to take into account recommendations made by the various advisory committees, which they themselves actually create, proposing solutions which are consistent with the ideology of the political party that they represent (Dimaras, 1979, pp 7-8). Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 4

7 selection standards and procedures were relaxed (Antoninis and Tsakloglou 2001) 5. Obviously, the strongly competitive character of the examination process drives up the average standard for all the courses in which the students from all streams and thematic areas were examined. Consequently, teaching at the high school level was distorted, and much heavier importance was placed on extra-curricular tutoring units (Mantis, 2000, p31). Extra-curricular tutoring can be especially expensive, and is usually unreachable for the poorer families. As such, under this system, the students social background, which is related to their financial status, can be a limiting factor in terms of access to university (Katsikas, Kavadias, 1994, pp98-99). 4. Inequalities in access to tertiary education in Greece for the period The issue of unequal access to tertiary education has been investigated by numerous researchers in Greece. Even though most of these studies are of a descriptive nature, their conclusions are very similar: children of parents with better educational qualifications and occupational background are far more likely to succeed in tertiary education examinations than students from lower socioeconomic strata. This phenomenon is far more intense in Universities than in Technological Education Institutes (Tsakloglou, Cholezas, 2005, p. 5). Furthermore, the research findings suggest that the Greek educational system is promoting and reproducing inequalities among social groups. These inequalities are manifested mainly in relation to differentiated educational achievement during the compulsory phases of education and unequal access to tertiary-level education (Giamouridis, Bagley, 2006, p. 14). In order to provide a vivid picture for the period 1984 to 2004, further down, this section presents a series of indicators which relate the development of inequalities in access to the students social background. The classification matrix used for this purpose is based on the fathers occupation of students. Given that the students social background differentiates costs for private education and university admission preparation, it is important to investigate the evolution of inequalities in access. These can be established using broad categories based on paternal occupation, which ultimately indicate financial status and sociocupational familial background 6. In other words, given that the selection process has remained mostly constant, we can ascertain that the development of inequalities to tertiary level educational institutions was influenced by the candidates social background. This can be confirmed with greater certainty using the available statistical information concerning the social background of the first year students 7. More specifically, in this case, paternal occupation was used as an indicator of the students social standing. In fact, in this case, the following five categories for the fathers occupations are used: 1) Non-manual (White - collar) workers, 2) Manual 6 According to the results of the Household Budgets Survey (H.B.S.), the households with person in charge that practices non manual - white collar type professions spend for education over double pecuniary sums concerning the corresponding national monthly mean indicator (H.B.S / 94, N.S.S.G., 1999, p. 111). 7 It should be mentioned that data concerning the total of the registered students in all their studying years in higher educational institutions (A.E.I. & T.E.I.) underestimate the social inequalities of access comparing to the data concerning only the first year students as those students coming from the poorer strata of population are expected to usually extend, the length of their studies, mainly because at the same time they work, so that their number in the total number of students in tertiary education is increased, without a correspondent growth on their relative probabilities of access. 5 The excessive demand for higher education reflects the value of university degrees in Greek society in terms of personal prestige, social status, job security, salary level etc. Indeed, a large number of specialists argued that, traditionally, the university degree has been inextricably linked to enhanced social status and occupational security. Education in Greece is seen as a means of social mobility. It should be mentioned that Greece sends more students on a per-capita basis to universities abroad (especially Britain) than any other country in the world due to the imbalance between high demand for tertiarylevel education and the relatively low number of applicants who are actually admitted to Greek universities (Giamouridis, Bagley, 2006). Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 5

8 (Blue - collar) workers,3) Farmers, 4) Unemployed and 5) Non-active population (mainly pensioners) Based on this classification matrix, the figures in Table 1 indicate that the Greek educational system is promoting and reproducing inequalities in access to tertiary-level education among social groups and this phenomenon has been proven to be more intense in universities (AEI) than in Technological Education Institutes (TEI). More precisely, the research findings suggest that those first year university students whose father has a Non-manual (White-collar) occupation (academics, professionals, managers, office employees, businessmen) have steadily increased their presence in the respective student population (from 56,31% in 1984/19855 to 68,28% in 2003/2004). Conversely, first year university students whose father is a farmer have significantly diminished in presence (from 13,57% in 1984/1985 to 5,15% in 2003/2004). However, in the case of sons/daughters of Manual (Blue-collar) workers a much smaller decease in presence is observed (from 22,9% in 1984/1985 to 20,64% in 2003/2004). The two remaining groups children of unemployed persons and children of non active (mainly pensioners) are substantially under-represented in first year students of Greek universities, diminishing significantly their total share from 3,74% in 1984/1985 to 0,80% in 2003/2004. However, in this period of time the residual category - Nonclassified seems to increase slightly its participation to the first year university students in Greece from 3,47% in 1984/1985 to 5,13% in 2003/2004. On the other hand, as far as the developments in distribution of first year students in Technological Education Institutions (TEI) by father s occupational status are concerned, figures in Table 1 indicate that those whose father has a Non-manual (White-collar) occupation represented 43,65% of the total first year TEI students in 1984/1985, increasing their participation to 52,13% in 2003/2004. Conversely, first year TEI students whose father is a farmer have steadily diminished in presence, emerging in this case, the largest decrease (from 21,09% in 1984/1985 to 8,07% in 2003/2004). For sons and daughters of Blue-collar workers, however, an almost constant participation, of around 30%, for the whole period under investigation ( ) is observed. Conversely, the two remaining groups children of unemployed persons and children of non active (mainly pensioners) decrease slightly their total share from 2,66% in 1984/1985 to 1,10% in 2003/2004. However, in the case of first year TEI students the residual category - Non-classified increase significantly its participation from 1,72% in 1984/1985 to 7,74% in 2003/2004. By weighing these findings with the fathers corresponding proportional distribution in the general population (men aged between 45 and 64 by occupational status), we can calculate a set of Inequality Indicators (I.I.) 8 reproduced in Table 2. This table reports the ratio of the proportion of firstyear University (AEI) and Technological Educational Institutions (TEI) students whose fathers belong to one of five particular occupational groups to the proportion of males aged belonging to the corresponding occupational group (national average: 1.00). According to this Inequality, children of Blue-collar workers are slightly under-represented mainly in the Greek Universities, while those of White-collar workers are around twice as likely as the national average to succeed in University entry examinations. The three remaining groups children of farmers, unemployed persons and the residual category other (mostly children of pensioners) are substantially under-represented in Greek Universities. Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/ The mathematical formula for the calculation of Inequality Indicators (I.I.) j is the following: (I.I.) i = Fi / Pi (1) Where: - (I.I.) j : the Inequality Indicator for students belonging to the group (i) - Fi: the percentage of first year students belonging to the group (i) in the total of first year students of the same year - Pi: the percentage of "fathers" belonging to the group (i) meaning males of age of years of the professions group (i) in the total of males of age of years of the same year (on the basis of data provided by the corresponding Labour Force Survey)

9 Table 1: Distribution of first year students in Tertiary Education (A.E.I.* & T.E.I.**) by father s occupational status ( ) Father s occupational status Academic year Type of Tertiary Education Institution Total students Whitecollar Farmers Bluecollar Unemployed Nonclassified Non-active (mainly pensioner) Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 56,31 13,57 22,91 0,20 3,47 3,54 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 43,45 21,09 31,10 0,22 1,72 2, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 57,83 12,35 23,20 0,26 3,39 2,97 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 43,81 20,07 31,41 0,19 1,83 2, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 59,15 11,86 22,34 0,22 3,53 2,90 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 44,26 18,29 32,31 0,39 2,37 2, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 57,71 12,60 23,06 0,24 2,78 3,61 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 45,38 17,05 33,42 0,15 1,83 2, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 59,49 12,45 22,83 0,16 2,67 2,39 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 47,27 16,51 34,74 0,08 1,06 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 57,38 10,51 23,67 0,24 2,03 6,17 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 44,48 14,86 35,44 0,01 1,42 3, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 57,24 10,61 23,21 0,19 2,34 6,41 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 42,87 14,59 36,65 0,00 1,37 4, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 60,26 8,98 21,64 0,28 2,54 6,30 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 47,80 13,30 31,34 0,32 1,81 5, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 58,94 8,42 23,30 0,33 2,34 6,67 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 47,61 12,68 32,50 0,39 1,20 5, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 61,69 7,88 22,56 0,31 2,49 5,06 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 49,90 12,19 32,11 0,34 1,96 3,50 * A.E.I.: Higher Educational Institutions - Universities ** T.E.I.: Technological Educational Institutions Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 7

10 Table 1 (continue): Distribution of first year students in Tertiary Education (A.E.I.*& T.E.I.**) by father s occupational status ( ) Father s occupational status Academic year Type of Tertiary Education Institution Total students Whitecollar Farmers Bluecollar Unemployed Nonclassified Non-active (mainly pensioner) Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 65,99 6,40 20,39 0,46 1,99 4,76 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 51,81 10,86 29,48 0,51 2,14 5, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 67,93 6,11 18,80 0,31 2,47 4,37 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 53,13 9,42 31,00 0,62 1,12 4, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 67,81 5,63 19,87 0,35 2,52 3,82 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 53,92 9,44 29,18 0,37 4,36 2, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 69,50 5,03 19,32 0,36 2,25 3,53 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 53,49 9,05 29,56 0,48 5,28 2, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 71,76 4,98 17,65 0,34 2,59 2,68 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 53,06 8,63 30,54 0,51 5,06 2, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 65,37 5,01 23,07 0,65 5,02 0,89 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 50,44 8,92 33,44 1,07 5,72 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 66,96 4,98 23,89 0,67 3,38 0,11 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 53,88 8,41 32,23 1,26 4,15 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 68,11 5,03 22,09 0,62 4,09 0,07 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 52,53 8,06 29,84 1,08 8,33 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 68,65 5,10 20,10 0,54 5,49 0,11 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 50,71 8,56 31,94 0,97 7,77 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 100,00 68,28 5,15 20,64 0,64 5,13 0,16 Τ.Ε.Ι. 100,00 52,13 8,07 30,96 1,05 7,74 0,05 * A.E.I.: Higher Educational Institutions - Universities ** T.E.I.: Technological Educational Institutions Source: N.S.S.G., Department of Social Statistics, Education Statistics, unpublished data for the period Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 8

11 Distribution of first year students in Tertiary Education by father's occupational status Universities (AEI) 100,00 90,00 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 0, White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-classified Non-active (mainly pensioner) 100,00 90,00 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 Distribution of first year students in Tertiary Education by father's occupational status Technological Educational Institutions (TEI) White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-classified Non-active (mainly pensioner) Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/2009 9

12 Table 2: Inequality Indicators (I.I.) j for first year students in Tertiary Education (A.E.I.* & T.E.I.**) by father s occupational status ( ) Father s occupational status Academic year Type of Tertiary Education Institution White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-active (mainly pensioner) Α.Ε.Ι. 2,01 0,54 0,90 0,07 0,19 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,55 0,84 1,22 0,08 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,08 0,49 0,93 0,11 0,15 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,57 0,80 1,25 0,08 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,19 0,49 0,88 0,11 0,14 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,64 0,75 1,27 0,19 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,13 0,54 0,94 0,12 0,16 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,68 0,73 1,36 0,07 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,20 0,53 0,96 0,09 0,10 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,75 0,70 1,45 0,04 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,14 0,46 0,97 0,17 0,25 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,66 0,66 1,45 0,00 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,10 0,50 0,94 0,14 0,25 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,57 0,69 1,48 0,00 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,19 0,45 0,88 0,20 0,24 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,73 0,66 1,27 0,23 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,10 0,43 0,95 0,16 0,26 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,70 0,64 1,32 0,19 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,21 0,43 0,89 0,13 0,20 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,79 0,67 1,26 0,14 0,14 * A.E.I.: Higher Educational Institutions - Universities ** T.E.I.: Technological Educational Institutions Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

13 Table 2 (continue): Inequality Indicators (I.I.) j for first year students in Tertiary Education (A.E.I.* & T.E.I.**) by father s occupational status ( ) Father s occupational status Academic year Type of Tertiary Education Institution White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-active (mainly pensioner) Α.Ε.Ι. 2,27 0,36 0,79 0,17 0,20 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,78 0,61 1,14 0,19 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,32 0,35 0,72 0,11 0,18 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,81 0,54 1,19 0,22 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,20 0,33 0,77 0,15 0,16 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,75 0,56 1,13 0,16 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,23 0,31 0,74 0,14 0,15 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,72 0,55 1,13 0,18 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,34 0,33 0,69 0,12 0,11 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,73 0,58 1,19 0,18 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,10 0,36 0,88 0,21 0,03 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,62 0,65 1,27 0,35 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,16 0,34 0,89 0,24 0,00 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,74 0,57 1,20 0,45 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,16 0,37 0,81 0,22 0,00 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,67 0,59 1,09 0,39 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,16 0,40 0,72 0,21 0,00 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,59 0,66 1,14 0,37 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 2,08 0,39 0,71 0,28 0,01 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,59 0,62 1,07 0,47 0,00 * A.E.I.: Higher Educational Institutions - Universities ** T.E.I.: Technological Educational Institutions Source: N.S.S.G., Department of Social Statistics, Education Statistics, unpublished data for the period Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

14 Inequality Indicators (I.I.)j for first year students in Tertiary Education (A.E.I.) by father s occupational status ( ) 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0, White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-active (mainly pensioner) 2,50 Inequality Indicators (I.I.)j for first year students in Tertiary Education (T.E.I.) by father s occupational status ( ) 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0, White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-active (mainly pensioner) Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

15 More precisely, Table 2 indicates that sons/daughters of Non-manual (White-collar) workers are steadily over-represented, with an Inequality Index of 2,01 in 1984/1985, increasing slightly to 2,18 in 2003/204 in comparison to the corresponding percent distribution of their fathers. Furthermore, students whose fathers are technicians are increasing their relative under-representation in first year students of Greek Universities (from 0,90 in 1984/1985 to 0,62 in 2003/2004). Moreover, those first year university students, whose father is a farmer are under-represented with an especially smaller corresponding proportion which is diminishing constantly over time (from 0.53 in 1984/5 to 0.32 in 2003/2004. During the same period, first year university students with an unemployed father are continuously and significantly under-represented in the student body, despite a small improvement observed in this sector, as far as the corresponding Inequality Indicator of 0.07 in 1984/5 does not exceed 0.26 by 2003/2004. According to the Inequality Indicators calculated for the first year students in Higher Technological Institutes (T.E.I.) it seems that corresponding inequalities in access are still there, although less pronounced than in Greek Universities. More precisely, as it is indicating in Table 2, children of White collar workers are steadily over-represented in first year T.E.I. students (by a factor of about 1,63 in 1984/1985 increasing to a 1,69 in 2003/2004) with respect to the corresponding percent distribution of their fathers. It should be mentioned that in the case of first year T.E.I. students whose fathers are Blue-collar workers, although they are initially slightly over-represented, they are reducing diachronically their relative presence given the fact that they have started with an Inequality Index of 1,21 in 1984/1985, which is diminishing constantly by reaching a value of exactly 1,00 in 2003/2004, in comparison to the corresponding percent distribution of their fathers. At the same period of time, first year T.E.I. students, whose father is a farmer, are steadily under-represented diminishing constantly their corresponding weighted proportion over time (from 0.75 in 1984/1985 to 0.50 in 2003/2004). In the following, using the farming occupations as a reference group, some interesting observation arise regarding the relative likelihood of access to university for students from each student group classified by their father s occupation. More specifically, Access Inequality Indicators (A.I.I.) are very useful for this purpose. These indicators show the degree to which students of various social backgrounds are over-represented (or underrepresented) relative to the reference group (farmers). In other words, it is the way we can calculate the relative chances of access to tertiary education with respect to the chosen reference group, which in this case, is comprised of first year students whose father is a farmer 9. 9 The mathematical formula for the calculation of Access Inequality Indicators (A.I.I.) j is the following: (A.I.I.) i = (I.I.) i / (I.I.) a Where: - (A.I.I.) I: the Access Inequality Indicators (A.I.I.) j for students belonging to the group (i) - (I.I.) I : the Inequality Indicator for students belonging to the group (i) - (I.I.) a : the Inequality Indicator for students belonging to the reference group (a), which in this case, is comprised of first year students whose father is a farmer Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

16 Table 3: Access Inequality Indicators (A.I.I.) j for first year students in Tertiary Education (A.E.I.* & T.E.I.**) by father s occupational status ( ) Father s occupational status Academic year Type of Tertiary Education Institution White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-active (mainly pensioner) Α.Ε.Ι. 3,72 1,00 1,66 0,14 0,36 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,85 1,00 1,45 0,10 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 4,20 1,00 1,87 0,22 0,31 Τ.Ε.Ι. 1,96 1,00 1,56 0,10 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 4,47 1,00 1,79 0,22 0,28 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,17 1,00 1,68 0,25 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 3,96 1,00 1,74 0,21 0,30 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,30 1,00 1,87 0,10 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 4,17 1,00 1,81 0,17 0,19 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,50 1,00 2,08 0,06 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 4,63 1,00 2,09 0,36 0,55 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,54 1,00 2,22 0,01 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 4,15 1,00 1,86 0,28 0,50 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,26 1,00 2,13 0,00 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 4,88 1,00 1,96 0,45 0,54 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,61 1,00 1,92 0,35 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 4,94 1,00 2,22 0,37 0,62 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,65 1,00 2,06 0,29 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 5,13 1,00 2,06 0,29 0,46 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,68 1,00 1,89 0,20 0,21 * A.E.I.: Higher Educational Institutions - Universities ** T.E.I.: Technological Educational Institutions Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

17 Table 3 (continuation): Access Inequality Indicators (A.I.I.) j for first year students in Tertiary Education (A.E.I.* & T.E.I.**) by father s occupational status ( ) Father s occupational status Academic year Type of Tertiary Education Institution White-collar Farmers Blue-collar Unemployed Non-active (mainly pensioner) Α.Ε.Ι. 6,29 1,00 2,20 0,48 0,55 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,91 1,00 1,87 0,31 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 6,66 1,00 2,07 0,32 0,52 Τ.Ε.Ι. 3,38 1,00 2,22 0,41 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 6,64 1,00 2,32 0,44 0,49 Τ.Ε.Ι. 3,15 1,00 2,03 0,28 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 7,26 1,00 2,39 0,44 0,50 Τ.Ε.Ι. 3,11 1,00 2,04 0,32 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 7,01 1,00 2,07 0,36 0,32 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,99 1,00 2,07 0,31 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 5,76 1,00 2,41 0,58 0,10 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,50 1,00 1,97 0,54 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 6,45 1,00 2,65 0,72 0,01 Τ.Ε.Ι. 3,07 1,00 2,12 0,79 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 5,91 1,00 2,21 0,61 0,01 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,84 1,00 1,86 0,66 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 5,45 1,00 1,82 0,52 0,01 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,40 1,00 1,72 0,56 0, Α.Ε.Ι. 5,29 1,00 1,81 0,72 0,02 Τ.Ε.Ι. 2,58 1,00 1,74 0,76 0,00 * A.E.I.: Higher Educational Institutions - Universities ** T.E.I.: Technological Educational Institutions Source: N.S.S.G., Department of Social Statistics, Education Statistics, unpublished data for the period Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

18 According to Table 3, first year students with a father in Non-manual (White-collar) occupations have a steadily increasing likelihood of access to graduate university education in relation to those with a father working as farmer in the primary - sector. The former surpassed the latter by 3.72 times in 1984/5, which rose to 7,26 times more in 1997/8, diminishing slightly to 5,29 times more than the reference group in 2003/ A corresponding improvement in the relative likelihood of access to graduate university education, though smaller, is observed among students whose father is working in Manual (Blue-collar) occupations (from 1.66 in 1984/5 to 2.76 in 1997/8, reaching at last 1,81 times larger access chances than the reference group in 2003/2004). As far as the inequalities in access to the Technological Educational Institutions (T.E.I.) are concerned, according to the Table 3, it emerges that first year T.E.I. students with a father in Nonmanual (White-collar) occupations have a smaller, than in case of university students, but still steadily increasing likelihood of access to the tertiary technological education in relation to those with a father working in the primary sector. The former surpassed the latter by 1,85 times in 1984/5, which rose to 3,11 times more in 1997/8, diminishing slightly afterwards to 2,58 times more than the reference group in 2003/2004. A corresponding improvement in the relative likelihood of access to tertiary education, though smaller, is observed among first year T.E.I. students whose father is a Blue-collar worker (from 1.45 in 1984/1985 to 2,04 in 1997/8 and 1,74 times larger access chances than the reference group in 2003/2004. From the above findings, it appears that the father s employment is a significant factor for differentiation among the relative chances of accessing universitylevel education. The corresponding inequalities do not fluctuate to extremes, however as previously indicated, in the case of universities they have more than doubled by the end of the time-period in question, while in the higher technological education the corresponding relative inequalities in access seem to be narrowing. This situation is further aggravated if one considers paternal employment for graduates coming from private high schools. That is, if financial situation is also considered to be a factor, those attending private high schools will evidently fall into a high-income bracket. In this case, an analysis of the corresponding Access Inequality Indicators (A.I.I.) indicates that a family s good financial standing is evidenced here by their ability to send their children to private school, is a further defining factor for determining inequalities in access to university. Ultimately, it emphasizes the already-defined social inequalities in access (Chrisakis, Soulis 2001b). On the other hand, in the long run, social inequalities in access to the Tertiary Education persist and they appear to be more defining that those based on other factors including gender differentiations (Chrysakis, 2005) or even structural educational reforms (Chrysakis, 2002). This situation would probably have to be aggravated at the level of prestigious university departments and schools. Therefore, further investigation of available corresponding data, at the level of each University or Technological Educational Institution apart, could lead to a better understanding regarding the significance of the inter-institutional differentiation of inequalities in access to the Tertiary Education in Greece. 10 In other words, in 1997/8 the relative likelihood in access was 7,26 times larger for the Non-manual (Whitecollar) group, while in 2003/2004 was diminished to 5,29 times larger, comparing to the farming group (A.I.I.) a = 1) at the same academic year. This evolution, eventually, indicates the influence of the most recent educational reform and especially of the new system of entrance in Tertiary Education which has been introduced starting from the academic year 2000/2001. Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

19 5. Inter-university and inter-institutional differentiation of inequalities in access to the Tertiary Education. To pinpoint the inter-institutional differences which exist among universities as well as among higher Technological Educational Institutes in Greece, in terms of access inequalities according to the first year students paternal occupations, we will analyze further on, the available figures for the academic year More specifically, as far as the social differentiation of enrolment rates in all Greek universities during the 1997/1998 academic year, is concerned, Table 4 clearly indicates that the landslide majority of first year students belonged to the Non-manual (Whitecollar) fathers occupational category. More precisely, it is noted that the above mentioned category comprised 78.8% of first year enrollments at the Technical University of Crete, 75.4% at the National Technical University of Athens, 71.5% at the University of Patras, and 71.3% at the Athens University of Economics and Business. That is, in these universities the differentiation of these percentages is significantly larger on the favor of the first year students coming from the upper social strata comparing to the average for all universitylevel institutions (69.5%) for the same academic year (1997/1998). indicates that exist significant inter-institutional differences correlated to the first year students social background. More precisely, during the 1997/1998 academic year, the landslide majority of first year T.E.I. students belonged to the Non manual (White-collar) parental category. Analyzing further, it is noted that the above category comprised 58,64% of enrollments at the T.E.I of Athens, 56,93% at the T.E.I of Piraeus, 55,56% at the T.E.I of Halkida, 53,69% at the T.E.I of Lamia and 53,68% at the T.E.I of Patras. That is, these differentiation percentages are high with respect to the average for all higher Technological Educational Institutions (53, 49%) in Greece. Relatively lower participation percentages for the above-mentioned group, within the entire first-year students population, are noted in the University of Aegean (63.54%), the Agricultural University of Athens (62.4) and the Athens School of Fine Arts (62.1%). It should be noticed that for the first two above mentioned universities, there is less demand which would account for such figures. In the last case, the talent prerequisite for entrance to this fine arts higher educational institution slightly dulls the defining social differentiations. In the remaining universities, noting only small exceptions, the group of the first year students coming from the upper social strata represents percentages that fall, insignificantly, either above or below the corresponding national average. According to the official data concerning the enrollment rates in higher Technological Educational Institutes (T.E.I.) in Greece, Table 5, Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/

20 Table 4: Distribution of first year students in Greek Universities (A.E.I.*) by father s occupational status for the academic year 1997/1998. Father s occupational status University Total Whitecollar Farmers Bluecollar Unemployed Nonclassified Non-active (mainly pensioner) 1. University of Athens 100,00 69,57 4,48 19,14 0,29 2,29 4,22 2. University of Aegean 100,00 63,54 6,05 24,35 0,72 1,15 4,18 3. University of Thessaly 100,00 70,30 6,46 18,99 0,40 2,22 1,62 4. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 100,00 70,01 5,32 18,71 0,32 2,29 3,35 5. University of Thrace 100,00 70,98 5,99 15,97 0,65 2,14 4,27 6. Ionian University 100,00 70,04 6,61 19,07 0,00 1,56 2,72 7. University of Ioannina 100,00 67,84 5,75 19,79 0,60 2,44 3,58 8. University of Crete 100,00 65,08 6,09 22,29 0,52 2,60 3,42 9. Technical University of Crete 100,00 78,79 3,03 13,13 0,00 2,53 2, University of Patras 100,00 71,50 4,02 18,71 0,42 2,40 2, National Technical University of Athens 12. Athens University of Economics and Business 100,00 75,38 2,43 16,58 0,25 2,76 2,60 100,00 71,28 4,55 19,05 0,09 1,95 3, Panteion University 100,00 66,03 5,86 22,50 0,51 1,78 3, University of Piraeus 100,00 69,15 4,53 20,50 0,27 2,17 3, University of Macedonia 100,00 69,70 4,03 21,85 0,13 2,34 1, Agricultural University of Athens 100,00 62,40 9,97 22,25 0,26 2,05 3, Athens School of Fine Arts 100,00 62,01 2,79 25,70 0,00 2,23 7, Harokopeio University 100,00 68,57 6,67 20,95 0,00 2,86 0,95 * A.E.I.: Higher Educational Institutions - Universities Source: N.S.S.G., unpublished data for the academic year 1997/1998. Social Cohesion Bulletin 2/