1. Pathways, productivity and equity: Insights from OECD work Richard Sweet AVETRA October 20, 2006

2. Upper secondary pathways

3. Upper secondary students by pathway type, mid 1990s

4. Tertiary pathways

5. The size and shape of national tertiary systems, 2001

6. Per cent of tertiary enrolments in universities, 2001

7. Enrolments by ISCED level, selected non-university institutions, 2001

8. Does size matter?

9. Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R 2.0149 (2001)

10. Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R 2.0149 (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001)

11. How about the economic demand argument? R 2 =0.0004 CHE DEU GRC ESP AUS

12. Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R 2.0149 (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0004 (2000)

13. Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R 2.0149 (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0029 (2000) r Social demand?

14. Per cent of 15 year-olds expecting to achieve tertiary education, 2003 R 2 =.2476

15. Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R 2.0149 (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0004 (2000) r Social demand? l Per cent of 15 year-olds expecting to achieve tertiary education R 2 =.2476 (2003)

16. Correlates of the size of tertiary systems r National wealth? l GDP per capita = R 2.0149 (2001) r The structure of the system? l Per cent of enrolments in tertiary-type B programmes R 2 =.0721 (2001) r Economic demand? l Share of value added represented by technology- and knowledge-intensive industries R 2 =.0029 (2000) r Social demand? l Per cent of 15 year-olds expecting to achieve tertiary education R 2 =.2476 (2003) r Inequality?

17. Inequality, literacy and tertiary size

18. Conclusions r Countries don’t have the size of tertiary system that they can afford or that they need, but the size that they want r Unfair societies that stream early and by social class have small tertiary systems l But can still deliver high quality skills through their VET systems r Large, high quality apprenticeship systems come at a cost

19. An observation rather than a conclusion r Australia might be fortunate in having a small and low quality apprenticeship system r But that is a story for another day

20. Thank you