Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 7–27 | Cite as

Public university entry in Ghana: Is it equitable?

  • Hadrat Yusif
  • Ishak Yussof
  • Zulkifly Osman
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Public universities in Ghana are highly subsidised by the central government and account for about 80 per cent of university students in the country. Yet issues of fairness in terms of entry into the public university system have so far hardly been addressed. To find out whether participation in public university education is equitable, the authors of this paper carried out a binary logistic regression analysis. Individual data were collected from 1,129 (614 male and 515 female) final year senior high school (SHS) students for the 2009 cohort. The authors measured student, father and mother characteristics likely to influence admission to a public university. The results show that the major predictors of public university entry are students’ academic ability, quality of SHS attended and number of siblings. This seems to suggest that there is a significant bias in the selection of students from different socio-economic groups for admission to highly subsidised public universities. The implication is that public financing of university education in Ghana may not be equitable.

Keywords

Educational financing Educational economics Human capital 

Résumé

L’admission à l’enseignement supérieur public du Ghana est-il équitable ? – Les universités publiques du Ghana sont fortement subventionnées par le gouvernement central et desservent environ 80 pour cent des étudiants du pays. La question de l’équité en terme d’admission dans le système universitaire public n’a cependant pas été traitée jusqu’ici. Dans le but de déterminer si la participation à l’enseignement universitaire public est équitable, les auteurs de l’article ont effectué une analyse de régression logistique binaire. Les données individuelles de 1129 élèves de terminale (614 garçons et 515 filles) ont été collectées pour l’année 2009. Les auteurs ont défini les caractéristiques des élèves et de leurs parents, qui sont susceptibles d’influencer l’admission à une université publique. Les résultats démontrent que les principaux indices d’admission sont les résultats scolaires des élèves, la qualité de l’établissement secondaire fréquenté et l’importance de la fratrie. Ces résultats semblent révéler une nette tendance à une sélection des élèves issus de différents groupes socioéconomiques pour leur admission dans les universités publiques, qui sont fortement subventionnées. Il peut en être déduit que le financement public de l’enseignement universitaire au Ghana pourrait ne pas être équitable.

Zusammenfassung

Gibt es Chancengleichheit beim Zugang zu öffentlichen Universitäten in Ghana? – Öffentliche Universitäten in Ghana werden von der zentralstaatlichen Regierung hoch subventioniert und nehmen etwa 80 Prozent der Universitätsstudierenden des Landes auf. Fragen der Chancengleichheit in puncto Zugang zum System der öffentlichen Universitäten wurden bislang allerdings kaum thematisiert. Um zu ermitteln, ob die Partizipation an der öffentlichen Hochschulausbildung gerecht verteilt ist, haben die Autoren dieses Beitrags eine binäre logistische Regressionsanalyse durchgeführt. Dazu wurden die Einzeldaten von 1.129 (614 männlichen und 515 weiblichen) angehenden Absolvent(inn)en der Senior High School (SHS) des Abschlussjahrgangs 2009 erhoben. Die Autoren verglichen die Eigenschaften der Schülerinnen und Schüler sowie ihrer Väter und Mütter, die mutmaßlich die Aufnahme an einer öffentlichen Universität beeinflussen. Den Ergebnissen zufolge sind die Hauptprädiktoren für den Zugang zu einer öffentlichen Universität die akademischen Fähigkeiten des Schülers bzw. der Schülerin, die Qualität der besuchten SHS und die Zahl der Geschwister. Dies scheint darauf hinzudeuten, dass es bei der Auswahl der Schülerinnen und Schüler aus verschiedenen sozioökonomischen Gruppierungen für den Zugang zu hoch subventionierten öffentlichen Universitäten einen signifikanten Verzerrungseffekt gibt. Dies würde auch bedeuten, dass bei der öffentlichen Finanzierung der Hochschulausbildung in Ghana möglicherweise keine Chancengleichheit herrscht.

Resumen

El ingreso en la universidad pública de Ghana, ¿es equitativo? – Las universidades públicas de Ghana están altamente subsidiadas por el gobierno central y reúnen alrededor del 80 por ciento de los estudiantes universitarios del país. Sin embargo, los temas de equidad en el ingreso a la universidad pública apenas han sido considerados hasta el momento. Para comprobar si la educación en la universidad pública es justa, los autores de este trabajo realizaron un análisis de regresión logística binaria. De la promoción 2009, se escogieron 1.129 estudiantes del último año de preuniversitario (614 varones y 515 mujeres). Los autores midieron las características del estudiante, así como de su padre y de su madre, que podrían influir en la admisión en una universidad pública. Los resultados muestran que los principales indicadores de un ingreso en la universidad son la capacidad académica, la calidad de la escuela secundaria visitada y el número de hermanos. Esto parece sugerir que hay preferencias importantes en la selección de estudiantes de diferentes grupos socioeconómicos para que sean admitidos en universidades públicas altamente subvencionadas, lo cual implicaría que la financiación pública de la educación universitaria en Ghana podría no ser equitativa. Open image in new window

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aakvik, A., Salvanes, K. G., & Vaage, K. (2005). Educational attainment and family background. German Economic Review, 6(3), 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Addae-Mensah, I. (2000). Education in Ghana: A tool for social mobility or social stratification? Accra: Institute for Scientific and Technological Information.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. G. (2003). Family structure, schooling outcomes, and investment in education in South Africa. PSC research report no. 03–538. Ann Arbor, MI: Population Studies Center University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, L. (1999). Does HECS deter? Factors affecting university participation by low SES groups. DETYA occasional paper series. Canberra: Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  5. Appiah-Kubi, K. (2003). Education inequality in Ghana: Micro impact of macroeconomic and adjustment policies. Micro impact of macroeconomic and adjustment policies MIMAP – Ghana Research Report No.1. Accra: Center for Policy Analysis CRDI/IDRC/CIDA.Google Scholar
  6. Atuahene, F. (2006). A policy analysis of the financing of tertiary education institutions in Ghana: An assessment of the objectives and the impact of the Ghana Education Trust Fund (PhD Dissertation, Faculty of the College of Education of Ohio University).Google Scholar
  7. Baciu, L., Ceobanu, C., Asandului, L., & Iacobuta, A. (2008). Institutions and economic performance in Romania: A sociopsychological perspective. Paper presented at the International Conference on Education Economics-ICEE 2008, Athens, Greece, 27–30 August.Google Scholar
  8. Balsmeier, B., & Peters, H. (2009). Family background or characteristics of the child: What determines high school success in Germany? Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 10, 21–43.Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, P., & Riphahn, R. T. (2007). Heterogeneity in the intergenerational transmission of educational attainment: Evidence from Switzerland on natives and second-generation immigrants. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Björklund, A., Ginther, D. K., & Sundström, M. (2007). Family structure and child outcomes in the USA and Sweden. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Booth, A. L., & Kee, H. J. (2009). Birth order matters: The effect of family size and birth order on educational attainment. Journal of Population Economics, 22, 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cameron, S. V. & Heckman, J. J. (1999). The dynamics of educational attainment for Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper no. 7249. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  13. Carneiro, P., & Heckman, J. J. (2002). The evidence on credit constraints in post-secondary schooling. The Economic Journal, 112, 705–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Case, A., & Deaton, A. (1999). School inputs and educational outcomes in South Africa. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 14(3), 1047–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapman, B. (1999). Reform of Ethiopian higher education financing: Conceptual and policy issues. Economics of Education Thematic Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Currie, J. (1977). Family background, academic achievement and occupational status in Uganda. Comparative Education Review, 21(1), 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernandes, D. C., & Neves, J. A. (2010). Urban bias in development and educational attainments in Brazil. Journal of Developing Areas, 43(2), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghana Statistical Service (2005). 2000 Population and Housing Census of Ghana: Demographic. Accra: Economic and Housing Characteristics.Google Scholar
  19. Glewwe, P., & Jacoby, H. (1993). Estimating the determinants of cognitive achievement in low-income countries: The case of Ghana. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  20. Glick, P., & Sahn, D. E. (2010). Ability, grade repetition, and school attainment in Senegal: A panel data analysis. Cornell Food and Nutrition Policy Program working paper no. 227. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  21. Hartman, R. W. (1972). Equity implications of state tuition policy and student loans. Journal of Political Economy, 80(3), 142–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haveman, R., Wolfe, B., & Spaulding, J. (1991). Childhood events and circumstances influencing high school completion. Demography, 28(1), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heyneman, S. P. (1976). Influences on academic achievement: A Comparison of results from Uganda and more industrialized societies. Sociology of Education, 49, 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iannelli, C. (2007). Inequalities in entry to higher education: A comparison over time between Scotland and England and Wales. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(3), 306–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen, B., & Seltzer, A. (2000). Neighbourhood and family effects in educational progress. Australian Economic Review, 33(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kane, T. J. (1994). College entry by Blacks since 1970: The role of college costs, family background, and the returns to education. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 878–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leibowitz, A. (1974). Home investments in children. Journal of Political Economy, 2(11), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li, W. (2007). Family background, financial constraints and higher education attendance in China. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 724–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu, J.-T., Chou, S.-Y., & Liu, J.-L. (2006). Asymmetries in progression in higher education in Taiwan: Parental education and income effects. Economics of Education Review, 25(6), 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lu, Y. (2009). Sibship size and education in South Africa: Black–white variations. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27(2), 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manski, C. F., Sandefur, G. D., Mclanahan, S., & Powers, D. (1992). Alternative estimates of the effect of family structure during adolescence on high school graduation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(417), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manski, C. F., & Wise, D. A. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. McIntosh, J., & Munk, M. D. (2007). Scholastic ability vs family background in educational success: evidence from Danish sample survey data. Journal of Population Economics, 20(1), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McMahon, W. W., & Geske, T. G. (Eds.). (1982). Financing education: Overcoming inefficiency and inequity. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (2008). Report on basic statistics and planning parameters for basic education in Ghana 2007/2008. EMIS Report, March, 2008.Google Scholar
  36. Neuman, S. (1991). Parental background, educational attainments and returns to schooling and to marriage: the case of Israel. Applied Economics, 23, 1325–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Psacharopoulos, G., & Woodhall, M. (1985). Education for development: An analysis of investment choices. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rozada, M. G., & Menendez, A. (2002). Public university in Argentina: Subsidizing the rich? Economics of Education Review, 21, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tobias, J. L. (2003). The effects of cognitive ability and high school quality on college entry decisions: non parametric estimation of parameters of interest. Applied Economics, 35, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) (2011). Public reports, Table 14: Tertiary indicators. Accessed 17 January 2011 from http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=167.
  41. WAEC (West African Examination Council) (2011). Examination files. Accra: WAEC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & TechnologyKumasiGhana
  2. 2.Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options