Share This Article
A popular topic for discussion in Year 11 and 12 is the choice of university and degree. After all, students have just completed 13 years of schooling, and now, they face a new challenge: pursuing education in a new environment and adjusting to a different lifestyle. Gone are the regimented high school timetables; in with personalised and unique schedules. But before students can enjoy this newfound ‘freedom’, they must be admitted into a university. In Australia, university admission is based on marks. As a result, the consensus for students is to achieve the highest possible academic results so they can study their preferred degrees. But, for some, this process can be difficult because it fails to account for an individual’s socio-economic background, extracurricular and academic opportunities, and community involvement, all of which can impact their likelihood of getting into their preferred degrees.
I believe that education, not only primary and high school, should be accessible to individuals of all backgrounds, regardless of their religion, socioeconomic status, age, and gender. While the call for accessible education is not new, it has never been more urgent. In an age marked by political instability, economic volatility, and global uncertainty, we need a generation equipped not just with knowledge but with the skills that tertiary education can cultivate. Now is the time for young people to rise, and higher education can be the platform that empowers them to do so.
Relying solely on a student’s academic marks often overlooks the external factors that can significantly influence their performance.
Students from regional areas in New South Wales face an undeniable disadvantage in educational opportunities. Unlike their private school peers, these students typically lack access to specialised learning facilities, subject-specific aids, and fully-resourced educators. Without these foundational supports, their academic performance can suffer — not from a lack of potential, but from a lack of possibility. Often, limited staffing means students go without personalised feedback, one-on-one guidance, or even access to courses that align with their aspirations. For instance, a student passionate about becoming a fashion designer may never study textiles simply because there are no sewing machines or no qualified educator available to teach the subject. Over time, this systemic inequity dampens student enthusiasm, restricts subject choice, and risks pushing students away from completing high school altogether.
Socioeconomic background and familial experience also play a critical role in shaping a student’s academic trajectory. First-generation students – those whose parents did not attend university – often navigate their educational journey without the benefit of prior knowledge or encouragement from home. The idea of university can feel distant or unrealistic, especially when no one in their immediate circle has gone through the system. In contrast, students whose parents have attended university are more likely to view tertiary education as a natural next step. They not only benefit from academic support but also from informal guidance, emotional reassurance, and insight into the challenges and expectations of university life.
Peer and financial environments further influence a student’s academic performance, often in ways not reflected in their final scores. In schools where academic ambition is not widely shared, motivated students may struggle to maintain momentum, and scaling systems that rank students relative to their peers may further penalise them despite strong individual efforts. Compounding this, families facing financial hardship may not be able to afford tutoring or extra support for subjects their children struggle with. Without access to these resources, students are less likely to feel confident in their abilities, particularly in essay writing, scientific analysis, or complex problem-solving.
These gaps are not reflective of a child’s intelligence or ambition, but rather of an education system that fails to meet all students where they are.
Instead of relying solely on academic marks, the NSW education system should adopt a holistic admissions process, one that considers the broader social, financial, and educational circumstances that shape a student’s academic journey. A student’s school type – public or private – can dramatically influence the opportunities available to them, from extracurricular clubs and elite sports teams to tutoring and academic support. Recognising how students navigate these environments offers a more accurate measure of their determination and potential than a single numerical score.
While adjustment factors already exist to acknowledge disadvantage, they often fall short in making a meaningful difference, especially when it comes to gaining entry into competitive university degrees. We must do more to level the playing field, particularly for first-generation students, who often lack the guidance and confidence that others may take for granted. Although a university degree can dramatically improve someone’s quality of life, the admissions process itself is often intimidating and exclusionary for those without prior exposure.
Universities also must offer greater flexibility for students to explore and change their academic pathways. Expecting 18-year-olds to make a life-defining choice before truly understanding their passions or career goals is both unrealistic and unfair. While degree transfers exist, many competitive programs require a high WAM, creating additional barriers that discourage exploration and adjustment. By allowing students to pivot more freely – within structured timeframes – we can foster a culture of curiosity, adaptability, and self-discovery, rather than one of entrapment.
Some may argue that these changes undermine merit or create unfair advantages, but that argument overlooks the reality that the current system already privileges those from wealthier, more connected backgrounds. Universities are not just institutions of learning; they are gateways to social mobility. Yet the doors often remain closed to those who could benefit from them most. A more equitable admissions system has the potential to reduce long-standing class divides, where one family’s wealth secures elite job prospects while another’s lack of education leads to ongoing financial insecurity.
Lastly, schools must do more to prepare students for university beyond exam performance. This includes offering practical guidance about university life – how tutorials work, how to build a timetable, or how to navigate enrolment systems. As a first-generation student myself, I found the transition jarring and overwhelming. Had I been offered even a basic introduction to university systems and expectations, I would have been far better equipped to succeed from day one.
While universities have the power to transform lives, the path to admission is often daunting, especially for those facing systemic barriers. Our current process places disproportionate weight on academic marks, ignoring the complex external factors that shape a student’s performance and aspirations. A more equitable and inclusive approach, such as a holistic admissions process, is not just a suggestion; it’s a necessity.
Yes, implementing such reforms may take time and effort, but if we truly value education as a public good, we must ensure it is accessible to all students, not just those born into advantage. Failing to act means perpetuating a system that excludes capable minds and reinforces inequality. If we allow that to continue, we risk raising a generation unequipped to challenge the most pertinent problems we face today – from disinformation to corruption, inequality to injustice. Education must be the tool that empowers, not the gate that restricts.
