INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication and microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to pho­ tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this.

2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note ap­ pears to indicate this.

3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­ tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continu­ ing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or m black and white paper format.*

4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­ fiche but lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and white standard 35mm slide format.*

*For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

Dissertation Information Service

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

t 8618844

Saleh, Abdul Aziz

DETERMINANTS OF ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN

The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1986

University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1986 by Saleh, Abdul Aziz All Rights Reserved

DETERMINANTS OF ACCESS TO

HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDONESIA

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philiosphy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

BY

Abdul Aziz Saleh, B.A. and M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1986

Reading Committee:

Will iam L. FI inn

Joseph F. Donnermeyer

Donald G.McCloud

Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology © 1986

ABDUL AZIZ SALEH

All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of persons made important and direct contributions to my coming to The Ohio State University, Columbus, and to the successful completion of my study.

I am grateful to Mr. Mawardi Yunus, the Rector (President) of

Andalas University for the period of 1976-1984, and to Dr. Nitza

Arbi, the Director of Project Implementation Unit of the World Bank

IX Project of Andalas University for granting me to be a recipient of the scholarship. I am also grateful to Mr. Firdaus Rivai, a colleague and the Vice Rector on Academic Matters of Andalas

University, for his fa c ilita tio n , understanding, and encouragement.

My gratitude must also go to Dr. S. Pramutadi, the Director of

Academic Affairs of the Directorate General of Higher Education,

Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia, and to Dr. Indro

Suwandi, the Director in charge of the 1984 SIPENMARU data for their approval and facilitation to the access of the SIPENMARU data to be used in this study. My gratitude must also go the of Southeast Asia Regional Office, especially to Dr. Tom G. Kessinger and Dr. Mary Zurbuchen for awarding me a sufficient fund for the data collection of this study.

At The Ohio State University, my gratitude and deepest appreciation must go to Dr. William L. Flinn and Dr. David 0.

Hansen, my advisors. My study including this work would have never been completed without the intellecutal challenge and guidance, unwavering support and encouragement, and extraordinary patience of them. I am also grateful to Dr. Joseph F. Donnemeyer who gave his time to critically review the manuscript and made helpful suggestions. I also highly appreciate suggestions and help from Dr.

R. William Liddle, Dr. Terrance Bigalke, and Dr. Donald G. McCloud, especially for chapters I and II.

My appreciation should also be extended to Mr. John Thompson who spent his time to help and consult with me in dealing with the computer and statistic al works. My gratitude also goes to

Mr. Donald R. Walker and Mrs. Dorothy Shanfeld who patiently helped me in typing this work through the word processor.

Above of a ll, I am very grateful to my wife, Ratna, and my children, Reno, Pinto, Ranti, Nila, and Desi for their sacrifice, unfaltering support and encouragement that made my study possible.

My father and mother, as well as my sisters and brothers have always been sources of support and inspiration for me in pursuing my professional career. VITA

Name : Abdul Aziz Saleh

March 31, 1935 : Born, Batusangkar, , Indonesia.

1951 : Graduated, Junior High School, Batusangkar, West Sumatra, Indonesia.

1954 : Graduated, Senior Vocational High School, Teachers Education, Padangpanjang, West Sumatra, Indonesia.

1954-1958 : Teacher, Junior Vocational High School of Economics, Payakumbuh (West Sumatra), and (West Java), Indonesia.

1958-1961 : Student, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. 1959-1961, Chairman of History Student Association. 1961, Graduated, Bachelor Degree (B.A.), Cultural Hi story.

1961-1964 : Teaching Associate (TA) and graduate student, Padjadjaran University and Institute for Teacher Education, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. 1964, Graduated, Drs. Degree (equivalent to M.A. Degree), History (sociological).

1964-1974 : Lecturer, Lambung Mangkurat University, and Institute for Teacher Traifning, , South , Indonesia.

1965-1966, Chairman of the Department of Cultural History. 1966-1967, Deputy of Dean Coordinator.

iv 1968-1971 , Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Studies. 1971-1974, Vice Chairman of the National Committee for Sport, Banjarmasin Branch, , Indonesia.

1975-1975 : Non-degree Post Graduate student, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 1975, Chairman of Indonesian Student Association. 1975, Representative of Overseas Students at the Faculty Senate. 1975, Post Graduate C ertificate, in Educational Planning and Management.

1976-1979 : Senior Lecturer, Lambung Mangkurat University, and Achmad Yani University, Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. 1976-1977, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Achmad Yani University. 1976-1979, Vice Chairman of the University Planning Board, Lambung Mangkurat University. 1976-1979, Head Editor of bimonthly publication, Vidya Karya, Lambung Mangkurat University. 1976-1979, Chairman of the National Committee for Sport, Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. 1977-1979, A team member of the National Core Trainers for Social Studies, and Social Studies Curriculum, at the National Level, Department of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. 1977-1979, Rector of Achmad Yani University.

1979-1980 : Graduate student, Fullbright-Hays Grant, The Ohio State University, Athens, Ohio, USA. 1979-1980, Chairman of Indonesian Student Association.

1980-1981 : Senior Lecturer, Lambung Mangkurat University, and Achmad Yani University, Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. 1980-1981, Rector of Achmad Yani University.

1981-1982 : Senior Lecturer, Andalas University, , West Sumatra, Indonesia. 1981, A team member of the Preparation Committee for the Establishment of the Faculty of Social

v Sciences, Andalas University. 1981-1982, Dean of the Faculty of Literature and Social Sciences, Andalas University.

1983- : Doctorate student, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 1983, Chairman of Indonesian Student Association.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... i 1

VITA ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES...... xii

MAP OF INDONESIA ...... xiii

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

The Problem and Its SocialSetting ...... 2 The Significance and Limitationsof this Study ...... 11

II. EDUCATION IN INDONESIA ...... 14

History of Modern Indonesian Education ...... 14 The Educational System ...... 24 Primary Education ...... 26 Secondary Education ...... 34 Higher Education ...... 38 State Universities ...... 39 Private Universities ...... 45

III. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY ...... 49

Research on Indonesian Education ...... 50 Research on the S tratification Process in Western Society ...... 61 Theoretical Model for This Study ...... 67

IV. METHODOLOGY ...... 73

The Sampling Procedure ...... 73 Variables and Measurements ...... 74 The Dependent Variable ...... 74 Intervening Variables ...... 75 University Quality ...... 78 Independent Variables ...... 81 Population Characteristies ...... 88

vi i IV. METHODLOGY (continued)

Trends in University Applicants ...... 99 Statistical Analysis Procedures ...... 108 Summary ...... 109

V. DATA ANALYSIS ...... 110

Testing the Indonesian Model of Access to Higher Education ...... Ill General Hypothesis 1 Ill Empirical Hypotheses ...... Ill General Hypothesis 2 112 Empirical Hypotheses ...... 112 General Hypothesis 3 ...... 112 Empirical Hypothesis ...... 112 General Hypothesis 4 ...... 112 Empirical Hypothesis ...... 112 General Hypothesis 5 113 Empirical Hypotheses ...... 113 General Hypothesis 6 ...... 113 Empirical Hypotheses ...... 113 General Hypothesis 7 114 Empirical Hypotheses ...... 114 General Hypothesis 8 ...... 114 Empirical Hypotheses ...... 114 Examination of SES and SGB with Access to Higher Education ...... 119 General Hypothesis 1 119 General Hypothesis 2 120 General Hypothesis 3 120 General Hypothesis 4 122 General Hypothesis 5 ...... 122 General Hypothesis 6 122 Predictive Power of the Model ...... 123

VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ...... 126

Review of Findings ...... 126 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 128

APPENDICES:

Appendix A: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 130 Appendix B: LIST OF INDONESIAN UNIVERSITIES BY QUALITY RATING ...... 136 Appendix C: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION SCORES ...... 139

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 142

vi i i LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Percentages of Admission of Applicants Admitted to Gajah Mada University, Jogyakarta, Indonesia, 1973 to 1982 ...... : ...... 3

2 Frequency and Percentage of Acceptance of State University Applicants by University Groups, Indonesia, 1976-1980 ...... 4

3 Number of Teaching Staff by University Group and Degree, Indonesia, 1976-1980 ...... 5

4 Indonesian State Universities by Location, Date of Founding and Enrollment, 1975 and 1979...... 19

5 Enrollment in Indonesia by Educational Levels, 1950 and 1970...... 22

6 State and Private Schools, Students, and Teachers Under the Supervision of the Department of Religion (DOR): Indonesia, 1974 ...... 31

7. The Average Number of Years Spent by Students to Complete Three-year Programs and Five-year Programs: Indonesia, 1976 and 1980 ...... 44

8 Occupation of the Family of Origin of Primary School Children, Indonesia, during the 1900-1930 period...... 50

9 Occupation of Families of Origin of Students in Four Faculties of the : , Indonesia, 1953...... 51

10 Percentage Distribution of Occupation and Family of Origin of Students, Java, Indonesia, Mid 1950*s...... 52

ix 11 Parents' Occupation of UGM Students, Indonesia 1982...... 54

12 Comparison of Occupational Aspirations of Law and Economics Students by Selected State and Private Universities, Indonesia, 1982...... 55

13 Comparison of Occupational Background of Family of Origin of Entrants to Padjadjaran University, Gajah Mada University, Three Provincial Universities, and the Indonesian Male Workforce, for Selected Years...... 56

14 Parents' Occupation UGM Students,Indonesia, 1982...... 58

15 Percentage of Applicants Accepted by Indonesian State Universities by Quartiles Base on SIPENARU Scores, 1984 ...... 76

16 Distribution of University Acceptance by Quality of State University Group, Indonesia, 1984...... 79

17 Quartile of Entrance Examiniatiori Scores of Applicants Accepted to State Universities by Quality of State University Group, Indonesia, 1984...... 80

18 Distribution of Successful Applicants to State University Groups by Quartile of Entrance Examination Scores...... 80

19 Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Gender, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 83

20 Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Father's Education, Indonesia, 1984...... 91

21 Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Mother's Education, Indonesia, 1984...... 92

22 Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Monthly Family Income, Indonesia: 1984. 93

23 Comparison of Father's Occupation of Entrants to Gajah Mada University, 1982 and current study...... 94

24 Percentage and Rate of Acceptance of State University Applicants by Selected Variables, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 95

25 Place of Residence (Rural-Urban) of University Applicants and Acceptance, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 101

26 Location of High School Attended by University Applicants and Acceptance, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 101

x 27 Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Location of High School ...... 102

28 High School Location of Successful Applicants to State Universities by Location of Universities Preferred by Applicants, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 103

29 High School Location of Successful Applicants to State Universities by Location of Universities Accepting Them, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 104

30 Mean Entrance Test Scores for Applicants by Location of High School and By Location of Universities Preferred, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 106 31 Mean Entrance Test Scores for Successful Applicants by High School Location and by Location of Universities Accepting Them, Indonesia, 1984 ...... 107

32 Zero-Order Correlations of Hypothesized Relation­ ships Between the Variables in the Model of Access to Higher Education: Indonesia, 1984...... 117

33 Zero-order correlation matrix of Access to Higher Education with Selected Independent and Intervening Variables: Indonesia, 1984 ...... 118

34 Partial Correlations of Hypothesized Relationships between the Variables in the Model of Access to Higher Education, Controlling for Achievement, University Quality...... 121

35 Results of Stepwise Regression of Access on SES and SGB Factors. (N=6455) 125

xi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Children Who Entered Primary School in 1972-1973 Who Advanced to Subsequent Educational Levels...... 6

2 The Socioeconomic Life Cycle ...... 63

3 Indonesian Model of Access to Higher Education...... 70

4 Construction of Center-Periphery Categories...... 39

xi i INDONESIA SULAWESI' a a l im a n ta n YU K

xiii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In a social system, according to Parkin (1971), class

associated inequalities are grounded in two intertwined, but

conceptually and analytically separable, social processes. These

are the process of allocating rewards to different positions, on the

one hand, and the process of recruiting occupants into these

positions, on the other. Rewards allocation has been a subject of moral debate, especially among egalitarians. Recruitment has been a

frequent focus of empirical study and theoretical discussion among

sociologists, particularly in the study of social stratification.

Most sociological studies of class recruitment deal with the

industrial social settings of the Western world rather than the developing countries (Parsons, 1959; Lipset and Bendix, 1964; Blau and Duncan, 1967; Lancaster, 1969; Parkin, 1971; Banks, 1973; Hauser and Featherman, 1977; and Giddens, 1981), and most document

systematic relationships between different social strata or social groups and status attainment. Both empirical and theoretical

studies in Western societies have usually centered on the effects of family status, schooling, and occupation in the recruitment process.

The main objective of this study is to analyze data on these

relationships in the recruitment process within the Indonesian 2

social structure. The data base is a survey of Indonesian applicants to state universities for the 1984 academic year.

Recruitment into higher education is related to and is an excellent predictor of future occupational status (Coleman, 1965; and Pearse,

1978). Higher education is a major intervening variable in the process of allocating status in most societies, especially in developing countries such as Indonesia. In this sense, recruitment

into higher education is treated as the dependent variable in this study, but reflects on the broader subsequent process of occupational attainment and rewards associated with it.

The remainder of this chapter will deal with (1) the problem and its social setting and (2) the significance and limitations of this study.

The Problem and Its Social Setting

Since the 1970's a salient social phenomenon in Indonesia has been the steadily increasing number of frustrated youngsters and their relatives at the beginning of each school year. This frustration is the result of failure to gain entrance to higher education for a growing percentage of themselves and/or for children or relatives. For example, a study of Gajah Mada University (UGM), one of the leading universities in the country, reveals that the proportion of applicants who actually gained admission to the university declined from 28 percent in 1973 to 8 percent in 1982

(see Table 1). 3

TABLE 1

Percentages of Admission of Applicants admitted to Gajah Mada University, Jogyakarta, Indonesia, 1973 to 1982.

Percentage Percentage of of School Years Admi ssions School Years Admi ssions

1973 28.06 1978 13.33 1974 24.83 1979 11.61 1975 20.17 1980 10.38 1976 17.31 1981 10.42 1977 14.17 1982 8.26

Source: Jacob (1982).

Over the period of 1978-1983, all Indonesian state universities and institutes have been organized into four groups, called Pilot

Projects 1, 2, 3, and 4, (PP1, PP2, PP3, and PP4). PP1 and PP2 consist of older and larger universities or institutes which are located mostly in Java; they constitute Group I. PP3 is split into west and east segments. PP3 West consists of universities in the western part of Indonesia, mostly in Sumatra; they constitute

Group II. PP3 East consists of universities in the eastern islands of Indonesia outside of Java; they cor^titute Group III. PP4 consists of all teacher training institutes (IKIPs); they constitute

Group IV. (Directorate General of Higher Education, hereafter DGHE,

Department of Education and Culture, 1982) The best opportunities for access to higher education, according to the admission figures in Table 2, are found in the relatively younger, smaller universities in groups II and III, most of which are located in the outer islands (those islands other than Java). TABLE 2

Frequency of and Percentage of Acceptance of State University Applicants by University Groups, Indonesia, 1976 and 1980

1976 1980

Univ. Group1 Percentage Percentage Appli ed Accepted Accepted Applied Accepted Accepted

I 58,882 12,987 22.0 147,824 13,012 8.8

II 10,981 7,269 66.2 51,293 12,154 23.7

III 9,709 6,603 68.0 25,090 11,459 45.6

IV 19,770 8,647 43.7 65,797 14,295 21.7

Total 99,342 35,506 35.7 290,004 50,902 17.6

^The universities classified in the various groups are as follows:

Group I Group II Group III Group IV (Mostly Java) (Mostly in West) (Mostly in East) I K I Ps 1. Sumatra Utara Syiah Kuala Udayana Jakarta 2. Indonesia Sriwi jay a Bandung 3. Pajajaran Andalas Nusa Cendana 4. Diponegoro L. Mangkurat 5. Gajah Mada Lampung Mulawarman 6. Airlangga Riau Sam Ratulangi 7. Brawijaya Jend. Sudirman Pattimura 8. I T 8 Sebelas Maret Hasanuddin Padang 9. ITS Jember Cendrawasih Ujung Pandang 10. I P B Halu 01 eo 1 1 . - Tanjung Pura Tadulako 12. - 5

Table 3 shows the degrees held by the teaching staff of each of

the university groups for 1976 and 1980. It is evident that the number of professors with advanced degrees increased dramatically during this period but are strongly concentrated in Group I.

TABLE 3

Number of Teaching Staff by University Group and Degree, Indonesia, 1976 and 1980

University Diploma Bachelor Specialist Master PhD Group 1976 1980 1976 1980 1976 1980 1976 1980 1976 1980

Group I 514 169 4998 7060 293 431 655 958 292 554

Group II 397 210 2080 3061 36 60 31 98 7 13

Group III 331 252 1612 2470 - 5 48 133 11 39

Group IV 395 414 2216 3500 - 4 58 122 31 51

Total 1637 1045 10906 16091 330 500 792 1311 341 657

Source: USAlD (1982)

In the 1984 academic year, according to the Department of

Education and Culture of Indonesia (1984b), only 73,156 of the

478,930 state university applicants (15.27%) who took the entrance examination, and another 8,128 applicants selected through talent scouting, (a total of 81,284 or 16.69% of the total applicants), were admitted to all state universities in the country. (See

Figure 1) Even though private Indonesian universities are available, high tuition costs and lack of rural access mean that a relatively small percentage of students can enter these 6

FIGURE 1

Percentages of Children Entering Primary School in 1972-73 Who Advanced to Subsequent Educational Levels

%

100.00 - 1972-1973

90.00 -

80.00 -

70.00 -

60.00 52.00% 50.00 1977-1978

40.00 -

30.00 27.47% 1980-1981 20.00 17.26% 1981-1982 16.14% 1984-1985 10.00 2.69 1984-1985 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sources: BP3K-Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia (1981-a; 1981-b; and 1982). Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia (1984).

Notes

1 = Children entering primary school, (3,018,452). 2 = Children of the 1972-1973 f ir s t grade who completed primary education in 1977-1978 (1,569,950). 3 = Children of the 1972-1973 f ir s t grade who completed junior high school in 1980-1981 (829,086). 4 = Children of the 1972-1973 f ir s t grade who entered senior secondary school in 1981-1982 (521 ,026). 5 = Children of the 1972-1973 first grade who applied for admission to state universities in 1984-1985 (487,058). 6 = Children of the 1972-1973 f ir s t grade who gained admission to state universities in 1984-1985 (81,284). 7 institutions. An even smaller minority can afford or can attend universities abroad; they are largely the children of wealthy families or higher ranking government officials.

It is obvious that the university system in Indonesia provides for only a small proportion of the college-age cohort. According to the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics (1983a), there were

195,994 state university students in the 1979-1980 academic year.

In addition, there were 265,007 students—57% of the university student population—in private universities at that time (Juhari,

1984/1985). The number of persons aged 19 to 24 years was

15,368,243 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1983b), so the university system included less than3 % of these individuals in

1979-80 (see Figure 1). In the U.S., by comparison, about half of a comparable age cohort will be admitted to universities (Jencks,

1972). In other words, with respect to Martin Trow's typology of access to higher education (Altbach, 1982), which includes the categories of "elite," "mass," and "universal," Indonesia falls in the "elite" category.

From a sociological perspective, two questions are relevant.

First, what are the major social consequences (who benefits and who does not) of the recruitment process? Second, what are the major social determinants of access to higher education? Possible answers to these questions need an examination of the broader Indonesian social context.

Proximity to the source of social power may affect access to higher education. According to Jackson (1978), contemporary 8

Indonesia is a bureaucratic polity. Despite their theoretical differences, Emmerson (1978 and 1983), King (1979), Liddle (1978 and

1984), and most other scholars also share this view. The description of Indonesia as a bureaucratic polity is especially true in the sense that political power and control of economic and social resources are concentrated in the hands of central government. In almost every sector and in nearly all aspects of Indonesian

1ife --p o litic a l, economic, social, and cu ltu ral—the government plays the leading and decisive role. The government, known as the

New Order, is a combination of military-civilian bureaucrats and technocrats who have held power since the mid 1960s.

In 1980, the bureaucracy employed 2,628,474 civilian employees or 9.46% of the 27,777,000 household heads (Central Bureau of

S tatistics of Indonesia, 1983b). Indonesian armed forces number

269,000 personnel (International Institute of Strategic Studies,

1982-1983). Therefore, the total number of m ilitary and civilian personnel in the bureaucracy is about 2.9 million, or roughly 10% of total Indonesian household heads. Theoretically in a bureaucratic polity, the children of these government employees would be expected to have more access to higher education than do private individual s.

Administratively, Indonesia is organized into five hierarchical levels of bureaucracy. The central government is located in the largest city and national capital, Jakarta. The second level of the hierarchy includes the provincial governments, which number 27 in today's Indonesian administration. The administration of each 9

province is centered in the provincial capital, which is the largest

city within the province.

The provincial government is divided into a number of

"kabupaten" (regencies) and "kotamadya" (municipalities) at the

third bureaucratic level. A "kabupaten" administers an area that is mostly rural but administration is centered in the largest city or

town within the kabupaten. A "kotamadya" administers a city or town.

Each "kabupaten" and each "kotamadya" is divided into a number of "kecamatan," the fourth level, each of which has its capital in.

its largest town or village. Finally, each "kecamatan" includes a

number of other villages, the fifth and smallest units at the bottom of the bureaucratic hierarchy. This political-bureaucratic

hierarchy reflects, and is intertwined with, the rural-urban gap in

Indonesian society. Theoretically, residence in the seat of

power--the capital and administrative center—in the larger

political divisions should provide more access to higher education.

Another important characteristic of the Indonesian social

structure is the wide gap and unequal growth between rural and urban

sectors (Boeke, 1953; and Soedjatmoko, 1976). The term "kampung"

(rural) almost invariably carries a connotation of backwardness and poverty perhaps best captured in the variation "kampungan"

(bumpkin). The great majority of rural people are farm laborers or peasants who cultivate small parcels of land. Boeke (1953)

reported that the average size of a farmer's holding in

1938 was less than one hectare, with approximately 0.4 hectare of cultivated area plus 0.5 hectare of fallow land per household. The 10

Javanese now constitute 61% of the Indonesian population (Central

Bureau of S tatistics 1983a). A recent World Bank (1980) study shows that average size of farm holdings in Indonesia has not changed significantly during the last fifty years.

The rural-urban gap is also demonstrated in income distribution. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, as quoted by Sagir (n.d.), indicates that the bottom 40% of the Indonesian population receives only 11% of the national income. These figures indicate a highly unequal distribution of income. The World Bank standard, for example, classifies countries in which the bottom 40% of the population receives less than 12% of income as highly concentrated

(Sagir, n.d.). Almost all social and physical amenities, public and private, are located in towns and c itie s where, according to the

Central Bureau of Statistics (1983a), only 16% of Indonesian households. Obviously, a majority of the bottom 40 percent are rural people.

Another political-geographic factor that contributes to the rural-urban gap is the inner-outer island phenomenon. Indonesia is an archipelagic country, consisting of more than 13,000 islands, although only approximately 3,000 are inhabited. They are spread over an area of more than 3 million square miles--an area nearly as large as the (Beers, 1970). There are five large isTands--Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan (), Sulawesi (Celebes), and

Irian Jaya (West Irian, or the Indonesian part of Mew Guinea). (See map.) The central government is located on Java, the most populous island in the country, where 61% of the Indonesian population 11 resides. In terms of proximity to the power center--a proximity that entails the availability of modern communication and transportation facilities as well as other social and physical amenities--Sumatra is second to Java. The farther an island from

Java the less adequate its facilities and amenities and thus the inner-outer island designation. For example, approximately 58% of the country's total mileage of roads is in Java and Sumatra, while these two islands have only about 30% of the country's land area

(Central Bureau of S ta tistic s, 1983a). In other words, unequal growth has occurred between the inner islands (Java-Bali and

Sumatra) and the outer islands, and island residency, in theory, affects access to higher education.

The Significance and Limitations of this Study

A prime concern and impetus of this study is the issue of inequality as reflected in the social determinants and social consequences of higher education in the process of social stratification in Indonesia. The ultimate objective of this study is to assist higher education policy makers by analyzing the nature and importance of factors affecting access to higher education.

Equality of educational opportunity may be an educational policy that is not only economically relevant but also socially and politically sound and justifiable.

As a scientific endeavor, however, this study also intends to contribute to the discipline of sociology, particularly in terms of its exploration of the relationship of socioeconomic and 12

"sociogeographic" variables influencing access to higher education.

Socioeconomic status and educational attainment are related and have been empirically studied in western industrial societies, but very l i t t l e research has been conducted in nonwestern societies-- especially in Asia and specifically in Indonesia. Theory on this topic has not been widely tested and verified in nonwestern social settings.

In addition to testing existing theoretical ideas about the stratification process, this study should shed light on the social stratification process in Indonesia and provide a starting point for additional studies of status mobility.

A major limitation of this study is the nature of its data base: the data are secondary and are mostly categorical or discrete. This circumstance constrains the study from developing more powerful measurement techniques for the variables under question.

Also, this study excluded students from private universities and those who gain state university admission without taking entrance examinations. The latter are the brightest (usually the top two or three) students from selected high schools in talent scouting programs. For the 1984 academic year, about 8,000 admissions were set aside for these individuals (Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia, 1984b). They represent 1,4% of the total applicants to state universities. Since they were selected from outstanding, mostly urban, high schools, their omission from the analyses should not bias results if the results show that urban students are disproportionately represented in the higher educational system. CHAPTER II

EDUCATION IN INDONESIA

Viewing the problem discussed in Chapter I from the perspective of the Indonesia educational system, two major points are important: the historical development of modern education in

Indonesia, and the current Indonesian educational system.

Correspondingly, this chapter will discuss (1) the history of modern

Indonesian education, and (2) the Indonesian educational system.

History of Modern Indonesian Education

According to Poerbakawatja (1970) and Nasution (1983), the modern, secular, or Western type of education was f ir s t introduced to Indonesia by the Dutch trading company, "Vereenigde Oostindische

Compagnie," and continued by the Dutch colonial administration at the turn of the 18th century. At first, schooling was aimed exclusively at serving the educational needs of Dutch children.

Later, with many restrictions and limitations, it was opened to a few economically "better-off" Chinese and "well-born" Indonesians whose families had been loyal to the Dutch.

In the early part of the 19th century, according to Wertheim et al., (1961), Van den Bosch, as governor general of the Dutch colonial administration, launched a plan—known as the Culture

System—aimed at overcoming an economic crisis of the time. Under

14 15

this scheme Javanese farmers were forced to grow agricultural export

commodities. The colonial administration needed lower level

employees who could communicate directly and easily with the farmers

in order to support this program. This gave rise to an educational

system which was established to train these employees in reading,

writing, and simple arithmetic. According to Van der Veur (1969),

this revised educational system, although reeaching a broader

segment of Indonesian society, remained was dedicated to educating a

small minority of Indonesians, children of Indonesian "aristocrats"

and others who had proven their loyalty to the Dutch.

There was a significant change in colonial policy in Indonesia

at the turn of the 20th century, when Dutch liberals won their long

u-Tuggle against conservatives (Wertheim et a l ., 1961). Van de

Venter, a Dutch liberal democrat who advocated a more humane policy

toward Indonesia exerted a considerable influence on the development

and introduction of "ethical policy." Influence for change also

came from the political calculation that change was necessary to

safeguard Dutch interests in Indonesia. These "ethical policies"

led to a limited further expansion of the educational system.

The Dutch established colleges of engineering, law, and medicine

in Indonesia during the post-World War I crisis when the Dutch

entrepreneurs needed engineers, and the colonial administration

needed lawyers and medical doctors that the could no

longer supply (Thomas, 1973). Despite this limited expansion, the

basic nature of the educational system remained the same. Education was for the privileged who were willing to serve colonial interests. 16

The principal objective was to produce loyal government employees.

When the college of engineering opened in 1920, there were only two

Indonesians among the twenty-eight enrolled students (Nasution,

1983). Twenty-two were Dutch and four were Chinese. At the time there were about 60 million Indonesians.

Education became a prime concern after the nationalist political movement proclaimed Indonesian independence and a new national government was formed in 1945. It became even more important after the war for independence against the Netherlands ended in 1949. The priority given to education resulted from the strong desire to modernize the country and the desperate need to f ill positions in government agencies le ft vacant by the Dutch. The right of every

Indonesian citizen to education and the obligation of the national government to provide education were explicitly cemented in article

45 of the "1945 Constitution," which has been the cornerstone of the

Indonesian State. A law passed in 1950 to give practical effect to these intentions stated the broad aim of national education to be to

"create a moral being and a citizen who is democratic and responsible for the well-being and prosperity of society and the fatherland."

But laudable though such an objectives might be, i t was of little use in guiding educational practice until translated into more specific educational aims. Indonesian governments have always recognized the very important role of education in the complex task of nation building, which involves the unification of various ethnic groups with different languages, customs, and traditions, living on 17 thousands of islands scattered throughout the archipelago. The eight-year National Development Plan drawn up in 1960 put education as the first of eight major priorities designed to lift the living standards and to improve the welfare of the people. The plan included programs for opening more schools at all levels, and one • success of the plan's educational component was the establishment of universities.

There were only seven universities.and one in stitu te of technology/engineering founded during 1945-1959 to serve the nation's needs for university-level training. During 1959-1965, however, 31 new state institutions of higher learning were established--19 universities, 1 institute of technology/engineering,

1 institute of agriculture, and 10 institutes of teacher training.

This was an era of quantitative expansion of the higher educational system.

Improvement of the higher educational system has been continued under the New Order government, whose prime concern and main policy target has been socioeconomic development. To achieve this objective, the f ir s t of a series of five-year development programs

(REPELITA) was inaugurated, with the emphasis on the improvement of

Indonesia's major industry--agriculture--and exploitation of natural resources such as petroleum, mineral deposits, and extensive forests.

The government realized that one major obstacle to development was a shortage of well trained, university-level manpower. Thus, the New Order government f ir s t put emphasis on qualitative improvement and selective expansion of the university system rather 18 than quantitative increases in the number of universities. At the same time, expansion could not be ignored, and the governmental policy has been to create and support at least one major state university in each province, to meet regional and geographic needs.

The intent is to support the work of Provincial Governors and

Provincial Planning Boards by producing university-level expertise and resources. To date this policy of selective expansion by creating at least one state university in each province has been met, although qualitative concerns for several of the newer and smaller universities remain c ritic a l. A l i s t of Indonesian universities, dates founded, provincial locations, and enrollment sizes is shown in Table 4.

Under the New Order government the subsequent five-year development programs also influenced schooling in several ways. The f ir s t five-year plan (1969-1974) had laid out the guidelines for educational innovations that the Department of Education and

Culture's new Research and Development Center would sponsor nationwide. The infusion of funds into the government treasury from exports, loans, and grants permitted the country to finance educational expansion and improve educational quality in the public schools, while the growing health of the economy in general enabled private schools to improve their education as well (Soedijarto et a l., 1980).

The educational component of the f ir s t REPELITA focused on seven problems: (1) providing enough educational facilities to accommodate the entire school-age population, particularly at the 19

TABLE 4

Indonesian State Universities by Location, Date of Founding, and Enrollment, 1975 and 1979

Univ. Year Enrollment No. Universities/Institutes Location Group Founded 1975 1979

1. Universitas Gajah Mada (GAMA) Yogjakarta, Central Java I 1949 14,313 17,276 2. Universltas Indonesia (UI) Jakarta I 1950 6,611 11,732 3. Universitas Sumatra Utara (USU) Medan, North Sumatra I 1952 6,896 9,175 4. Universitas Airlangga (UNAIR) Surabaya, West Java I 1954 4,171 4,758 5. Universitas Andalas (UNAND) Padang, East Sumatra II 1956 3,073 3,748 6. U niversitas Hasanuddin (UNHAS) U. Pandang, South Sulawesi III 1956 6,090 8,502 7. U niversitas Pajajaran (UNPAD) Bandung, East Java I 1959 8,107 10,681 8. In stitu t Teknologi Bandung (IT6) Bandung, East Java I 1959 6,866 6,263 9. Institut Teknologi Surabaya (ITS) Surabaya, East Java I 1960 3,250 3,455 10. U niversitas Diponegoro (UNDIPj Semarang, Central Java I 1960 5,871 6,610 11. Universitas Lambung Mangkurat (UNLAM) Banjarmasln,South KalimantanIII 1960 1,670 4,996 12. Universitas Sr1w1jaya (UNSRI) , South Sumatra II 1960 3,506 7,423 13. Universitas Sam Ratulangi (UNSRAT) Manado, III 1961 2,805 5,546 14. Universitas Syiah Kuala (UNSYIAH) , North Sumatra II 1961 2,459 5,564 15. Universitas Mataram (UNRAM) Ampenan, Lombok III 1962 636 1,972 16. Universitas Mulawarman (UNMUL) , III 1962 78 3,008 17. U niversitas Nusa Cendana (UNDANA) , Timor, NTT III 1962 1,759 2,358 18. Universitas Pattimura (UNPATTI) Ambon, Maluku III 1962 1,330 2,707 19. U niversitas Riau (UNRI) Pakanbaru, Central Sumatra II 1962 1,116 2,656 20. Universitas Udayana (UNUD) , Bali III 1962 3,107 6,945 21. In stitu t Pertanian (IPB) Bogor, West Java I 1963 2,974 3,369 22. Universitas Brawijaya (UNBRAW) Malang, East Java I 1963 4,559 5,288 23. Universitas Cenderawaslh (UNCEN) , Irian Jaya III 1963 559 1,556 24. Universitas Jambi (UNJAM) Jambi, Central Sumatra II 1963 338 1,433 25. Universitas Jember (UNEJ) Jember, East Java II 1963 2,635 5,549 26. Universitas Jend. Sudirman (UNSUD) Purwokerto, West Central Java II 1963 1,033 1,945 27. Universitas Palangka Raya (UNPAR) Palangkaraya, II 1963 644 835 28. Universitas Tanjungpura (UNTAN) , West Kalimantan II 1963 1,860 3,694 29. IKIP Bandung Bandung, West Java IV 1964 4,471 8,503 30. IKIP Jakarta Jakarta IV 1964 1,756 4,654 31. IKIP Malang Malang, East Java IV 1964 2,092 3,245 32. IKIP Manado Manado, North Sulawesi IV 1964 1,630 3,220 33. IKIP Medan Medan, North Sumatra IV 1964 3,289 5,107 34. IKIP Padang Padang, W. (Central) Sumatra IV 1964 1,549 1,811 35. IKIP Semarang Semarang, Central Java IV 1964 2,065 3,500 36.IKIP Surabaya Surabaya, East Java IV 1964 3,433 3,273 37. IKIP Yogjakarta Yogiakarta, Central Java IV 1964 4,414 4,938 38. IKIP Ujung Pandang Ujung Pandang, South SulawesiIV 1964 3,045 3,738 39. Universitas Lampung (UNILA) Telukbetung, South Sumatra II 1965 1,111 2,850 40. Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNSEMAR) , Central Java II 19 77 - 7,989 41. Universitas Halu Oleo (UNHOL) , South East Sulawesi III 1981 - . 42. Universitas Tadulako (UNTAD) , Central Sulawesi III 1981 -- 43. Universitas Bengkulu Bengkulu, South Sumatra II 1982 - -

Totals 127,851 201,422

Sources: USAID (1982) and Department of Education and Culture (1982) 20 elementary school level, (2) altering secondary school emphases from general academic curricula to a greater stress on vocational training, particularly in agricultural institutions, (3) increasing the percentage of pupils who pass from primary into secondary education, particularly into vocatinal secondary schools, (4) reducing illiteracy in the adult population, (5) reducing the 50 percent dropout rate in elementary schools, (6)increasing the corps of qualified teachers, and (7) improving administrative efficiency

(Department of Information, 1968).

The second REPELITA (1974-1979) dramatically increased funds for educational development (beyond the budget for routine operations) from US $192 million in the first plan to $1,283 million. The proportions devoted to segments of the school system were: primary education 38 percent, junior high schools 15 percent, senior high schools 14 percent, higher education 12 percent, and special vocational and youth-guidance programs 21 percent.

The principal goals of the second plan can be seen in the following examples. With regard to quantitative expansion, the plan proposed to raise the proportion of children aged 7-12 attending school from 57 percent in 1973 to 85 percent by 1979. To accomplish th is, the government planned the most extensive school building program in the nation's history and a teacher education effort that would annually supply 38,000 new primary school teachers. A total of 180 million new textbooks in basic subject areas were to be published. At the secondary level, 650 new junior high buildings were to be erected and 1,500 more rehabilitated, while 518 senior 21 high buildings were scheduled for repair, and fully equipped chemistry laboratories were to be added. Over the five-year period,

30,000 new junior high and 11,000 new senior high teachers were to be trained. A total of 52 million textbooks would be printed

(Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, 1974).

The ultimate goal in the second REPELITA was to improve the relevance and quality of education. To accomplish this not only were higher quality textbooks to be published at all levels of the school system, but also a number of curriculum development projects were to be continued or in itiated in both the formal and nonformal education sectors. Inservice teacher education programs developed . in the f ir s t REPELITA were to be expanded. In addition, upgrading programs were planned to upgrade the supervisory sk ills of the nation's several thousand school inspectors (Suriasumantri et al.,

1976).

The general objectives of the educational components of the third REPELITA as well as of the fourth REPELITA (1983-84/1988-89) are basically the same as the first two REPELITAs. In the third

REPELITA, for example, the general objectives were stated as follows: (1) improvement of educational quality, (2) expansion of educational opportunities, (3) increasing the relevance of education to the manpower needs for development, (4) preparation of youth to assume future responsibilities in development efforts, and (5) increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of educational management

(Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, n.d.). However, with regard to the specific objectives the important thing to note since the 22

third REPELITA is that more emphasis has been given to the

equalization efforts especially on the expansion of educational

opportunities and to vocational education.

Many new schools, at all levels, have indeed been built. Almost

every small community or village has at least one state primary

school. Each district or "kabupaten" has several junior highs, and

at least one state senior high school. Every province has at least

one state university and two or more colleges.

Thomas (1973) reports that the number of institutions of higher

learning, both public and private, in Indonesia had increased from 4

in the early 1950s to 355 in the 1960s. In January 1984,

Dr. S. Pramoetadi, Director of Academic Affairs of the Directorate

General of Higher Education of Indonesia, said that the number of

Indonesians with university level educations had increased from 75

at the time of independence in 1945 to 75,000 by 1984 (MUCIA, 1984).

The growth of educational enrollments in Indonesia, 1950-1970 is

summarized in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Enrollment in Indonesia by Educational Levels, 1950 and 1970

Educational Percentage Level 1950 1970 of Increase

Elementary 4,926,000 13,395,000 71 Secondary 230,992 1,902,740 870 University 6,512 128,000 1965

Source: Waskito (1976) 23

However, despite the profound quantitative change, there has been less comparable change in the basic structure of the educational system (Simandjuntak, 1969). Especially at the college level and to a lesser extent at the secondary level, the colonial legacy of education still maintains a significant influence in limiting popular access.

Simandjuntak (1969) contends that the Indonesian educational system is dominated normatively by the Dutch colonial system, which was designed to maintain the social status quo. The system is not oriented, he says, to broadening educational opportunities in order to increase vertical social mobility; instead it functions to maintain social stability and provides few opportunities for members of the lower social stratum. It functions, he further says, more as a social mechanism for horizontal mobility, by providing access to education in Java for the best students from the upper stratum of the outer islands. Its prime objective is said to be to produce bureaucrats and white collar workers.

Beeby (1979), in a similar vein, noted that Indonesia has never put into action its declared intention of creating an educational system relevant to its own needs and aspirations rather than imitating Western educational systems. Therefore, Simandjuntak

(1969) believes the quest for a national educational system, which, would uplift the social well being of lower strata people, has become rhetorical rather than actual. 24

The Educational System

Indonesian education has a fo u r-tie r system: (1) six years of

primary schooling, (2) three years of junior high, (3) three years

of senior secondary or high school, and (4) higher education.

Higher education has m ulti-strata programs: (a) stratum 0 (Sq )

offers non-degree programs, ranging from 1 year to three years, (b)

stratum 1 (S^) offers four-year college degree programs after high

school, (c) stratum 2 (Sg) offers two-year masters degree programs

after SI, and (d) stratum 3 (S^) offers three-year doctoral

programs after S2. In order to be eligible for admission to each

subsequent ladder of the educational system, one has to be

individually selected or pass an entrance selection or examination.

Despite the involvement of both secular and religious private

organizations and institutions in running the school system, the major responsibility for planning, implementing, and supervising the

educational system rests with the government through the Department of Education and Culture. The Department is responsible for

governmental policy implementation and supervision throughout the

country, which holds a total school population that exceeds that of

North America, spreading over more than 3,000 islands with wide a

variety of cultures and languages (USAID, 1982).

The Department of Education and Culture is a vertical hierarchical organization with representatives at the provincial, municipality, and levels. The municipality and regency offices are the direct subordinates of the provincial office, and, in turn, the provincial office is the direct subordinate of the 25

Department of Education and Culture. Provincial and municipality offices are responsible for policy implementation and supervision of the primary and secondary levels of education. There are more than

300 d is tric t offices and 27 provincial offices of the Department.

For primary education, there are more than 3,400 sub-district school supervisors who are directly responsible to municipality or regency offices.

At the lowest level of the educational system, each school has a headmaster (primary) or a principal or school director (junior and senior high). Higher education is directly responsible to the

Department but in daily affairs it is under the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) which acts on behalf of the Department.

Most expenditures on education, both recurrent and capital, are financed by the central government. Most schools were also established and built by the government, not by the local communities where the schools are located, although communities have occasionally provided school buildings on a self-help basis. The

Provincial governments make direct contributions, especially for capital expenditures at the primary level. At the secondary and university levels, contributions from the provincial governments are sporadic and relatively marginal.

Another major source of revenue for the state schools is tuition fees. At the primary and secondary levels, the fees range from Rp.

100 to Rp. 3,000 per student per month. At the university level, the fees range from Rp. 18,000 to more than Rp. 200,000 per student per year. However, education, especially at primary and secondary 26 levels, in state or government schools is supposed to be free to children of low income families.

The government budget for education is divided into two broad categories: routine or recurrent and development or capital expenditures. The largest portion, in some cases up to 90%, of the routine budget is for salaries. The Department of Education and

Culture is responsible for salary payments to secondary school and university teachers, but not to primary school teachers. Primary schools are financed by the Department of Home Affairs through provincial governors. Realizing the limited capability of the state school system to serve the educational needs of the entire society, the Department also provides financial subsidies to private schools at all levels, as long as they comply with governmental policy and guidelines. No other organizations exert significant influence on educational policy and program implementation.

Primary Education

Officially, primary education is a six-year course beginning at age seven. In some areas, however, especially where there are enough educational facilities to accommodate more children, children of the age of six are also admitted. In urban areas, the Indonesian language, "Bahasa Indonesia," a variant of the Malay language, is used as the medium of instruction from the very beginning of the first year of primary school. In most rural areas, where Bahasa

Indonesia is spoken as a second language, i t is used as the medium of instruction beginning at the fourth yeaj? of the primary school. 27

During the first three years, Bahasa Indonesia is taught intensively and extensively as a subject area.In some rural areas of Sumatra

and Kalimantan, where people speak a variant of Malay, Bahasa

Indonesia is also used from the very beginning in primary school, as

in the urban areas. One might thus expect that students in urban and those rural areas where Bahasa Indonesia or a variant of Malay

is spoken daily have some advantage compared to rural students who

speak Bahasa Indonesia only as their second language.

The involvement of private organizations in primary education is

relatively small and limited to urban areas. Private schools, teachers, and students constitute only about 10% of total of primary schools, teachers and students. Most of them are Christian or

Moslem schools. There are also some secular private schools controlled by legal foundations. Some of the private schools are subsidized by the government. The subsidies are allocated by the

Department of Education and Culture on the basis of the willingness of schools to conform with government policy and standards.

Primary education is under the Department of Home Affairs, which finances the routine costs, including salaries, and development budget of the primary schools through the provincial governors. The governors, on behalf of the Department of Home Affairs and upon the advice of the provincial office of the Department of Education and

Culture, appoint primary school teachers. A school headmaster is responsible to the provincial government for administrative, material, and financial matters. For professional and academic matters, however, the headmaster is responsible to the provincial 28 office of the Department of Education and Culture through its sub-district school supervisor and municipality office. The

Department of Education and Culture is responsible for formulating educational policy and objectives, training teachers, preparing curricula, selecting and providing textbooks, and supervision.

Universal education has been regarded in Indonesia as an end in itself and as a means to improve the quality and productivity of the people. Consequently, qualitative improvement and quantitative expansion of primary education within the framework of compulsory education and expanding educational opportunities for higher levels of education have been the emphasis of education development programs since the f ir s t REPELITA (National Development Planning

Agency, 1984). Since the second REPELITA (1974-1979) primary education has consumed the largest portion of the educational budget. Many new primary schools have been built under the INPRES

(Presidential Instruction) programs spreading throughout the country. As a result, the number and percentage of primary school students increased from 13,314,000 (76% 9f the primary school age cohort) in 1974, to 21,165,000 (94% of the age cohort) in 1980

(USAID, 1982).

In addition to the state and private primary schools which have just been discussed, there are about 15,000 state Islamic religious primary schools under the Department of Religion. In addition there are religious schools run by private organizations. Most of their students come from devout Moslem families. Except for Islamic religious instruction there are no fundamental differences between 29 the Islamic and the secular primary schools. In terms of secular

subjects, they follow and comply with the standards and guidelines set by the Department of Education and Culture.

The basic institution of Islamic education is the "langgar," a prayer house where children learn the Arabic alphabet and recite verses of the Koran in studies that usually last less than a year.

The function of the langgar is largely social: children come to realize that they are part of the Islamic faith (Soedijarto et al.,

1980).

After the langgar, some teenage Indonesians may study at another school, usually called a "pesantren." The pesantren seems to be adapted from a pre-Islamic "school" in which Hindu ascetics gathered youths at their homes to study holy writings. When replaced

Buddhist-Hinduism in much of Indonesia about 300-700 years ago, the

Moslem pesantren and Islamic scholars replaced earlier Hindu counterpart institutions. The traditional pesantren is a rural boarding school led by one or more scholars of Islamic doctrine.

Students pay no tuition but may donate money, food, or Tabor. They can live at the pesantren for as long as they desire.

The number of pesantrens in Indonesia in 1977 was estimated at

4,752 by the Department of Religion. Most pesantrens have between a dozen and a hundred students; a few have more than one thousand.

Estimates of total enrollment are not accurate because these private schools are not required to report s ta tis tic s to the government.

In the early 1900s, several Islamic organizations added secular subjects to the religious studies of the traditional pesantren. 30

Islamic studies and "practical" topics (vernacular language,

arithmetic, history, geography, etc.) were merged in a new school

called the madrasah. The Department of Religion emphasized the madrasah rather than the traditional pesantren, and the number of madrasahs grew rapidly. The madrasahs resemble secular schools not

only in their semi-secular curricula but also in their

organization. They are divided into elementary, junior-secondary, and senior-secondary levels preceding a college level. Teachers

receive training in teacher-education institutions, rather than being picked from upper class students as in the original pesantren. In some Indonesian provinces, madrasahs are public schools that are financially underwritten by the Department of

Religion or the provincial government. Curricula and textbooks are authorized by the Department of Religion. Table 6 shows the numbers of madrasahs, students, and teachers reported by the Department of

Religion in 1974.

These modern Islamic schools far outnumber the traditional pesantrens and enroll many more students. However, children can and do enroll in more than one institution. They attend a public secular school part of the day, and also study a t a langgar, pesantren, or madrasah. This overlap brings obvious problems for educational planners, who cannot simply add the enrollments of all secular and religious schools to get a total national number of enrolled children. Sampling of enrollments has suggested that double enrollment is substantial in some provinces. 31

TABLE 6

State and Private Schools, Students, and Teachers Under the Supervision of the Department of Religion (DOR): Indonesia, 1974

Schools Students Full Time Teachers Type of Schools State Private Total State Private Total State Private Total

1. Madrasah: a. Ibtidaiyah 358 22,655 23,013 157,794 5,546,731 5,704,525 3,905 23,694 27,599 (Primary)

b. Tsanawlyah 182 2,246 2,428 32,208 388,878 421,086 1,318 2,788 4,106 (Or. High)

c. Aliyah 42 323 365 7,249 56,433 63,682 252 277 529 (Sr. High)

d. Dlnlyan (Sr. High — 8,492 8,492 — 471,106 471,106 — 11,096 11,096 for Girls)

e. PGA (Teach­ er Training 146 730 876 41,887 61,326 103,213 1,502 1,977 3,479 grade 7-10)

f . PGAA (Teach­ er Training 116 296 412 62,319 82,626 144,945 2,986 1,899 4,885 grade 7-12)

2. Pesantren — 3,321 3,321 — 376,357 376,357 — 4,841 4,841

Total 844 38,063 38,907 301.457 6,983.457 7,284,457 9,963 46,572 56,535 Source: Sumardi, 1977. 32

In a National Assessment on Education, the Research and

Development Board or "BPP" of the Department of Education and

Culture (1971) found that over 50% of the teachers came from the

lower socioeconomic status. They were from families of farmers and laborers. Only 15% of them came from families where fathers were educated beyond the primary level. More than 66% of primary school teachers are males. The socioeconomic status of primary school teachers has dramatically dropped since independence, and along with

i t so has the prestige of the occupation (USAID, 1982).

The National Assessment also disclosed that non-school related

factors--father's occupation, number of books in the home, and family economic status--have the greatest effect on student achievement. Among school factors, class and school size, classroom

fa c ilitie s , and school status (private or state) appear to be of importance. Student achievement is higher within larger classes and larger schools. And student achievement is higher in private than

in state schools. In addition, school location (rural or urban) and classroom climate (teacher's expectations) are highly associated with student performance. Students from urban schools perform better than students from rural schools (Moegiadi et a l ., 1976).

Indonesian primary education has a high dropout rate. Only about 52% of the 1972 academic year f ir s t graders eventually completed their primary education (8P3K-Department of Education and

Culture, 1982). Economic factors are the principal cause of primary school dropouts. Findings from the National Assessment determined that 55% of the dropouts resulted from parents' poverty and the 33 concomitant need for children to contribute to the family's economic well being, 25% were due to lack of parents' understanding of the value of education, and 10% were due to early marriage. Effects of other school-related factors such as low achievement, poor teaching, and bordom appear to be not as high as commonly believed, being estimated at 15% (USAID, 1982). Undoubtedly, both the direct and indirect or opportunity costs for a six-year education are unaffordable for poor parents. Parents have to pay the cost of books, tuition fees, and other miscellaneous needs of the students, as well as the school uniforms. In addition, they need the children to help them earn the family income.

Inequity is another problem in Indonesian primary education.

Both regional inequities and rural-urban inequities are easily discernable (USAID, 1982). The regional inequities appear to be significant between schools in Jakarta, Southern Sumatra, and West

Java on the one hand, and schools in Sulawesi, East Indonesia, and

Kalimantan, on the other. Students in the former area have the nation's highest achievement scores. Those in the latter have the lowest (Moegiadi et a l ., 1976).

Another problem in Indonesian primary education is the level and quality of education of the primary school teachers. The training program for primary school teachers is a three-year course after junior high school, namely "SPG." SPG students are recruited from among junior high school graduates. About 50% of the SPG curriculum is subject matter and the remainder of the curriculum is related to professional teacher training areas such as teaching methods, child 34 psychology, psychology of learning, practice teaching, and few other educational studies. The SPG curriculum is not very attractive to most junior high school graduates. This may be related to the low prestige and low socioeconomic status of the primary school teachers. Most junior high school graduates prefer to go to SMA

(general-academic high school), especially if they hope to continue their education to the university level. Consequently, most SPG students come from poorer families, and have experienced lower academic achievement.

Secondary Education

Indonesian secondary education is divided into two separate three-year courses: (1) three years of junior high, abbreviated as

"SLTP," and (2) three years of senior secondary abbreviated as

"SLTA." Although major responsibility for planning, implementing, and supervising rests with the Department of Education and Culture, private sector involvement has become greater at the implementation stage. During the academic year of 1982-1983, for example, 8,412 out of 12,739 or 66.0% of the SLTP schools were private institutions. They accommodated 1,892,963 of the total 4,272,867, or 44.3% of the SLTP students, and employed 43,037 (30.8%) of all

SLTP full time teachers. Figures for the SLTA level are as follows: 4,339 out of 5,993 schools (72.7%); 1,201,215 out of

2,261,562 students (53.1%); and 22,174 out of 6,969 full time teachers (34.1%), (BP3K-Department of Education and culture, 1984/b). 35

In addition, there are other junior and senior high schools coordinated by the Department of Religion. They are state and private religious secondary schools, both junior and senior levels.

Figures for the 1976/1977 academic year indicated that these religious secondary schools, both state and private, had 155,000 students at the junior level and 34,200 students at the senior lev el.

Secondary education a t both junior and senior levels is divided into two major streams: (1) general-academic and (2) vocational.

At the junior level, there are two types of vocational schools (1) home economics, and (b) technical. Neither of these, however, are very attractive to students or to parents. In the 1982-1983 academic year, both state and private junior vocational schools had enrollments of only 79,954 (1.9%) of 4,272,867 total SLTP enrollments. Government policy now mandates that these junior secondary schools be closed by the end of the 1980s.

At the senior level, the vocational stream offers a greater variety of programs and accommodates more students. Both state run and private schools offer (a) home economics (b) business administration, (c) technical, and (d) primary school teacher training in general and physical education fields. During the academic year of 1982-1983, the senior vocational schools enrolled

33.5% of 2,261,562 SLTA students (BP3K-Department of Education and

Culture, 1984a).

On the average, junior high schools have eight classrooms, and senior high schools have nine classrooms. However, as found in the 36

National Assessment, over 65% of the junior high schools and over

50% of the senior high schools have fewer than 200 students.

(Mangindaan, 1978; Suprapto, 1981). A major concern in relation to

this is that small size high schools have less equipment, poorer

facilities, and fewer qualified teachers. Most of the small size

schools are in the rural areas.

In general, secondary schools are concentrated in urban centers

(Heneveld, 1978). Even a t the junior high level, almost all schools are located in d is tric t (Kabupaten) towns, or other larger towns and cities, or in provincial capitals. Rural children who pass the entrance tests must leave home to study in these schools. The same

is true for senior secondary schools which are located in the larger

towns and cities, usually district and provincial capitals, that lie a considerable distance from most rural communities. As with the junior high schools, the senior high schools in larger cities have more and better equipment, facilities, and staff than schools located in smaller population centers (USAID, 1982).

Three factors contribute to the ever growing number of children who want to continue their education to the secondary level, namely: (1) the expansion of primary education under the INPRES programs, initiated in the second REPELITA; (2) the relative improvement of the nation's economy in general which makes it easier

for parents to keep their children in school; and (3) the relatively high rate of population growth, which ran somewhere between 2.0 and

2.3% per year during the 1970s. (The lowest official figure is about

2.0%, but the 1981 population census esimates 2.34% per year growth 37 during the 1970s.) Programs to expand access to primary education under REPELITA I and II were extended in REPELITA III (1979-1984) to secondary education. And the government's policy target for the

REPELITA IV (1985-1989) is construction of 3,500 new junior high schools and 26,300 classrooms. About 750 new schools and 9,900 new classrooms will be built for senior high schools. In addition, 120 new vocational schools will be constructed and 550 will be renovated. The major concern now for secondary education, however, is to establish an adequate supply of teachers. The government's target for the REPELITA IV is to increase the number of junior high teachers from 269,000 in 1983 to 412,000 in 1989 and the number of senior high teachers from 118,000 to 193,000 for the general-academic schools and from 40,000 to 87,000 for vocational schools (National Development Agency, 1984).

Although the shortage of secondary teachers is the major problem, this is followed by the poor distribution of teachers and time spent by the teachers in the profession as major problems impeding educational improvement. Some areas, such as West Sumatra and Riau, have a surplus of teachers while others, such as North

Sumatra, Kalimantan, and West Java have a deficiency. The amount of time spent by the teachers in preparing lessons is also relatively low. Teacher's wages in Indonesia are standardized on the basis of the highest diploma (schooling) earned and years of service but are low by most standards. As a consequence, most school teachers have a second occupation. 38

Higher Education

The responsibility for higher education, state and private,

rests with the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) of the

Department of Education and Culture. Under the DGHE, a Director is

specifically assigned to coordinate and supervise private

institutions of higher learning. In addition, prior to the

Presidential Decree of 1974, Departments such as Home Affairs,

Industry, Health, Public Works, and Information developed their own

college level academies, apart from the Department of Education and

Culture. The ab ility of these academies to absorb students,

however, remains very limited. The average academy has

approximately 100-200 students, and functions to train employees and

staff for its respective Department. Since the 1974 President

Decree, these academies have been placed under the supervision of

the DGHE, especially in reference to admission requirements, curricula, quality of teaching staff, and confirmation of degree.

In addition to these academies, there are about 15 institutions of

higher learning called State Institutes of Islamic Religion, namely

"IAIN," administered by the Department of Religion. These

institutes produce teachers and personnel for Islamic religious

affairs. Their students generally come from devout Muslim families

of rural background. However, they are not attractive to most high

school graduates who wish to compete for lucrative jobs in the modern labor market. 39

State Universities

Directly under the DGHE, there are 43 state universities including institutes. They are located in the larger cities, mostly in provincial capitals and other metropolitan areas. Each province, except the newly created province of East Timor, has at least one state university. State universities are preferred by most students who wish to continue their education because of their relatively low tuition and educational costs. This preference may also be related to social attitudes embedded in the bureaucratic polity itself because almost everything associated with the government bureaucracy is highly valued in the society. State university graduates enjoy some preferential treatment for access to positions in the bureaucracy.

Of the 43 state universities, five older generation universities

--University of Indonesia (UI) in Jakarta, the Institute of

Agriculture in Bogor (IPS), the Institute of Technology in Bandung

(ITB), the University of Gajah Mada (UGM) in Yogyakarta, and

Airlangga University (UNAIR) in Surabaya--are the most highly sought after by students. Most of the Indonesian bureaucratic and technocratic elite graduated from one of these older generation universities, these universities have been designated as centers of excellence and models for other Indonesian universities. They were the first Indonesian universities to develop a standardized entrance te st, called "SKALU" (an Indonesian abbreviation for Consortium of

Universities). The SKALU entrance test had been used by these five universities since the 1978 academic year. 40

Between 1978-1983, however, the 43 state universities were organized into four groups, based on the type of entrance examination used. Group 1 consisted of 10 older universities of PP1 and PP2, 9 of which are located in Java. Group 2 consisted of 12 universities in western Indonesia--7 in Sumatra, 3 in Java, and 2 in

Kalimantan. Group 3 consisted of 11 universities in eastern

Indonesia. And Group 4 consisted of 10 teacher training institututes (IKIP)--2

Sulawesi (DGHE-Department of Education and Culture, 1982). The complete l i s t of each group is shown in Tables 2 and 4.

The PP1 entrance test was basically a new version of the SKALU test and was administered by the five oldest universities. All but one of the PP1 universities are located in Java. Test items of the

PP1 entrance examination were further developed and administered centrally at the national level.

There is no major difference between the PP1 and PP2 selection processes, except that about 2% of PP2 students are chosen or invited to enroll in state institutions without taking the PP1 entrance examination. The other 98% of the PP2 students have to take and pass the PP1 entrance examination. The PP2 talent scouting method was f ir s t used by the Agricultural Institute of Bogor (IPB) and more recently by Gajah Mada University in Jogyakarta.

The PP3, which is s p lit into PP3 West and PP3 East, entrance selection process has been used mostly by universities on the outer islands and by a few universities in Java. About one third of its te st items were developed centrally at the national level, another 41 one third by the regional universities, and the remainder by the individual university. The examinations and the selection processes have been administered by individual universities.

The PP4, which was specifically designed as an entrance examination for the Institutes for Teachers Training and Educational

Studies, or IK IPs, was developed centrally and administered at the national level. (DGHE--Department of Education and Culture, 1982).

Beginning with the 1984 academic year, a new entrance examination, "SIPENMARU" (Indonesian abbreviation for the university entrance selection test), was introduced and administered nationwide to applicants to all state universities and institutes. It is a revision of items found in PP1 and PP2. S till, about 10% of admissions were set aside for the "Brightest" students from selected high schools, who are invited to attend universities without taking entrance exams. They constitute about 1.4% of all applicants.

Since the late 1970's, the Indonesian universities have developed four types of programs namely (1) stratum 0 or"S q " which offers non-academic or non-degree certific ate or diploma programs, (2) stratum 1 or "S-j" which offers official four-year degree programs, (3) stratum 2 or "S2" which offers two-year master's degree programs beyond SI, and (4) stratum 3 or "Sg" which offers three-year doctorate degree programs beyond S2.

In the 1982-1983 academic year, 19% of the state university students were enrolled at the Sq level (Tisna Amidjaja, 1983).

Non-academic and non-degree programs are new to the Indonesian university system. But these courses are in line with the 42

governmental policy to expand vocational training to the te rtiary level as stipulated in guidelines of the State Policy or "GBHN"

(National Development Agency, 1984). Through a crash program, each state university has been instructed to develop new non-degree technical programs in such fields as education, engineering, economics, and medicine. They are terminal programs, but in some cases, especially for students who are academically proficient, the academic credit earned may be used for S1 degree programs. Over the period of REPELITA III, access to these programs increased significantly. And REPELITA IV will expand technical programs in engineering by increasing the number of polytechnics from 7 to 34

(National Development Agency, 1984).

The inadequacy of physical fa c ilitie s has been a major constraint on access to higher education, despite the fact that existing fa c ilitie s have been used far beyond their planned capacities. Many students have to wait for a year and even more to take a course, due merely to the inadequacy of facilities. This constraint is especially severe in the fields of engineering, medicine, and other natural science disciplines which require extensive practical training in relatively expensive laboratories.

Civil engineering students at the University of Indonesia in

Jakarta, for example, have to travel about 150 miles to take practical laboratory work at the Institute of Technology in

Bandung. Civil engineering students at Lambung Mangkurat University in Banjarmasin, Kalimantan have to fly to Bandung, Java to complete practical laboratory work and have to spend several semesters at the 43

Institute of Technology {ITB). Most universities have inadequate

and inconvenient temporary buildings for teaching and laboratory work.

To cope with this problem, the Indonesian government through the

Department of Education and Culture has urged each university to

develop its own master plan for physical facilities, under the

guidance and supervision of the DGHE. The provincial governments or

governors have been urged to provide land for campus expansion, and

to improve other public facilities as well as housing arrangements.

The central government helps universities, whose.master plans have been approved by the Department of Education and Culture, to find

funds to implement the master plans. Since the 1970's several loans

from the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank have been obtained by the Indonesian government to develop universities such as the University of Indonesia, Andalas University, University of

Gajah Mada, University of North Sumatra, Hasanuddin University, and all the teacher training institutes. These foreign loans are mainly

for campus development, building construction and equipment, and

staff development.

Another problem in Indonesian higher education has been its

relatively low productivity. The Directorate General of Higher

Education uses the ratio of graduates to total enrollment to measure

productivity for each academic degree and diploma program. Optimum productivity without dropouts and repeaters would be 100% for one-year programs, 50% for two-year programs, 33% for three-year programs, and 25% for four-year programs. 44

In fact, over the period between 1978-1980, however, the

productivity ratio for all state universities was only between 13 to

21% in contrast to the theoretical maximum of 33%. Similarly, for

the older five-year programs, with an optimum possibility of 20%,

the figures were 4 to 6%. Data concerning the length of time

required to complete a degree or program by students is presented in

Table 7. These data indicate that, on average, each student spends

60% more than the "standard" time required to accomplish a given

program.

TABLE 7

The Average Number of Years Spent by Students to Complete Three-year Programs and Five-year Programs; Indonesia 1976 and 1980.

Groups Average years to complete Average years to complete of State three-year programs five-year programs Universi- ______ties 1976 1980 1976 1980

PP1 & PP2 5.4 5.6 8.8 8.0

PP3 West 5.1 5.4 8.9 8.7

PP3 East 5.4 5.1 8.7 8.5

PP4 ( IKIP) 4.9 5.2 8.0 7.0

Source: USAID, 1982 45

Many factors are responsible for this inefficiency or low

productivity, but three factors are noteworthy: required course

repeats, insufficient student-instructor contact hours, and poor

instructional quality (USAID, 1982).

Before the credit system was introduced in the te 1970's,

given programs were organized into several packages. Each package had to be accomplished by a student within one year. The number of

packages varied from a program to program, depending on the official time required. It was necessary to pass all final exams within an entire package before in itiatin g courses in a new package. Those who failed to do so had to retake the failed course(s) until they passed, which may have taken a year or longer. Many repeaters quit school. Other productivity problems have been related to low salaries of the faculty members. Most faculty members have side job(s). In many cases, faculty members spent more time on their side job(s). Consequently, they dedicated insufficient time to students and teaching, which has led to poor quality instruction.

Private Universities

During the 1982-1983 academic year, there were 402 private institutions of higher learning in Indonesia, including 79 universities, 40 institutes, 80 colleges, and 203 academies. Their students constituted 53.1% of the total university students in that year (BP3K-Department of Education and Culture, 1984b; 1984c). The educational programs of these institutions ranged from very poor to relatively good. However, they are not economically accessible to 46

rural youngsters, nor even to those who come from families of

average income.

These private institutions comply with the DGHE's requirements

for organization, curriculum, admission requirements, and quality of teaching staff. As with the state universities, private universities may offer multi strata programs—S q , S-|, S2, and

Sg. To date, however, none of the private universities have offered S2 and Sg programs.

Some private universities are very small. Most have fewer than

500 students, although 77 have more than 1000 students and 4 had more than 6000 students in 1980-81. Between the 1980-1981 and

1982-1983 academic years, 45 new private universities were established. Enrollments in private school increased from 269,073

in the 1980-1981 to 380,153 in 1982-1983—an increase of about 41.3%

(BP3K-Department of Education and Culture, 1984c).

Private universities are classified in three categories on the basis of academic standards and requirements set by the DGHE.

Status is given to programs within the university, not to the university as a whole. Thus, the status of some programs may differ from one another in a given university. The highest status is

"disamakan" or "equalized." Equalized status is given to programs which are regarded as having the same standard as that of the state universities. In these programs, private universities are allowed to set and administer thiir own examinations. The next is "diakui" or "recognized" status, given to programs regarded as complying with most DGHE standards and requirements. Private university programs 47 with this rating also conduct their own examinations but under the close supervision of a state university. The lowest is "terdaftar" or "registered" status. Students of these registered universities have to take examinations set by a state university. During the

1980-1981 academic year, 1305 programs were evaluated of which 13.6% or 1978 programs were given equalized status, 14.3% or 187 programs were given recognized status, and 72.1% or 940 programs were given registered status.

As with state universities, productivity of private universities is very low, especially due to the high dropout rate. Many students used the private universities as stepping stones to state universities. Some applicants who have failed to receive admission to a state university use the private universities as "prep" schools for the next state entrance examination. In 1980, for example, the rate of productivity of the private universities was only 1.0% in comparison to the maximum possibility of 20% (BP3K-Department of

Education and Culture, 1984c).

Tuition fees are the major source of revenue for the private universities. Only a few are associated with substantial outside financial sources. This is especially true for most private universities which are supported by religious organizations or by a

"yayasan" (foundation). There are two kinds of fees paid by students; entrance or admission fees and tuition fees. The fees range from about Rp. 50,000 to more than Rp. 1 million per year, depending on the programs and the reputation of the university. 48

Because private universities rely heavily on fees, most private universities admit as many students as possible, at a cost of quality.

Another major problem of the private universities is teaching staff. Most private university faculty members are part-time. Most teach at nearby state universities and spend even less time with private university students than they spend at the state university. A few private universities with solid outside funding provide incentives to the faculty members and appoint more full-time professors. CHAPTER III

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY

This chapter contains a discussion of the theoretical and empirical bases for this study. The literature review will be limited to materials pertinent to this study and will primarily focus on the role of education, including higher education, in the process of social stratification.

Studies of this topic are relatively few in the Indonesian social setting, scattered in the form of unpublished dissertations, reports, and field studies, mostly by the Western scholars such as

Heeren (1953/1954), Palmier (1957), Van der Veur (1969), Smith and

Carpenter (1974) and Pearse (1978). They nevertheless provide valuable insight to the stratification process in Indonesia. As mentioned in Chapter I, most studies of the social stratifica tio n process deal with the Western advanced industrial societies.

Therefore, the literature review will include studies both in the

Indonesian and the Western social settings, and, correspondingly, the remainder of this chapter will deal with (1) research on

Indonesian education, (2) research on the stratification process in

Western society, and (3) the framework of this study.

49 50

Research on Indonesian Education

One of the first works on social correlates of the educational

system in preindependence Indonesia was published by Van der Veur.

It covers the first three decades of this century during the Dutch

Colonial administration, when their "ethical policy" expanded the

primary schools. Van der Veur (1969) documented that the largest

proportion of the primary school children came from families

associated with the colonial government. The next largest

proportion came from "priyayi," the upper rung of the Indonesian

social ladder. This is shown in Table 8.

TABLE 8

Occupation of the Family of Origin of Primary School Children, Indonesia, during the 1900-1930 period.

Primary Occupation and Family Origin School Students

O fficials, government civil servants, military, and other Dutch educated 41 %

"Priyayi" (Upper Class) 33

Small entrepreneurs, farmers, and other lower strata 26

TOTAL 100.0%

Source: Van der Veur (1969).

After the war for independence, Heereen (1953/1954), in a study of the social background of University of Indonesia students from

four specific faculties, found that the pattern still favored 51 government o fficials. Most students (46.4%) had fathers with occupations such as university professors, professionals, army officers, in d u strialists, and high ranking government o fficials or civil servants. The next largest proportion (41.5%) had fathers with occupations such as secondary school teachers, shopkeepers, pensioners, and middle level government o fficials. At the bottom

(12.1%) were those whose fathers' occupations were farmers, primary and religious school teachers, and the lowest level of the government o fficials and lower ranking army men. This is shown in

Table 9.

TABLE 9

Occupation of the Families of Origin of Students in Four Faculties of the University of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 1953.

Occupations of the Families of Origin Percentage of Students

University Professors, Professionals Army Officers, Industrialists, and High Ranking Government O fficials 46.4

Secondary School Teachers, Shopkeepers, Pensioners, and Middle Level Government Officials 41.5

Primary and Religious School Teachers, Peasants, and Lower Level Government Officials and Army 12.1

Total 100.0

Source: Heeren (1953/1954)

Palmier (1957), in a study of parents' occupations of students from a sample group from Gajah Mada University, two randomly 52

selected senior high schools, two junior high schools, and four

primary schools in Java, documented that children of government

officials have greater opportunities for education than those of

non-officials. Most children of government o fficials are urban

residents and, as a consequence, have greater access to schools with

better facilities, equipment, and more highly qualified teachers.

The distribution of the parents' occupation is shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10

Percentage Distribution of Occupation and Family of Origin of Students, Java, Indonesia, Mid 1950's J

Occupation­ Students al Category of Parents Primary Jr. Second­ Sr. Secondary University School ary School School N=266 N=796 N=426 N=454

Non-Offici­ 65.4% 48.8% 24.4% 39.6% als

Officials 34.6 51.2 75.6 60.4

Total 1O0.0 100.0 100.0 100.O

Source: Palmier, 1975.

1 Approximately ten years after independence.

Later in 1970, Smith and Carpenter (1974) interviewed 554

Indonesian university students and found the same pattern. Most

university students were of urban origin, and the process of higher education was biased toward urban life . They also noted that the occupational prospects of those who earned university degrees were bright. About half of the national cabinet members were university 53

professors or technocrats, while at the provincial level, the

involvement of faculty members of regional universities in providing

the provincial government and governors with technical expertise was also increasing. In sum, there was and still exists a strong tendency in Indonesian society toward increasing demands and

reliance on the expert individuals with university degrees. Smith and Carpenter believe that this also explains students' preference

for jobs in the government sector. Part of this reliance on

individuals with university training may reflect the emphasis on education by the "New Order" for development.

Smith and Carpenter (1974) also detected major shifts in inter-generational family occupational backgrounds. The changes are represented in Table 11 and represent a general trend away from agriculture to government positions such as civil service and teaching and law enforcement; from private to public occupations; and from non-salaried to salaried employment.

The trend toward urban and bureaucratic occupations of the family of origin has a counterpart in the occupational aspirations of the university students. Pearse and Sumarno (1982), who studied occupational preferences of students in two state and two private universities, found that civil service positions were preferred by most students. (See Table 12).

Pearse (1978), in a case study of Pajajaran University in

Bandung, West Java, compared students' family of origin with the proportion of the Indonesian workforce they represent. Results are found in Table 13. 54

TABLE 11

Parents' Occupation of UGM Students, Indonesia 1982

Parents' or Guardian's All Students New Students Occupation

Civil Servants 42.0% 49.0%

Military 11.5 10.0

State Business 2.0 2.5

Private Business 7.5 7.0

Merchants 12.0 11.0

Self-Employed 6.5 5.5

Farmers 16.0 11.5

Others 2.5 3.5

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Jacob (1982). 55

TABLE 12

Comparison of Occupational Aspirations of Law and Economics Students by Selected State and Private Universities, Indonesia, 1982.

Students ' University

Sector of Occupational Aspiration UGM UIIY USU UISU

Government or Public Sector 62% 56% 70% 72%

Non-family Private Business 20 9 10 10

Private Family Business 2 16 10 10

Other 12 12 5 5

Undecided 4 7 5 3

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Pearse and Sumarno (1982), Table 11. TABLE 13

Comparison of Occupational Background of Family of Origin of Applicants to Pajajaran University, New Students to Gadjah Mada University, and Students in Three Provincial Indonesian Universities, and the Indonesian Male Workforce, for selected years

Male New New Students Occupations of work­ Students 3 Prov. Accepted applicants family of force Gajah 19703 to Pajajaran , 1974 origin 19611 Mada U. 1960/622

Public o ffic ia ls 51 33 23 Pensions 8 24 Armed forces/ Police 3 8 17 Private In­ dustry, Com­ merce, Pro­ fessions 19 26 39 30 • Farmer 73 17 17 6 Artisan/Un­ skilled/Other — 3 2 0 Total 100* 100* 100* 100* Source: Pearse (1978),Table IV. 1 From Hunter (1966) 2 From Fisher (1965) 3 From Smith and Carpenter (1974). ‘57

As shown in Table 13, the largest proportion of the Indonesian male work force (73%) was engaged in agriculture. But, the

percentage of students with fathers with farming background is

relatively small: 6% at Pajajaran, 17% at Gajah Mada, and also 17%

at provincial universities. Most students came from families whose

heads were employed by the government (public o fficials, armed

forces and police, including pensioners): 64% at Pajajaran, 54% at

Gajah Mada, and 41% at provincial universities. The percentages of the students whose family of origin was employed in the private

sector (industry, commerce and professional) is also disproportionately high: 30% at Pajajaran, 26% at Gajah Mada, and

39% at provincial universities. In sum, the vast majority of the

students come from urban middle class background, but the percentage of students from farming backgrounds is higher at provincial universities, whereas the percentage of students from families employed by the government background is lower at provincial universities.

Jacob (1982), former rector of Gajah Mada University, confirmed that the majority of the university's students came from urban and non-farm family backgrounds. Only approximately 16% of the 1982 student body came from farm families, and among the new students for the same academic year only 11.5% came from farm families. (See

Table 14). This study confirmed the same trend as evident in

Table 13; the highest percentage of students' fathers worked in the civil service occupations. 58

TABLE 14

Parents' Occupation of UGM Students, Indonesia 1982

Parents' or Guardian's All Students New Students Occupation

Civil Servants 42.0% 49.0%

Military 11.5 10.0

State Business 2.0 2.5

Private Business 7.5 7.0

Merchants 12.0 11.0

Self-Employed 6.5 5.5

Farmers 16.0 11.5

Others 2.5 3.5

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Jacob (1982). 59

Chernechovsky and Meesook (1985) have concluded that education in Indonesia, especially beyond the primary level, is very much an income-related phenomenon. They further concluded that education is strongly influenced by attitude as implied by the evidence that the relatively rich and well-educated shun vocational training for their children, even though i t appears to yield a comparable return in the market to general training.

Sociogeographic variation is another factor identified in analysis of Indonesian education. Jaspan (1958) in a study of rural children in Sewon, central Java, found that only 15% of the children who entered the first grade eventually entered junior high, and none ever enrolled in senior high school.

As parts of the National Assessment of Indonesian Education,

Moegiadi et al., (1976) in a study of the sixth grade students,

Mangindaan et .al., (1978) in a study of the ninth grade students, and Suprapto (1981) in a study of twelfth grade students found a sim ilar pattern with regard to relationship between student academic performance and their residential and school location. These studies documented that the academic performance of the students is strongly correlated with rural-urban, provincial, and inner-outer islands locations. The closer to the urban centers, the better the academic performance obtained. The closer a province to Jakarta

(where the central government is located), the higher the performance obtained. Students from Java and Sumatra have, on the average, higher academic performance than those from other outer islands. The highest student performance was noted for Jakarta and nearby provinces such as West Java and South Sumatra. And the

lowest student performance was observed in Kalimantan and eastern

Indonesia.

Concerning the effects of socioeconomic status, Ndapatondo

(1978), in a study of educational achievement of ninth grade

Indonesian students observed the following relationship between

socioeconomic status (SES) and academic achievement:

1) Relationship between parental educational attainment, both

father's and mother's, and the children's attainment is

statistically insignificant and weak but in the predicted direction

2) The zero-order correlation between achievement and fa th e r’s

education was, however, higher than that between achievement and mother's education;

3) In terms of.father's occupation, children of high ranking

government o fficials and professionals have the highest achievement

scores;

4) In addition, the availability of electricity and number of

newspapers read were positively correlated with the student's achievement.

Using the same data, Mani (1980), concluded that:

1) With regard to the socioeconomic status, parental educational attainment especially beyond junior high school is statistically related to the educational aspiration.

2) Children of fathers with non-farm occupations have higher educational aspirations than those from farming occupations. 61

3) Contrary to the previous studies, no significant differences were observed between rural and urban students concerning student's aspirations--due primarily to the socialization process of the students to urban areas where the secondary schools are located.

Thus, previous studies have demonstrated that SES variables such as father's education, occupation, and income are related to educational achievement and aspirations. In addition, urban residence and inner island residential location were also noted as important factors. While these studies did not address the question of access to higher education, it can only be assumed that these factors are also related to access.

Research on the Stratification Process in Western Society

For many years, sociologists have studied the role of education in the process of social stratification. Sorokin (1927) described education as the major vehicle for upward mobility. It functions as a social mechanism to test, select, and allocate individuals within and into different social strata.

Parsons (1959), who defined education or schooling as a social system, also acknowledged these selection and allocation functions.

In addition, however, he emphasized the role of education in the process of socialization--to inculcate societal values and norms, and to stress the importance of achievement to children.

Lipset and Bendix (1964) asserted that in most industrial or

Western countries, where occupational status plays a central role in social stratification, education has become a principal avenue to 62

upward mobility. However, they also argued that education should

not be used as a surrogate for vertical mobility.

Especially since Coleman's study regarding the equality of

educational opportunity during the 1960s, a recognition of the

importance of socioeconomic background in educational attainment has

pervaded many studies of social stratification (see Coleman et al.,

1966; Coleman, 1968). Coleman's research documented that

socioeconomic or familial status is highly correlated with the

acadmic achievement of school children. And the effect of school quality appears to be relatively insignificant.

Jencks (1968; 1972) also contended that in the U.S. the effect of educational attainment on occupational status is not as important as has been widely believed. Instead, he argued that socioeconomic background is far more influential than educational attainment in explaining the allocation of occupational statuses. However, he noted that higher education is an important avenue to good employment or occupations, and should be viewed as an intervening variable between status of family of origin and occupational status attained.

Hauser (1971), in his reaction to Coleman's contention, argued

that education or, more specifically, educational attainment is the most important means in status mobility especially for those who come from the lower socioeconomic status. The effects of father's socioeconomic status on his son's occupational attainment is relatively minor and indirect through educational attainment.

Variations in educational attainment are related mostly to factors 63 outside the socioeconomic status such as student's educational and occupational aspirations, intelligence, and what happens in school.

He distinguished two different yet interrelated concepts in educational outcome: educational performance and educational attainment. The former is associated with "quality," that is the success in mastering and/or internalizing various cognitive knowledge and moral attributes. The latter refers to "quantity," that is the success in completing certain level of the educational programs that can usually be measured by years of schooling.

Students who perform better in school do not necessarily stay in school longer than those who perform relatively less well. However, he acknowledged that students who come from high socioeconomic status and have high intelligence and few siblings tend to have high educational and occupational aspirations.

With regard to upward mobility aspirations, Sewell et a l.,

(1957) in a study of nonfarm seniors in private and public schools in Wisconsin, and Siemens (1965), in a study of Manitoba high school students, documented that socioeconomic status is positively correlated with the educational and occupational aspirations of the students.

Socioeconomic status and educational attainment are also positively correlated in other ways, especially with regard to decision and plan to stay in school and to obtain higher education.

Bordua (1960), in a study of students in grades nine through twelve in Malden and Fall River, Massachusetts, shows that socioeconomic status has positive correlation with the plan to enter college, 64 especially among the male students. This is also supported by results of a study of high school students in Tweed Forrest

D istrict, Ontario (Scott and Lusier, 1963). Rushing (1964) in a study of adolescents in a high school in Florida found a pattern similar to the Bordua's and Scott and Lusier's studies. Sewell and

Shah (1967) also found that, especially beyond the secondary level, socioeconomic status is postively correlated with the plan to continue their education.

Positive correlations between socioeconomic status and educational attainment are also evident in other countries such as

Britain and the U.S.S.R. Halsey (1977) and Halsey et a l ., (1980) found that access to higher education in Britain differed along class lines. Banks (1973) reported that children of the high-ranking government o fficials in the U.S.S.R. have an increased chance of obtaining higher education.

Bowles and Gintis (1976) also argued that the American liberal education serves to maintain the social status quo rather than to promote vertical social mobility. This role is related, they said, to the capitalist system of the U.S. economy, and the control of the means of production and distribution in the society. They concluded that class status, rather than education which determines the process of social stratification.

Parkin (1971) also acknowledges the role of familial origin or socioeconomic background in addition to education in the process of social stratification. However, he views their roles, especially that of education, as a function of the social structure of power in 65

the society. For example, he believes that in so cialist countries

the role of education in social mobility is more influential than in

the Western c a p ita list countries. Parkin's view is basically in

line with Lenski's (1966) and Dahrendorff's (1968) assertions that

the social stratification process is a function of the power

structure or the political order of a society.

Conflicting judgments about the role of education in the process of stratification are associated with the choice of educational

indicators (Hauser, 1971). The most salient comparison is that between the retrospective national household survey, "Occupational

Changes in a Generation" (31au and Duncan, 1967), and the massive

school survey mandated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Coleman et al., 1966). Choosing years of schooling as their indicator, Blau and Duncan (1967) concluded that the educational system is a major

source of social mobility:

Far from serving in the main as a factor perpetuating initial status, education operates primarily to induce variation in occupational status that is independent of initial status. . . . This is not to gainsay the equally cogent point that the degree of 'perpetuation' . . . that does occur is mediated in large part by education.

At nearly the same time in Equality of Educational Opportunity

(EEO), Coleman (1966) concluded

that schools bring little influence to bear on a child's achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school. For equality of educational opportunity through the schools must imply a strong effect of schools that is independent of the child's immediate social environment, and that ^trong independent effect is not present in American 66

Hauser (1971) believes that the Blau and Duncan statement is the more accurate characterization of the U.S. educational system and is not inconsistent with the empirical findings of the Coleman study, but subsumes them.

Perhaps the most seminal study of the roles of socioeconomic status and education in the U.S. social stratification process is the work of Blau and Duncan (1967). They developed a conceptual framework or a model of study, known as "the socioeconomic life cycle." They view stratifica tio n as a dynamic process which represents the transfer of socioeconomic statuses from one generation to the next, or from fathers to children. Occupational status plays a key role in this process. Familial statuses may function either as resources or as constraints in relation to status mobility. Education, which acts as an intervening variable in the process, serves as a transmitter of the children 's social origins.

For example, Duncan (1967) states:

In the career of an individual or cohort of individuals the circumstances of the family of orientation--its size, structure, socioeconomic status, sta b ility , and so on--provide a set of 'initial conditions' whose effects are transmitted through subsequent stages of attainment and achievement.

Thus this conceptual framework is concerned with the

"distributive variables"--education, occupation, and income of the family of orientation but invites interpretation of part of the

"socioeconomic life cycle" in terms of intervening variables such as access to opportunities and environment (Duncan 1968). The la te r would include not only the student's aspirations and significant others but also the school itse lf. 67

Thus, in the model, socioeconomic status, as measured by father's education and father's occupation, is treated as an exogeneous variable, and education acts as an intervening variable.

While the occupational status or attainment of the children is treated as its dependent variable (Duncan et al., 1972). The basic model is shown in Figure 2.

Sewell and Hauser (1976) expanded th is Blau and Duncan model and refined the Wisconsin model as originally presented by Sewell et al., (1969). In addition to the respondent's education, they incorporated a set of intervening social psychological variables, in their model. It includes mental a b ility , school grades, and significant other influences in addition to individual aspirations.

However, their basic model is s till the same, i.e . the socioeconomic life cycle, starting from "family" through "education" to "job." In other words, Sewell and Hauser (1976) are not only interested in the structural variables, but also in individual characteristics such as the social psychological characteristics of the respondents.

Theoretical Model for This Study

This study does not include any social psychological variables because the data were already gathered and excluded them. It does, however, include a set of other variables--rural-urban, inter-outer island, and location of school—which for purposes of the study are defined by sociogeographic background (SGB). These are similar in nature to what Hauser (1971) classifies as school effects. The influence in the Indonesian context, however, is more to FIGURE 2

Socioeconomic Life Cycle

Residual

factors (A)

Family head's ^ Respondent's education (V) education (U)

Family head's Respondent's occupation (X) Occupation (Y)

Residual

factors (B)

Source: Duncan et a l., 1972. 69 sociogeographic effects because of the importance of closeness or proximity to power and modern infrastructure which are extremely important.

Thus the questions posed for this study are similar to those questions posed by Hauser (1971) concerning Davidson County,

Tennessee:

To what degree are the influence of socioeconomic background

(SES) factors a determinant of access to higher education in

Indonesia?

How much does access to higher education in Indonesia depend on

sociogeographic background (SGB) factors?

Since the Indonesian context and the properties of the educational system are quite different from the United States, the model requires some further modification. While Indonesia is striving for universal exposure of children to a minimum of schooling, this has not been completely accomplished. Thus access to education at all levels (primary, secondary and higher) has become an added factor. This factor is especially important at the university level. As already discussed, access depends upon the university to which one applies and upon one's test score—a measure of achievement. The latter alone, however, will not ensure acceptance. In addition, SES and SGB factors are important for admission to primary and secondary education and for continued participation in the system. Thus the Duncan model is adapted to

Indonesia as shown in Figure 3. 70

FIGURE 3

Indonesian Model of Access to Higher Education

SGB

Academi c Acceptance Achievement University

SES University Applied 71

A) The general hypotheses which flow from the model are:

1. SGB is related to acceptance to a state university

2. SES is related to acceptance to a state university

3. the quality of the university of application is related

to acceptance to a state university

4. Achievement is related to acceptance

5. SGB is related to achievement

6. SES is related to achievement

7. SGB is related to quality of university applied

8. SES is related to quality of university applied

B) If these relationships exist, the next step will be to test if achievement and university applied to are indeed intervening variables. The general hyphotheses will be:

1. SGB is related to acceptance when controlling for

achievement

2. SGB is related to acceptance when controlling for

quality of university of application

3. SES is related to acceptance when controlling for

achi evement

4. SES is related to acceptance when controlling for

quality of university of application

5. SGB is related to acceptance when controlling for both

achievement and quality of university of application

6. SES is related to acceptance when controlling for both

achievement and university applied 72

The model essentially asserts that SGB and SES are highly associated with acceptance but that most of this association is due to the intervening variables--achievement (entrance score) and university where applied.

C) Finally, the predictive power of these factors will be 2 2 examined by computing a multiple regression (R ) as well as R of each set of SGB and SES. CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

The data used in this study are drawn from a survey of all

Indonesian state university applicants for the 1984 academic year.

The survey was conducted under the supervision of the Directorate

General of Higher Education. Information on students' backgrounds was obtained through a self-administered questionnaire included on the university application form, as part of normal procedures and requirements followed by each applicant.

The 1984 survey was the f ir s t such nationwide study in

Indonesia. It included 478,930 state university applicants from every district and every high school, public and private, throughout

Indonesia. It excludes only 1A% of the applicants who gained admission through the so-called "talent scouting program" and were admitted without taking the entrance examination. Therefore, for all practical purposes, this sample is representative of the vast majority of the university's applicants for the 1984 academic year.

The Sampling Procedure

Due to budgetary and data management constraints, it was necessary to limit the analysis to only a subset of the applicants.

The data for all 1984 applicants to state universities are stored at the Computer Center of the University of Indonesia in Jakarta. This

73 74 data base served as the sampling frame from which the sample used on the study was randomly selected. The final working sample consisted of 7,279 applicants.

The actual sample was drawn using a computerized version of the

random digit technique which assigns identification numbers to cases and generates random digits between 1 and N to build the sample to a

specified n size in relationship to degree of sampling error. A

sampling error between 1 and 5 percent was set. The sampling error and sample size used in this research are within acceptable standard

ranges for national surveys.

Variables and Measurements

Except for the entrance te st scores, the questionnaire items that were chosen to operationalize variables of this study are

reproduced in Appendix I.

The Dependent Variable

The dependent variable of this study is access to higher education. It is operationalized based on admission to a state university. Access to higher education, is scored as a dummy variable--one for acceptance and zero for non-acceptance.

Admission is supposedly determined on the basis of the entrance te st scores of the applicants (Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia, 1984). However, the chances for admission vary from university to university, because the number of applicants and the number of positions available for students in a given university 75 vary. As a consequence, there is no predetermined threshhold score for admission to a state university at either the national or state level. Generally, the older universities have stiffer entrance requirements.

Thus the type of university and the entrance test scores are intervening variables in determining admission to Indonesian higher education. As Table 15 indicates, however, other factors must also be related to acceptance or rejection. For example, 4% of the applicants accepted were from the first quartile, and another 11% were accepted from the second quartile. This suggests that socioeconomic and sociogeographic variables are important.

Intervening variables

The analysis includes two intervening variables—achievement and quality of university selected for application by prospective student.

a) Achievement was operationalized by an entrance examination which is the sum total of numeric value of 180 test items which were scored +4 for each correct answer, -1 for each incorrect answer and zero for each unanswered item. The possible range of scores is -180 to +720. The examination consists of three major categories: (1) mathematics and natural sciences; (2) social sciences and social studies; and (3) Indonesian and English languages.

The 1984 university entrance examination, abbreviated and called in Indonesian "SIPENMARU," is a result of more than ten years work 76

TABLE 15

Percentage of Applicants Accepted by Indonesian State Universities by Quartiles Based on SIPENMARU Scores, 1984.

Quartile SIPENMARU Rate of (b) Percent of all or Entrance Exam- Acceptance {%) Accepted (W=7279) ination Scores (a)

Fourth Quartile 123 11.1 59.3

Third Quartile 72-122 4.7 25.2

Second Quartile 32-71 2.1 11.5

F irst Quartile 31 .4 4.0

Total — 18.5* 100.0

(a) Scores ranged from a low of -48 to a high of +451 with a mean of 85.7, a standard deviation of 73.3, and a mode of 72.

(b) Applicants who were accepted had a mean score of 154.7 and a standard deviation of 83.9. Applicants who were rejected had a mean score of 69.9 and a standard deviation of 60.4.

* Overall rate

under an experimental project conducted by an ad hoc committee under the Directorate General of Higher Education. The in itia l examination was devised in 1972, but not applied until 1976, when

"SKALU" (an Indonesian abbreviation for a group of five universities) administered tne entrance examination at those five universities for three academic years, 1976-1978. Then, four p ilot projects--PPl, PP2, PP3, and PP4 which were discussed in 77

Chapter II--were developed and tested at all state universities and institutes through the 1983 academic year.

There is no major difference between the PP1 and PP2 examinations, except that about 2% of PP2 students were chosen or invited to enroll in state institutions without taking the PP1 entrance examination. They were recruited through a talent scouting program. The other 98% of the PP2 were requi red to take and pass the PP1 entrance examination. The PP2 talent scouting method had been used for several years by the Agricultural Institute of Bogor

(IPB) and more recently by Gajah Mada University in Jogyakarta.

The PP3 entrance selection was used mostly by the universities in the outer islands and by a few universities in Java. About one third of its test items were developed centrally at the national level, another one third by the regional universities, and the remainder by individual universities. The examination and the selection process were administered by individual universities. The

PP3 universities were classified into PP3 West and PP3 East. PP3

West largely consists of universities in the Western part of the country, especially in Sumatra. PP3 East consisted of universities in the eastern part of Indonesia.

The PP4, specifically designed as an entrance examination for the Institute for Teachers Training and Educational Sciences or

IKIPs, was centrally developed and administered at the national level.

Beginning with the 1984 academic year, the new entrance examination, SIPENMARU was introduced and administered nationwide 78 to applicants to all state universities and institutes. It consists of revised items from items from PP1 and PP2. About 10% of admissions were set aside for the "brightest" students from selected high schools, who are invited to attend universities without taking entrance exams and represent the 1.4% of applicants that are recruited under the talent scouting program.

University Quality

A classification of public universities was created by the Asian

Development Bank (Simpson and Loughton, 1984) to rank the state universities based on their abilities to carry out teaching, research, and community service functions. These consist of three categories, which are shown in Appendix 2 and exclude three universities and 10 IKIPs. Three state universities were omitted because these universities were not in existence when the study was conducted. The IKIPs were excluded because the objectives of the

Asian Development Bank was not concerned with teacher training problems.

As a consequence, the Asian Development Bank's Group III and the excluded universities were merged to form an expanded third category and IKIPs were collected in a fourth category. University quality was operationalized as a continuous variable with Group A possessing the highest quality and IKIPs possessing the lowest quality and was scored as follows: 3 for Group A, 2 for Group B, 1 for Group C, and

0 for IKIPs. 79

Tables 16, 17, and 18 give validity to this classification.

Table 16 indicates that Group A had the lowest rate of acceptance

(12.5%) and the lowest percentage of all applicants accepted (16.6%) which reflects their tough admissions policies.

Table 17 demonstrates that 91.1% of the applicants to Group A were in the fourth or highest quartile of entrance examination

scores. On the other hand, the IKIPs had the lowest percentage

(43.7%) in the fourth or highest quartile.

Table 18 indicates that the distribution of the admitted

students scoring in the highest quartile was about even—26% for

Group A, 32% for Group B, 19% for Group C, and 23% for the IKIPs.

On the other hand, the IKIPs accepted the most students from the lowest

TABLE 16

Distribution of University Acceptance by Quality of State University Group, Indonesia, 1984

University N Rate of Percent Percent of Quality Acceptance of All All Applicants (%) Accepted

Group A 1793 12.5 16.6 24.6 (High)

Group B 2385 16.0 28.2 32.8 (Medium)

Group C 1388 24.4 25.0 19.1 (Low)

I.K.I.P. 1713 23.9 30.3 23.5 80

TABLE 17

Quartile of Entrance Examination Scores of Applicants Accepted to State Universities by Quality of State University Group, Indonesia: 1984

Quality First Second Third Fourth Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile (N=58) (N=l51) (N=356) (N=788)

-Group A — % 2.7% 6.3% 91.1% THigh)

Group B 3.4 7.6 22.0 66.9 (Medium)

Group C 3.8 16.6 35.2 44.4 (Low)

I.K.I.P. 14.6 14.6 33.9 43.7

TABLE 18

Distribution of Successful Applicants to State University Groups by Quartile of Entrance Examination Scores

Quality of First Second Third Fourth N Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile

Group A 224 —% 4.0% 3.9% 25.9%

Group B 381 22.4 19.2 23.6 32.4

Group C 338 22.4 37.1 33.4 19.0

I.K.I.P. 410 55.2 39.7 39.0 22.7

Total 1349 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 81 or fourth quartile—55%, while Group A accepted none. Thus, these tables support the quality ranking used in the dissertation.

Independent Variables

Two sets of independent variables are important to this study.

The f ir s t is socioeconomic status (SES). The second is proximity to the national power center, which is intertwined with proximity to urban centers, or what is termed "sociogeographic" background (SGB).

The f ir s t set of variables, the socioeconomic status, and their related measures are as follows:

1. Father's education is the number of years of schooling

completed as taken from a direct question on the entrance

examination. Father's education was coded and scored in

five categories. A score of one was given for six years of

primary school or less, two for junior high (7 to 9 years),

three for senior secondary or high school (10 to 12 years),

four for some college or a bachelor's degree (13 to 16

years), five for a master's degree or higher (17 years or

more). For purposes of the correlational analysis, missing

data (208 cases) were given the model category.

2. Mother's education is defined, operationalized, and

measured in the same manner as father's education. Missing

data (34 cases) were handled in the same manner as for

father's education.

3. Father's occupation was defined as the current employment

of the father and was measured by four broad categories. A

score of zero was given for nonworking fathers and those 82

with missing data. Thereafter the scores were: one for

farmers, fishermen, and blue collar workers, two for

private white collar workers including private school

teachers, self-employed, professionals, and businessmen,

and three for government civil service employees including

teachers, military, policemen, and retired civil servants

and military—the highest prestige category. For purposes

of the correlational analysis, missing data were assigned

the model category.

4. Mother's occupation is defined, operationalized, and

measured by the same scale as father's occupation with the

zero category being expanded to include housewives. For

purposes of the correlational analysis, missing data were

assigned the model category.

5. Family income is the amount of money earned by the family

in an average month during the previous 12 months. Family

income is measured in rupiah and represents the amount

earned by both father and mother per month. The data were

scored on an ordinal scale with one being assigned to the

category of less than 25,000 rupiah, two for rupiah

earnings of 25,000 to 49,999 per month, three for 50,000 to

99,999 rupiah per month, four for 100,000 to 149,999 rupiah

per month, five for 150,000 to 249,999 rupiah per month,

six for 250,000 to 499,999 rupiah per month, and seven for 83 more than 500,000 rupiah per month. For purposes of the correlational analysis, the 12 missing cases were given the model category.

The second set of independent variables, the sociogeographic background (SGB) and related measures are as follows: inner-outer islands, rural-urban, capital-non-capital, and center-periphery.

1. Inner-outer islands were defined as place of residence of

applicant. The inner islands group included Java and Bali

and was scored as one, and the remaining islands were

scored as zero to form a "dummy" binary analysis.

2. The rural-urban variable will require a more detailed

explanation. As discussed in Chapter I, Indonesian

definitions of administrative units do not conform

necessarily to contemporary functional areas. Indonesia's

adminstrative units were designated and labeled during

Dutch colonial period and have not been redefined to

accomodate recent growth or population changes. An

alternative to the administrative criteria is to define

areas by function--contiguous areas which are consistently

urban in character as identified by levels of population

density, economic functions, and facilities (National Urban

Development Strategy, 1985:2).

Administratively, Indonesia is organized into five

hierarchical levels of bureaucracy. The central government

is located in the largest city and national capital,

Jakarta. The second level of the hierarchy includes the 84 provincial governments, which number 27 in today's

Indonesian administration. The administration of each province is centered in the provincial capital, which is the largest city within the province. The provincial government is divided into a number of "kabupaten"

(regencies) and "kotamadya" (municipalities) at the third bureaucratic level. A "kabupaten" is an administrative area that is mostly rural, although administration is centered in the largest city or town within the kabupaten.

A "kotamadya" is an administrative unit that is mostly urban, usually a city or town. Each "kabupaten" and each

"kotamadya" is divided into a number of "kecamatan," the fourth level, and each "kecamatan" includes a number of other villages (desas), the fifth and smallest units at the bottom of the bureaucratic hierarchy.

This political-bureaucratic hierarchy does not reflect functional trade areas or contemporary rural-urban difference. A more recent study, the National Urban

Development Strategy (MUDS) Project reflects more accurately the contemporary division between urban and rural areas. The Project identified four types of "urban" areas: a. Kotamadya are clearly defined administrative units which have some urban functions. For example, the City of 85

Jakarta is a province comprised of 5 kotamadya as administrative subunits. In Indonesia there are 50 kotamadya. b. Kota-administratip are officially designated administrative subunits within kabupaten (rural). In

Indonesia there are 28 sub-areas nationally. They usually include one or a cluster of kecamatan (towns). Such kota have limited administrative powers and function under kabupaten authority. c. Kelurahan are villages (desas) within a keacamatan which are not given kota-administratip status. Unlike other desas, kelurahan do have resident government o fficials appointed to administer their affairs, but in other respects they function under kecamaten authority in the same way as other desas. d. Other functional urban areas are clusters of desas within kecamaten which have urban characteristics. These units have no independent administrative status and no officially recognized boundaries.

MUDS indicates that 78 c itie s with kotamadya and kota-administratip status account for the majority of the nation's urban population (66% in 1980), but the vast majority of all Indonesia's cities and towns are in the kelurahan or other functional urban areas classfication.

The NUDS study delineates 831 spatially distinct functional 86

urban areas in Indonesia. Three hundred eighty-one of

these areas had 1980 urban populations of 10,000 or more

inhabitants.

Thus, administrative status does not necessarily

indicate a c ity 's importance. For example, NUDS found that

some urban areas without kotamadya or kota-administratip

status had urban populations in excess of 100,000

inhabitants, whereas some kotamadya had "urban" populations

of less than 10,000 people.

For purposes of the present study, the NUDS lists of

urban function agglomerates was used to identify urban

areas. The current study, however, identified only the

residence of the applicants by province name and the first

administrative subdivision of kotamadya or kabupaten.

Kecamaten and desas administrative levels of residence

could not be determined. As a consequence, the urban rural

variable is scored as one when the applicants' residence is

located in a kabupaten or kotamadya which contains an

element of an urban agglomerate and zero or rural if it

does not.

3. Capital-non capital was also ascertained by applicants self

identification of residence. This variable was categorized

and scored as follows: three for national capital, two for

provincial capital, and one for non-capital. 87

4. Center-periphery is determined by a series of discrete

categories which are based on the geographic hierarchy of

the Indonesian government, and on the availability of

transportation and communication fa c ilitie s , a modernity

dimension.

Three c rite ria are used to categorize the

center-periphery location of the applicants: a) inner

island residence, in contrast to residence on the outer

islands, b) residence in a municipality where one of

Indonesia's urban "conglomerates" is located (Directorate

of City and Regional Planning, Department of Public Works,

Government of Indonesia-UNDP/UNCHS, 1985), and c) the

location or not of a provincial capital in the

municipality. The combination of these three binary

c rite ria yield an eight category continuum of urbanity and

modernity. One additional element of sociopolitical

structure of Indonesia was considered. Jakarta, the

nation's largest urban area and its national capital, was

scored as a separate category-providing nine categories

for sociogeographic background.

The center-periphery division of sociogeographical

background relies on the geographic hierarchy of the

Indonesian government and the availability of

transportation and communication fa c ilitie s . This variable

represented the sociogeographic divisions based on

residence on an inner-outer island, residence in an urban 88

"conglomerate," residence in a provincial capital

distribution as shown in Figure 4.

Population Characteristics

A breakdown of the university applicants by gender is found in

Table 19. Most of new entrants (62.6%) are male. Even though female applicants show a success rate which is quite close to the males, far fewer females attempt to enter the universities. This is a self-selection process that maintains gender disparities which are linked to educational attainment in future occupations.

TABLE 19

Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Gender, Indonesia: 1984

Percent Rate of Percent of all Acceptance Accepted Gender N Applicants (%)

Male 4441 61.1 19.0 62.6

Female 2831 38.9 17.9 37.4

Total 7272 100.0 18.5** 100.0

* 7 missing observations ** overall rate FIGURE 4

Construction of Center-Periphery Categories

Capitals Non-Capitals

Location: Jakarta Urban Rural Urban Rural Agglomeration Area Agglomeration Area

Percentage of Applicants: 11.6 28.1 2.4 24.2 33.6 90

Examination of Tables 20 and 21 shows that the university applicants are not only from families with high levels of educational achievement. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that few individuals among the parents cohort had an opportunity to attain higher education. Eighty-three percent of new entrants came from backgrounds where the father had 12 years or less of education and 31% where the father had only a primary education.

Rates of acceptance show that for both father's and mother's educational attainment, as the level of attainment rises, the proportion of students who are accepted also rises. Most students come from families whose educational achievement is low; however, students coming from the more educated classes have a higher probability of being admitted to a university.

Turning to monthly family income, Table 22 shows that the rates of acceptance increase along with the monthly family income. Income groups above the Rp. 100,000 per month level represent a greater proportion of new entrants than their proportion in the sample of all applicants. Groups below the Rp. 100,000 per month level are under represented. As with the level of parents' education, although the Indonesian universities do not systematically exclude students from modest backgrounds, the competition for positions in state universities favors the students from the more highly educated and wealthier families.

Turning to acceptance to state universities by parents' occupations, Table 23 demonstrates a systematic bias in the backgrounds of students and their selection for the universities. 91

TABLE 20

Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Father's Education, Indonesia: 1984.

Percent Rate of Percent Father's of all Acceptance of all Education N* Applicants {%) Accepted

Primary 2496 35.3 16.1 30.6 and less

Jr. High 1368 19.3 15.8 16.5

Sr. High 2363 33.4 20.1 36.3

Bachelor's 480 6.8 25.0 9.1 degree

Master's and above 364 5.1 26.9 7.5

Total 7071 100.0% 18.5** 100.0%

* 208 missing observations ** overall rate 92

TABLE 21

Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Mother's Education, Indonesia: 1984.

Percent Rate of Percent Mother's of all Acceptance of all Education N* Applicants (%) Accepted

Primary 3675 53.0 16.6 47.4 and less

Jr. High 1572 22.7 17.6 21.5

Sr. High 108 1.6 31.5 2.7

Master's 35 0.5 34.3 0.9

Total 6934 100.0% 18.5% 100.0%

*345 missing observations ** overall rate TABLE 22

Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Monthly Family Income, Indonesia: 1984

Percent Rate of Percent Mother's of all Acceptance of all Education N* Applicants {%) Accepted

Less than 25 303 4.4 11.9 2.8

25-49 1149 15.8 14.5 12.3

50-99 2247 30.9 17.0 28.2

100-149 2133 29.3 20.1 31.6

150-249 1034 14.2 23; 0 17.6

250-499 353 4.8 24.9 6.5

More than 500 48 0.7 29.2 1.0

Total 7267 100.0 18.5*** 100.0

* 1,100 Rupiah = approximately 1 U.S. Dollar **12 missing observations *** overall rate 94

TABLE 23

Comparison of Father's Occupation of Entrants to Gajah Mada University, 1982 and current study.

______Jacob's 1982 ______1984 Father's Occupation All Students New Students Acceptants

Farming & Blue Collar 16.0 11.5 19.2

Private Sector 26.0 23.5 26.4

Government Sector 55.5 61.5 54.4

Other 2.5 3.5 -

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 95

TABLE 24

Percentage and Rate of Acceptance of State University Applicants by Selected Variables, Indonesia, 1984.

Independent Total Percent Percent Rate of Variable N of all of all Acceptance Applicants Accepted

Social Status Variables

Father's Education:

Primary or Less 2496 35.3 30.6 16.1 Jr. High 1368 19.3 16.5 15.8 Sr. High 2363 33.4 36.3 20.1 B.A. degree 480 6.8 9.1 25.0 M.A. degree or 364 5.1 7.5 26.9 above

Mother's Education:

Primary or Less 3675 53.0 47.7 16.6 Jr. High 1572 22.7 21.5 17.6 Sr. High 1544 22.4 27.2 22.6 B.A. degree 108 1.6 2.7 31.5 M.A. degree or 35 .05 0.9 34.3 above

Father's Occupation *

Farming/Bl. collar 1572 22.5 19.2 15.8 Private sector 2005 28.7 26.4 17.0 Govt, sector 3412 48.8 54.4 20.5

Mother's Occupation •

Farming/Bl. collar 1394 19.2 16.1 15.6 Private sector 1580 21.7 20.8 17.8 Govt, sector 730 10.0 14.6 27.0 Unspecified/ 3575 49.1 48.5 18.4 Housewives _ 96

TABLE 24 (continued)

Independent Total Percent Percent Rate of Vari able N of all of all Acceptance Applicants Accepted

Monthly family income (in Rp. 1000)

25 or less 303 4.4 2.8 11.9

More than 25 up to 50 1149 15.8 12.3 14.5

More than 50 up to 100 2247 30.9 28.2 17.0

More than 100 up to 150 2133 29.3 31.6 20.1

More than 150 up to 250 1034 14.2 17.6 23.0

More than 250 up to 500 353 4.8 6.5 24.9

More than 500 48 0.7 1.0 29.2

Social Geographic Variables

Major Islands:

Java-Bali 4855 67.2 62.3 17.3 Sumatra 1579 21.9 24.0 20.5 Sulawesi 579 8.0 8.8 20.6 Klaimantan 149 2.1 3.5 31.5 Irian Jaya and other islands 59 0.8 1.4 32.2 97

TABLE 24 (continued)

Independent Total Percent Percent Rate of Vari abl e N of a l l _ of all Acceptance Applicants Accepted

Locale:

Urban 4601 63.7 61.6 18.1 Rural 2622 36.3 38.4 19.7

Capitals/Non-capitals scale:

National capital 847 11.6 7.2 11.5

Provincial capital 2167 29.8 33.3 20.8

Non-capitals 4265 58.6 59.5 18.9 98

If parents' occupations are placed on a prestige continuum from agricultural occupations (lowest), through private sector occupations, to governmental sector occupations (highest), a relationship is seen between the rate of admission and the higher prestige occupations. Students from bureaucratic backgrounds have the highest success rate and represent the largest proportion of acceptances to state universities; the latter proportion being even larger (54.4%) than the group's overall presence in the population of applicants (48.8%).

We can compare our results to those of Jacob's (1982) analysis of the distribution of students' backgrounds at Gajah Mada

University. Regrouping Jacob's occupation categories to conform to those of this study (as shown in Table 23), it is evident that our

1984 sample is similar to the students' backgrounds at Gajah Mada in

1982.

Table 15 indicates that few women advance beyond the primary level of education. Mothers with more than primary education represent only 53% of the sample. Women also are less likely to be employed separately in the labor market because mothers within the

"not specified" (generally housewife) category of occupation make up

49% of the sample (See Table 24). These figures indicate a less active public, professional role for women in Indonesian society; however, the corresponding acceptance rates indicate that the presence of an active mother in the private or governmental sector increases the chances for a student's acceptance into a university.

Students whose mothers had more than a primary education were 99 accepted at higher rates than those whose father had a similar level of educational achievement. Table 24 illustrates that having a more professionally active mother also increases the chance of student acceptance. The difference between the acceptance rate for students whose fathers are employed by the government and those whose mother is employed by the government indicates a higher probability of acceptance for those that have mothers employed by the government

(Table 24).

Trends in University Applicants

Table 16 provides a description of the relationship between university quality, in terms of its capabilities to perform teaching, research, and community service functions, and the relative ease of gaining acceptance. Data in the table indicates that the most acceptances (55.8%) were to the lowest quality level or Group C universities which includes the regional, relatively newer generation universities, and IKIPs. These universities also had the highest rate of acceptance of applicants who applied to these institutions. They accepted 24 percent of all applicants.

The lowest acceptance rate (12.5%) was for the highest quality, group A universities which are older, larger, and located on Java.

These universities admitted less than 16.6% of applicants accepted.

Turning now to the sociogeographic background variables (SGB) we investigate three variables: rural/urban residence, location in capital c itie s , and high school location. TOO

Data about the distribution of residence of applicants are found in Tables 25 and 26. Urban students make up 63.7% of university acceptances. This contrasts with the fact that approximately 78% of

Indonesia's population live in areas that can be classified as

"rural" (Central Bureau of Statistics of Indoenesia, 1983;

Directorate of City and Regional Planning, Department of Public

Works, Government of Indonesia, UNDP/UNCHS, 1985).

Table 27 indicates the predominance of students from Java.

Table 27 shows that Javanese students represent the majority of those accepted to state universities (62.3%). Table 28 indicates that non-Javanese students who gain admission choose Javanese universities second only to a university in their own local area.

Table 29 indicates that mean entrance examination scores are highest for Javanese applicants. Furthermore, as shown in Table 29, applicants from other islands applying for admission to state universities in Java have, on the average, higher mean entrance examation scores than those who apply to state universities on other islands.

However, as indicated in Table 27, the Javanese applicants have lower success rates (17.3%), below the national average of 18.6%.

In addition, the data indicate that the further the island is from

Java, the greater the proportion of the applicants accepted into that state university system. This increasing success rate is paralleled by a decreasing trend in the proportional representation of island inhabitants in the population of all state university 101

TABLE 25

Place of Residence (Rural-Urban), of University Applicants and Acceptance, Indonesia, 1984 ■

Percent Rate of Percent High of all Accept­ of all School N* Appli­ ance (%) Accepted Location cants

Rural 2622 36.3% 19.7% 38.4%

Urban 4601 63.7 18.1 61.6

Total 7223 100.0% 18.5%** 100.0%

* 56 missing observations ** overall rate

TABLE 26

Location of High School Attended by University Applicants and Acceptance, Indonesia, 1984.

Percent Rate of Percent High of all Accept­ of all School N Appli­ ance (%) Accepted Locati on cants

Outside 4265 58.6% 18.9% 59.5% Capitals

Within Provincial 2167 29.8 20.8 33.3 Capitals

Within Nati onal 847 11.6 11.5 7.2

Total 7279 100.0% 18.5%* 100.0%

* overall rate 102

TABLE 27

Distribution of University Applicants and Acceptance by Location of High School

Percent Rate of Percent High of all Accept­ of all School N* Appli - ance Accepted Location cants

Java & Bali 4855 67.2% 17.3% 62.3%

Sumatra 1579 21.9 20.4 24.0

Sul awesi 579 8.0 20.6 8.8

Kalimantan 149 2.1 31.5 3.5

Other 59 0.8 32.2 1.4 Islands

Total N* 7221 100.0% 18.5%** 100.0%

* 58 missing observations ** overall rate 103-

TABLE 28

High School Location of Successful Applicants to State Universities by Location of Universities Preferred by Applicants,.Indonesia, 1984

University Location, Indonesia , 1984 Success­ High School N ful Appli­ Java-Bali Sumatra Sulawesi KalimantanOther Locati on cants

Java-Bali 838 62.3% 98.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% Sumatra 323 24.0 11.5 88.5 - - - Sulawesi 119 8.8 2.5 97.5 - - Kalimantan 47 3.5 19.1 - - 80.9 - Other Islands 19 1.4 10.5 36.8 52.6 Total N 1346** 100.0 878 292 126 40 10 % to Location 65.2 21.7 9.4 3.0 0.7

* (-) indicates no applicants in this cell ** 3 missing observations 104

TABLE 29

High School Location of Successful Applicants to State Universities by Location of Universities Accepting them, Indonesia, 1984

University Location % of Success­ High School ful Appli­ Java-Bali Sumatra Sulawesi Kalimantan Other Locati on N cants Java-Bali 839 42.3 97.7 1.2 0.7 0.4 _* Sumatra 323 24.0 7.7 92.3 - - - Sul awesi 119 8.8 0.8 - 99.2 - - Kalimantan 47 3.5 10.6 -- 89.4 - Other Islands 19 1.4 36.8 63.2 Total N 1347** 100.0 851 308 131 45 12 % to location 632 22.9 9.7 3.3 0.9

* (-) indicates no applicants in the cell ^* 2 missing observations 105 applicants. Fewer students attempt to enter the universities from the outer islands than from Java, but they have a greater likelihood of being accepted than do native students from Java.

Analyses of where students apply for university entrance and where the students are actually accepted presents another layer of complexity to the selection process. As illustrated in Table 27, most university applicants attempt to enter state universities on their own island or in th e ir immediate locale. Furthermore, most students who attempt to leave their home island apply for admission to Java; however, as Table 28 shows most applicants end up being admitted to state universities on their home island, irrespective of their first preference of state university location.

Table 30 shows that Javanese students exhibit the highest average examination scores (97.7) for all island applicant groups.

Table 31 also indicates that Javanese applicants have the highest average scores among all students who are accepted into state universities. But, non-Javanese who apply for state universities on

Java have higher average scores than native Javanese. Scholastic achievement, as measured by the entrance examination, does seem to facilitate mobility for outer islanders in that it permits migration to the central island which is the social and political center of

Indonesia.

Data in Table 26 confirms an evaluation of Pearse's (1978) hypothesis that there is an over-representation of students from the capital cities. These data suggest that there is no obvious sytematic selection of students from the capital cities. A clear 106

TABLE 30

Mean Entrance Test Scores for Applicants by Location of High School and By Location of Universities Preferred, Indonesia, 1984 University Location Within High School Island 7 score 7 score 7 score 7 score 7 score Location N Mean Java-Bali Sumatra Sulawesi Kalimantan Other

Java-Bali 4792 97.7 98.2 70.0 49.3 64.4 _* Sumatra 1562 67.8 108.5 62.9 53.5 - - Sulawesi 573 43.9 72.4 - 43.1 21.5 - Kalimantan 142 68.4 96.9 - - 61.5 - Other Islands 58 57.2 74.2 - 90.1 18.0 48.3 Total N 7127 4938 1444 578 125 42 Column Mean 85.9 98.5 63.2 44.1 60.7 48.3

* (-) indicates no applicants in the cell 152 Missing observations 107

TABLE 31

Mean Entrance Test Scores for Successful Applicants by High School Location and by Location of Universities Accepting Them, Indonesia, 1984

Location of University High School Within X score X score X score X score X score Location N Island Java-BaliSumatra Sulawesi Kalimantan Other Mean

Java-Bali 838 179.7 180.0 122.3 166.3 146.3 - Sumatra 321 126.0 217.3 118.2 - - - Sulawesi 119 85.6 195.0 - 84.7 - - Kalimantan 46 98.2 -- - 97.8 - Other Islands 19 98.2 108.4 92.3 Total 1343** 850 306 131 44 12 Column Mean J55.1 182.0 118.4 89.7 101.1 92.3

* (-) indicates no applicants in the cell. ** 6 missing observations 108 majority (59.5%) of all applicants accepted come from areas other

than Jakarta, the national capital, or any of the provincial

capitals.

Statistical Analysis Procedures

The choice of statistical analyses for this study was determined

by the objectives of the study and the nature of the data. Some measures represent continuous scales such entrance examination

scores which measure achievement. Other variables are binary in

nature. The dependent variable, access to higher education, is

dichotomous--acceptance or rejection.

The debate over which technique is more appropriate,

dummy-regression analysis of multiple regression models, a mixed model which includes dummy and continuous variables, or log-linear models is s till underway. For independent variables, the use of

dummy-regression is well accepted in sociology (Boyle, 1971), but

its usage as a dependent variable as in the present study—accepted or rejected—is sometimes questioned in theoretical work but

accepted in practice (See Aikens, Havens and FI inn, 1975).

Considering this, the use of dummy dependent-variable regression

seems adequate in this study. In order not to truncate the variance by dummying the continuous variable, the mixed model was employed.

The analysis starts by examining the hypothesis specified in Figure

3 by means of zero-order correlations. The next step is an examination of association of the two sets of exogenous variables

(SES and SGB) with the dependent variable (access to higher 109 education: acceptance and rejection) controlling for intervening

variables (achievement and quality of university of application),

both separately and simultaneously. The final step is determining

the relative explanatory power of SES versus SGB variables in explaining variance in access to higher education. This will be 2 done by comparing the R of each set of the independent variables

in a regression model for the access to higher education.

Summary

In this chapter, sampling procedures were reviewed f ir s t. This was followed by a consideration of major variables in the model for the study, including how they were empirically measured and an extensive description of the population using the major variables in

the model. Consideration was given to analyses of the complexity of the admission and entrance to state universities. Finally,

statistical procedures that will be used in the analysis were described and analyzed. CHAPTER V

DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter presents an analysis of empirical findings of this study. It deals with 1) testing research hypotheses in the

Indonesian model of access to higher education, 2) examining associations of SES and SGB with access to higher education and controlling for intervening variables, and 3) comparing the predictive power of the two sets of independent variables, SES and

SGB, and examining the explanatory power of the model of this study.

As indicated in the earlier chapters the study treats the questions:

To what degree are socioeoconomic background (SES) factors

determinants of access to higher education in Indonesia?

How much does access to higher education in Indonesia

depend on sociogeographic background (SGB) factors?

The approach for examining the theoretical problems is, as indicated in the Methodology Chapter, conceptual variable analysis.

The four steps in conceptual variable analysis are:

a. All concepts are expressed as variables.

b. An operational measure for each conceptual variable is

developed.

110 m

c. General hypotheses, which are postulated relationships

between two concepts, and the corresponding empirical

hypotheses, which are the postulated relationships between

two operational measures, are developed.

d. The general hypothesis is accepted or rejected on the basis

of the results of the empirical hypotheses.

Testing the Indonesian Model of Access to Higher Education

To systematically examine these relationships, the Indonesian

Model of Access to Higher Education was constructed from a review of relevant literature. The model presented in Chapter III, Figure 3 produced the following general and empirical hypotheses:

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 1--SGB is related to state university acceptance.

Empirical Hypotheses

1. Inner-outer island residence of the applicant is related to

acceptance in a state university.

2. Urban-agglomerate proximity to the applicant is related to

acceptance in a state university.

3. Residential proximity of the applicant to the national and

provincial capitals is related to acceptance to a state

university.

4. Residential proximity of the applicant to the

center--periphery is related to acceptance to a state

university. 112

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 2—SES is related to acceptance to a state

university.

Empirical Hypotheses

5. The educational level of the father of the applicant is

related to acceptance to a state university.

6. The educational level of the mother of the applicant is

related to acceptance to a state university.

7. The occupation of the father of the applicant is related to

acceptance to a state university.

8. The occupation of the the mother of the applicant is

related to acceptance to a state university.

9. The monthly income of the family of the applicant is

related to acceptance to a state university.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 3—The quality of the university of application

by the applicant is related to acceptance to a state

university.

Empi rical Hypothesi s

10. The quality of the state university to which the applicant

applied is related to acceptance to a state university.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 4—-Achievement is related to acceptance to a

state university.

Empirical Hypothesis

11. The entrance examination score of the applicant is related

to acceptance to a state university. 113

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 5—SGB is related to achievement.

Empirical Hypotheses

12. Inner-outer island residence of the applicant is related to

the entrance examination score.

13. Urban-agglomerate proximity of the applicant is related to

the entrance examination score.

14. Residential proximity of the applicant to the national or

provincial capitals is related to the entrance examination

score.

15. Residential proximity of the applicant to the

center-periphery is related to the entrance examination

score.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 6—SES is positively related to achievement.

Empirical Hypotheses

16. The level of education of the father of the applicant is

related to entrance examination score.

17. The level of education of the mother of the applicant is

related to entrance examination score.

13. The occupation of the father of the applicant is related to

entrance examination score.

19. The occupation of the mother of the applicant is related to

entrance examination score.

20. The monthly family income of the applicant's family is

related to entrance examination score. 114

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 7--SGB is positively related to quality of

university to which the applicant made application.

Empirical Hypotheses

21. Inner-outer island residence of the applicant is related to

higher quality of state university to which the applicant

applied.

22. Urban-agglomerate proximity of the applicant is related to

higher quality of the state university to which the

applicant applied.

23. Residential proximity of the applicant to the national or

provincial capitals is related to the quality of the state

university to which the applicant applied.

24. Residential proximity of the applicant to the

center-periphery is related to the quality of the

university to which the applicant applied.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 8—SES is related to quality of university to

which the applicant applied.

Empirical Hypotheses

25. The level of education of the father of the applicant is

related to quality of the state university to which the

applicant applied.

26. The level of education of the mother of the applicant is

related to quality of the state university to which the

applicant applied. 115

27. The occupation of the father of the applicant is related to

the quality of the state university to which the applicant

applied.

28. The occupation of the mother of the applicant is related to

the quality of the state university to which the applicant

applied.

29. The monthly family income of the applicant is related to

the quality of the state university to which the applicant

applied.

The zero-order correlations for these hypothesized relationships are shown in Table 32, and the zero-order correlation matrix is presented in Table 33. Table 32 indicates that the relationships are significant. Significance, however, is affected by sample size, and since the sample used in this study is large, significance becomes less meaningful than the magnitude of the correlation coefficients themselves.

Table 32 shows that the SGB variables are weakly and mostly negatively related to acceptance to a state university. In other words, the further from the urban centers or capitals, the more likely is acceptance. On the other hand, the SGB variables are more strongly and positively related to the entrance examination. Thus, the higher the score, the more likely is inner island residence.

Inner island location, urban-agglomerate proximity, and proximity to national or provincial capitals are positively correlated with the entrance examinations scores, while the center-periphery measure is also positively associated with 116 examination scores. Thus the closer one lives to an urban center in the inner islands, the greater the achievement but less likely is admission to a state university. This indicates, as noted in the previous chapter, that admission to B or C quality universities or

IKIPs is easier with regard to examination scores. Also, the B and

C universities are located in the outer islands and more distant from the power centers, which helps explain the negative relationship. This relationship is examined more completely in

Table 34 when controlling for the intervening variables.

Table 32 also demonstrates that the relationships between SES variables and access or acceptance to a state University is weak but positively related. The higher the SES level of the family of origin, the greater the probability of acceptance. The zero-order correlations between the SES variables and achievement, as measured by entrance examination scores, are of higher magnitude than were the SES and acceptance relationships.

The strongest relationships with acceptance to a state university are noted with the intervening variables, entrances examination score (.451) and quality of university of application

(-.120). The higher the quality of the university applied to, the lower the possibilty of acceptance. The higher the entrance examination score, the greater the possibility of acceptance to a state university.

Thus, Table 32 indicated that quality of university of application and entrance examination scores are important determinants of access to higher education. Both the SES and SGB 117

TABLE 32

Zero-Order Correlations of Hypothesized Relationships Between the Variables In the Model of Access to Higher Education: Indonesia, 1984

HYPHOTHESES Zero-order correlations r

1. Inner island - acceptance -.062* 2. Urban residence - acceptance -.022 3. National & Provincial capitals - acceptance -.039* 4. Center-periphery - acceptance -.030*

5. Father's education - acceptance .071* 6. Mother's education - acceptance .062* 7. Father's occupation - acceptance .049* 8. Mother's occupation - acceptance .072* 9. Monthly family income - acceptance .087* 10. Quality of university of application - acceptance -.120* 11. Entrance examination - acceptance .451*

12. Inner Island - entrance score .224* 13. Urban residence - entrance score .190* 14. National & Provincial capitals - entrance score .085* 15. Center-periphery - entrance score .131*

16. Father's education - entrance score .193* 17. Mother's education - entrance score .203* 18. Father's occupation - entrance score .065* 19. Mother's occupation - entrance score .086* 20 Monthly family income - entrance score .234*

21. Inner island - quality of university .148* 22. Urban residence - quality of university .227* 23. Political power - quality of university .353* 24. Center-periphery - quality of university of application .337*

25. Father's education - quality of university .246* 26. Mother's education - quality of university .237* 27. Father's occupation - quality of university .074* 28. Mother's occupation - quality of university .013 29. Monthly family income - quality of university .277* with Selected Independent and Intervening Variables, Variables, Intervening and Independent Selected with Zero-order correlation matrix of Access to Higher Education Education Higher to Access of matrix correlation Zero-order noei: 1984 Indonesia:

AHE FED MED FOC MOC INC IOS ISD V-R CAP CEN QUN EXA AHE ------

FED .071 ------

MED .062 .644* ------

FOC .049 .423* .236* ------

MOC .072* .234* .404* .176* ------

INC .087* .464* .434* .246* .185 ------

IOS -.062* .134* .137* .103* .034* .125* ------

U-R .022 .206* .208* .080* .028* .193* .407* ------

CAP -.039* .267* .258* .073* -.022* .227* .142* .508* ------

CEN -.030* .272* .264* .082* .005 .234* -.209* .746* .942* ------

QUN -.124* .254* .237* .074* -.013* .277* .148* .227* .353* .337*

EXA .451* .193* .203* .065* .086* .234* .224* .190* .085* .131*

* significant at alpha of 0.05 for a two-tailed test of probability.' AHE=access to higher education; FED=father's ed .; MED=mother‘s ed.; FOC=father's occupation; MOC=mother‘s occupation; INC=parents'income; IOS=Inner-outer island; ISP=island proximity; U-R=urban-rural category; CAP=capital-noncapital; CEN=central-periphery; QUN=quality of university; and EXA=exam scores. 119 variables exhibit significant but weak and opposite effects on access to higher education. Parents' educational and occupational levels as well as family income are positively related to acceptance. Conversely, residence on an inner island or urban residence is negatively related to acceptance. As shown in Table

27, this is undoubtedly due to the large numbers of applicants from the inner islands (67.2%) and the relatively low acceptance rate of universities on these islands (17.3%) compared to 32.2% on the outer islands.

Examination of SES and SGB with Access to Higher Education

Since the relationships observed in Table 32 were meager but significant, the second step in the research analysis was undertaken to test if achievement and quality of university of application are indeed intervening variables.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 1--SG3 is related to acceptance taken

controlling for achievement.

The empirical hypotheses are that inner-outer island, urban-provincial capitals, and center-periphery are related to acceptance in a state university when controlling for entrance examination scores.

Panel one in Table 34 indicates that this is indeed the case.

In all cases, the negative relationships are increased in magnitude. In other words, the further one is resident from the 120

inner island, urban power center, etc., the more likely acceptance of the applicant when test scores are controlled.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 2—SGB is related to acceptance when

controlling for quality of university of application.

The empirical hypotheses are that inner-outer island, urban-agglomerate residence, national or provincial capitals, and center-periphery are related to acceptance when controlling for quality of university of application. The r 12.4s for these relationships in Table 34 indicate this is generally not the case.

Only inner-outer island remain significant but exhibits very weak correlation coefficients. Obviously, the lesser quality of university of application is related to the outer islands.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 3—SES is related to acceptance when

controlling for achievement.

The empirical hypotheses are that father's education, mother's education, father's occupation, mother's occupation, and monthly family income are related to acceptance when controlling for the entrance examination score.

Panel 2 of Table 34 shows that the relationship remains significant with four of the five variables (mother's education, father's education, mother's occupation, and family income) but the correlation coefficients are substantially reduced. This indicates that achievement plays a very important role in explaining acceptance to state universities. 121

TABLE 34

Partial Correlations of Hypothesized Relationships between the Variables in the Model of Access to Higher Education, Controlling for Achievement, University Quality.

First-Order First-order Second-order Parti als Parti als Partials Control1i ng Control 1i ng Control1i ng Zero-order for for for Correlations Achievement Quality of Achievement & 12 12.3 University Quality of 12.4 University Variables 12.34

SES Variables Father's Education .072* -.019 .108* .039* Mother's Education .067* -.033* .105* .026* Father's Occupation .053* -.010 .074* .024* Mother's Occupation .040* .030* .036* .021* Monthly family income .087* -.021* .126* .040 SGB Variables Inner Island -.044* -.139* -.022* -.107* Island proximity -.050* -.185* -.035* -.143* Urban residence -.020 -.090* .018 -.046* Capitals -.039* -.087* .009 .008 Center-periphery -.049* -.171* .006 -.101*

* Significant at the .05 level of probability. 122

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 4--SES is related to acceptance when

controlling for quality of university of application.

The empirical hypotheses are that father's education, mother's

education, fath er's occupation, mother's occupation, and monthly

family income are related to acceptance to a state university when

controlling for quality of university of application. Panel 2 of

Table 34 indicates that the partial correlation coefficients (r

12.4) for most of these variables increased in magnitude when

controlling for quality of university.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 5—SGB is related to acceptance when

controlling for both achievement and quality of university

of application.

The empirical hypotheses are inner-outer island, urban-rural

residence, national or provincial captials, and center-periphery are

related to acceptance when controlling for both entrance examination

scores and quality of university of application. Table 34 indicates that these relationships remain after the introduction of the controls except in the case of national and provincial capitals.

GENERAL HYPOTHESIS 6--SES is related to acceptance when controlling

for both achievement and quality of university of application.

The empirical hypotheses are that father's education, mother's education, father's occupation, mother's occupation, monthly family income are related to acceptance when controlling for both entrance 123 examination and quality of university of application. The data in

Table 34 indicate that the relationships remains signficant but extremely weak. The control variables seem to have offsetting effect on each other.

Predictive Power of the Model

It seems difficult to conclude that the quality of the university of application and the entrance examination scores are intervening variables between SES and SGB and acceptance or rejection to a state university. Both variables are highly related to acceptance, more so than the SES and SGB variables. This indicates that the entrance examinations scores are very important in the admission process and that mobility is possible for the outer island applicants in the current Indonesian education system.

Nevertheless, when controlling for both the intervening variables, small relationships still existed between SES and SGB and acceptance. On the basis of this, several multiple regression models were examined to observe the predictive power of SGB, SES and the intervening variables.

In Model I only the selected SES variables and the intervening variables were regressed on acceptance and rejection. The SES variables (father's education and monthly family income) were selected because they were correlated with the dependent variable and had relatively low intercorrelation between themselves. As can 2 be seen in Table 35, the multiple R is .250. Thus, these 124 variables explain 25.0 percent of the variance in acceptance to state universities.

Model II employed the same intervening variables and selected

SGB variables (inner-outer island, and center-periphery). The multiple coefficient of determination for the model is .269. Thus, it explains 26.9 percent of the variable. While the additional amount of the variance explained is not large, it is significant.

Model III combines the same SGB and SES variables with the intervening variable and regresses them on acceptance to a state university. The resulting coefficient of multiple determination is 2 .271—a slight amount over the previous R s.

It is obvious from Table 35, however, that the entrance examination and the quality of the university are the two variables with the most explanatory power. It is also obvious from the relatively large coefficient of non-determination (.729) that other factors must be invoked in explaining access to higher education in

Indonesia. 125

TABLE 35

Results of Stepwise Regression of Access on SES and SGB Factors. (N=6455)

Model I Model II Model III Variables b B b B b B

Exam. .003* .489 .003 .523 .003* .512 University quality -.116* -.239 -.096* -.196 -.102* -.209 Father's educ. .006* .005 .007* .080 Monthly Fam. income .012* .036 .012* .087 Inner Islands .038 .030 .045 .036 Island Proximity -.071* -.143 -.068* -.138 Center-Periphery .003 .017 .006 .034 Constant .116* -.026 -.084 R2 .255 .268 .271 S. error .336 .333 .332 F 552.62 473.21 842.61 Signif. F. .000 .000 .000

* Significant at the .05 level or less CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents a general review of major findings of this study, and a discussion of their implications in future research and higher educational policy.

Review of Findings

This study posits that two sets of independent variables, socioeconomic status (SES) and sociogeographic background (SGB), affect access to higher education in Indonesia. Much of these effects, however, are funneled through achievement, as measured with entrance examination scores and the university to which one applies.

Reviewing the findings with respect to relative effects of the independent versus intervening variables, the associations between independent variables and access to higher education (acceptance and rejection) were significant but weak. On the other hand, the associations between the independent variables and achievement and quality of the university to which one applies were significant and much stronger. So were the associations between the intervening variables, achievement, the university to which one applies, and the access to higher education

Socioeconomic factors as observed through parents' education, parents' occupation, and parents' income were important in

126 127 determining achievement and access to the university. Applicants from family backgrounds with parents that were better educated and had higher incomes and where fathers were employed in government sectors, had higher achievement scores, applied to better universities, and had better chances for being accepted.

The associations between socioeconomic factors and the access to higher education were generally higher when controlling for quality of university, but moderately lower when controlling for both university and achievement, and much lower when controlling for achievement only. This would seem to indicate that achievement and social class are important determinants in access to higher education at the university level.

Sociogeographic factors as observed through inner-outer, capital-noncapital, rural-urban, and center-periphery categories were also significant but weak determinants of access to the university. Applicants from homes where parents live in the inner islands (Java-Bali) in urban areas, and in capital cities had higher achievement, applied to better universities, but had less chances for being accepted because of the greater competition for positions in these better universities.

The associations between sociogeographic factors and the access to higher education were generally lower and become less significant when controlling for the university quality but were higher and become more significant when controlling for both the university choice and achievement scores, and much stronger when controlling for achievement only. 128

Comparing the relative effects between socioeconomic factors and sociogeographic factors on the access to higher education, the sociogeographic background (SGB) was marginally better than the socioeconomic status (SES). While considering the predictive power of the model of this study, especially if we bear in mind that the model concentrates only on the structural variables, it explained

27% of the variance in the access to higher education.

In summary, with regard to intervening variables, achievement scores had more predictive power than the university quality in explaining access to state universities. University quality was negatively related to access. With regard to socioeconomic factors, as one may expect, these were positively associated with achievement scores, university quality, and access. In relation to the sociogeographic factors, the inner islands and urban-capital locations had positive effects on achievement and quality of university, but associated negatively with chances for access.

However, even though chances for applicants from outer islands-rural-non-capital were slightly better, they constituted a considerably smaller proportion of the total acceptance and enter lower quality universities. In general, the extremely vast majority of applicants tried to enter and ended up at nearby universities.

Suggestions for Further Research

This study has focused on the structural factors that affect access to higher education in Indonesia. A considerable proportion of the variance remains unexplained. This raises questions of other 129 factors that should be included, if a more comprehensive understanding is needed and sought.

Sociogeographic background must be further studied to allow the use of sharper measurements and more potent analyses. With regard to the rural-urban category, more indicators should be used in determining the urbanity or rurality of a given location. An urban area in Kalimantan and Irian Jaya, for example, is different from an urban area in Java and Bali, and Sumatra. This needs special attention.

With respect to the statistical analysis techniques, if sharper measurements can be developed to allow collecting continuous data, path analysis, or linear analysis should be used.

Considering the nature of the diversity and heterogeneity of

Indonesia in many respects such as cultural, geographical, level of economic development, as well as the magnitude of the problem, sub-sample studies that deal with homogeneous groups should be recommended. For example, a study of the inner or outer island applicants as subgroups should be developed.

In relation to the effects of the development process which has taken place in contemporary in Indonesia with significant speed, time series data would be valuable in assessing social trends in access to higher education.

A similar study would also contribute to our understanding of status mobility in Indonesia, if it concentrated on the socioeconomic characteristic of students who study abroad as compared to those studying in Indonesian universities. APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

130 QUESTIONNAIRE

0.1 Sex

1 Male

0. Female

02. Date of Birth:

Day

Month

Year

03. Place of Birth:

Province

Muni ci pali ty/Regency 04. Home Address: -

Province

Municipal!ty/Regency

...... Place

05. High School (Graduated From):

06. Parents' Education:

Father's Mother's □ □ Less than Primary School □ □ Completed Primary School □ □ Completed Jr. High School □ □ Completed Sr. High School □ □ B.A. Degree Holders □ □ M.A./Upper Degree Holders □ □ Others: ...... Specified) 133

07. Parents' Occupation:

Father's Mother's

01. Teachers/Professors of □ □ Government Institutions

02. Government Employees Other □ □ than Teachers/Professors 03. □ □ Armed Forces/ Police

04. Teachers/Professors of Private □ □ Institutions

05. □ □ Private white Collar 06. □ □ Busi ness/Self-employed 07. □ □ Professional (Private)

08. □ □ Farmers/Fi shermen 09. □ □ Blue Collar/Manual Workers

10. Pensioners (Government Em­ □ □ ployees and Armed Forces/ Pol ice) Pensioners (Private)

12 Others: ...... (Specified)

08. Monthly Parents' Income (in 1,000 rupiahs):

1. □ Less than 25 2. □ 25 to 50 3. □ More than 50 to 100 4. □ More than 100 to 150 5. □ More than 150 to 250 6. □ More than 250 to 500 7. □ More than 500

09. Uni versity and Department Apply to:

First Preference

Second Preference

,i - -1 - 10. Exam Scores: 11. Accepted/Rejected:**

1. Accepted

0. Rejected

* * i 12. University and Department Accepted:

Notes:

* Only the relevant portions are reproduced.

** Filled out by the Board of Examiners through computerized process. 136

appendix b

LIST OF INDONESIAN UNIVERSITIES BY QUALITY RATING

136 University Group *)

Group A

1. University of Indonesia (UI), Jakarta.

2. Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB), Bogor.

3. Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Bandung.

4. Gajah Mada University (UGM), Jogyakarta.

5. Airlangga Univesity (UNAIR), Surabaya.

Group B

1. University of North Sumatra (USU), Medan.

2. Andalas University (UNAND), Padang.

3. Pajajaran University (UNPAD), Bandung.

4. University of Diponegoro (UNDIP), Semarang.

5. Brawijaya University (UNIBRAW), Malang.

6. Surabay Institute of Technology (ITS), Surabaya.

7. Udayana University (UNUD), Denpasar.

8. University of Hasanuddin (UNHAS), Ujung Pandang.

9. University of Syiah Kuala (UNSYIAH), Banda Aceh.

Group C **)

1. Riau University (UNRI), Pakanbaru.

2. Jambi University (UNIJA), Jambi.

3. Sriwijaya University (UNSRI), Palembang.

4. Lampung University (UNILA), .

5. University of Jenderal Sudirman (UNSUD), Purwokerto. 138

6. Jember University (UNEJ), Jember.

7. University of Tanjung Pura (UNTAN), Pontianak.

8. University of Palangkaraya (UNPAR), Palangkaraya.

9. Lambung Mangkurat University (UNLAM), Banjarmasin.

10. University of Sam Ratulangi (UNSRAT), Manado.

12. University of Mataram (UNRAM), Ampenan.

13. University of Nusa Cendana (UNDANA), Kupang.

14. University of Cendrawasih (UNCEN), Jayapura.

15. University of Sebelas Maret (UNSEMAR), Surakarta.

16. University of Bengkulu (UNIB), Bengkulu.

17. University of Halu 01eo (UNHOL), Kendari.

18. University of Tadulako (UNTAD), Palu.

19. IKIP Medan

20. IKIP Padang

21. IKIP Jakarta

22. IKIP Bandung

23. IKIP Semarang

24. IKIP Jogyakarta

25. IKIP Malang

26. IKIP Surabaya

27. IKIP Ujung Pandang

28. IKIP Manado

*) Groups are based on quality of performance in teaching, research and community service developed by Asian Development Bank (see Simpson and Loughton, 1984).

**) Three universities and ten IK IPs were added to Group C that were not included in the Asian Development Bank categories. APPENDIX C

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION SCORES

139 140

Mean and Standard Deviations of Entrance Examination Scores by Selected Variables and Acceptance or Rejection at a State University, Indonesia, 1984.

Accepted Rejected

Variable Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. N

Gender:

Males 158.6 8.4 843 72.2 60.8 3563 Females 148.1 82.9 505 66.2 59.6 2307

University Quality:

Group A 228.5 79.3 224 92.9 66.4 1556 Group B 171.0 82.5 379 70.3 60.5 1994 Group C & IKIPs 124.3 68.5 746 54.1 48.4 2337

Father's Education:

Primary or Less 135.6 77.0 402 58.1 54.5 2079 Jr. High 143.9 80.2 215 69.4 58.1 1140 Sr. High 161.2 82.5 473 74.3 61.6 1872 B.A. degree 187.2 85.3 120 90.2 64.8 354 M.A. degree or 187.3 99.1 98 101.4 72.9 266 above

Mother's Education:

Primary or Less 134.8 74.1 611 59.8 54.8 3037 Jr. High 166.4 91.5 273 74.7 61.2 1287 Sr. High 174.6 89.0 348 87.1 66.0 1184 B.A. degree 204.0 55.6 34 99.2 75.4 72 M.A. degree or 221.0 81.4 12 111.0 74.4 23 above

Father's Occupation •

Farming/Bl. collar 128.3 78.0 248 49.1 47.7 1331 Private sector 163.3 86.4 338 79.9 65.8 1650 Govt, sector 157.6 81.8 703 73.2 59.7 2686 141

Mother's Occupation:

Farming/Bl. collar 126.7 69.8 217 53.1 49.9 1166 Private sector 165.8 84.3 281 69.7 57.6 1290 Govt, sector 164.2 82.2 197 82.5 61.6 527 Unspecified/ 156.4 86.5 654 74.3 63.8 2893 Housewives

Parent's Monthly Income (in Rp. 1000):

25 or less 109.2 57.5 36 42.4 44.2 265

More than 25 up to 50 172.4 69.9 167 53.8 50.2 976

More than 50 up to 100 145.9 77.1 380 64.4 54.5 1853

More than 100 up to 150 158.0 88.1 427 75.3 62.0 1691

More than 150 up to 250 177.3 82.9 236 88.5 64.3 785

More than 250 up to 500 179.2 96.6 88 99.6 81.4 261

More than 500 201 .-3 97.0 14 103.6 100.4 34

Major Islands:

Java-Bali 179.7 80.3 838 80.3 62.4 3981 Sumatra 126.0 79.1 321 52.9 51.7 1249 Sulawesi 85.6 49.5 119 33.1 40.0 457 'I imantan 111.8 68.8 46 47.6 38.8 97 Irian Jaya and other islands 98.2 34.9 19 36.2 33.3 40

Locale:

Urban 175.6 83.6 829 79.0 63.4 3737 Rural 121.9 72.9 515 53.5 50.8 2088

Capitals/Non-capitals scale:

National and Pro­ vincial capital 167.3 87.7 546 77.3 64.3 2442

Non-capitals 146.6 80.1 798 64.3 56.8 3383 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiken, Michael T ., A. Eugene Havens, and William L. Flinn 1975 The Adoption of Innovations: The Neglected Role of Institutional Constraints. Madison, Wisconsin: Unpublished Paper, Land Tenure Center.

Altbach, Philip G. 1982 Higher Education in the Third World: Themes and Variations. Singapore: Maruzen Pte., Ltd.

Asher, Herbert B. 1983 Causal Modeling. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Banks, Olive 1973 The Sociology of Education. : P. T. Batsford.

Beeby, C. E. 1979 Assessment of Indonesian Education: A Guide to Planning. Wellington: Oxford University Press.

Beers, Howard W. (Ed. ) 1970 Indonesia: Resources and Their Technological Development. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Blalock, Hubert, Jr. 1872 Social S ta tis tic s . (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan 1967 The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley.

Boeke J. H. 1953 Economics and Economic Policy of Dual Societies: As Exemplified by Indonesia. New York: International Secretariat Institute of Pacific Relations.

Bordua, David J. 1960 "Educational- Aspiration and Parental Stress on College." Social Forces, 38: pp. 262-269.

Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis 1976 Schooling in C apitalist America: Educational reform and Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books Inc., Publi shers.

142 143

Boyle, Richard P. 1971 "Path Analysis and Ordinal Data." Causal Models in Social Sciences. Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. (Ed.) Chicago: Aldine, pp. 432-452.

BPP-Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia 1972 Survey Data and Analysis: Primary School Task Force. Jakarta. :

BP3K-Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia 1981a School Statistics: Junior High School. Book II. Jakarta.

1981b School S tatistic s: Senior Secondary School. Book VI. Jakarta.

1982 School S ta tistic s: Primary School. Book I. Jakarta.

1984a S tatistics of Education: 1982-1983. Jakarta.

1984b Data Perguruan Tinggi Negeri (Data of State Higher Education: 1983-1984. "Jakarta! ------

1984c Data of Private Higher Learning In stitu tio n s: 1982-1983. Jakarta.

Central Bureau of Statistics of Indonesia 1983a Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia: 1982 Jakarta.

1983b S tatistical Pocketbook of Indonesia. Jakarta.

Chernichovsky, Dov and Oey Astra Meesook 1985 School Enrollment in Indonesia. World Bank Working Papers, Number 746. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Cochran, William 1963 Sampling Techniques. (2nd. Ed.). New York: Wiley and Company7

Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen 1983 Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences? (2nd. Ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.

Coleman, James S. 1965 Education and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 144

1968 "The Concept of Equality of educational Opportunity." Harvard Educational Review, 38.1. Winter 1965: pp. 7-22.

Coleman, James S., E. Q. Campbell, C. J. Hobson, James McPartland, A. M Mood, F. D. Weinfeld, and R. L. York. 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Dahrendorf, Ralf 1968 Essays in the Theory of Society. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Deming, W. Edwards 1950 Some Theory of Sampling. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia 1984a Synopsis of Interstate University Rector Workshop. Book I. Jakarta. 1984b Synopsis of Inter State University Rector Workshop. Book IV. Jakarta.

Department of Information of Indonesia 1968 Rentjana Pembangunan Lima Tahun (Five-year Development Plan): 1969/1970-1973/1974. Jakarta.

DGHE-Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia 1982 Parfduan Ujian Masuk Perguruan Tinggi Proyek Perintis (Guidebook of University Entrance Examination — Pilot ProjectK Jakarta.

Directorate of City and Regional Planning-Department of Pub­ lic Works-Government of Indonesia-UNDP/UNCHS. 1985 Analysis of Urban Growth and Structure. Background Papers for Steering Committee Meeting, 10 July, 1985.

Duncan, Otis Dudley, David L. Featherman, and Beverly Duncan 1972 Socioeconomic Background and Achievement. Seminar Press Inc.

1975 Introduction to Structural Equation Models. New York: Academic Press.

Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia 1974 Second Five-Year Plan. Washington D.C.: Economic Division.

Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia n.d. The Republic of Indonesia: REPELITA III. The Third Five-Year Development Plan. Washington, D.C.: Economic Division. 145

Emmerson, Donald K. 1978 "The Bureaucracy in Political Context: Weakness in Strength." Political Power and Communication in Indonesia. Karl D. Jackson and Lucian W. Pye (Eds.). Los Angelos: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1983 "Understanding the New Order: Bureaucratic Pluralism in Indonesia." Asian Survey, 11. November, 1983.

Ferguson, George A. 1981 S tatistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Giddens, Anthony 1981 The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. (2nd ed.) London: Hutchinson and Company Publishers Ltd.

Goodman, L. A. 1973 "Causal Analysis of Data from Panel Studies and Other Kinds of Surveys." American Journal of Sociology, 78: pp. 1135-1191.

Halsey, A. H. 1977 Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hauser, Robert M., Heath, A. F. and J. M. Ridge 1980 Origins and Destination: Family, Class, and Education in Modern Britain. New York: Oxford University Press. ‘

Hauser, Robert Mason 1971 Socioeconomic Background and Education! Performance. Washington,, D.C. : American Sociological Association.

Hauser, Robert M. and David L. Featherman 1977 The Process of Stratification: Trends and Analyses. New York: Academic Press.

Hays, William L. 1981 S ta tis tic s . New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc.

Heereen, H. J. 1953 "De Sociale Omstandigheden der Studenten de Djakarta 1954 (The Social Conditions of Students in Jakarta)." Indonesie, 7: 514-519.

Heneveld, Ward 1978 "The Distribution of Development Funds: School Buildings in East Java." Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1978: pp. 63-79. 146

International Institute of Strategic Studies 1982/1983 Military Balance; 1982-1983. London.

Jackson, Karl D. 1978 "Bureaucratic Polity: A Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Power and Communications in Indonesia." Political Power and Communications in Indonesia. Karl D. Jackson and Lucian W. Pye (Eds.). Log Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley.

Jacob, T. 1982 GadMl), M.ada University: Annual Report, 1982. Jogyakarta: „ -^Gadjah Mada University Press.

Jaspan, M. A. 1958 The Child in the Family: A Working Paper on Childbirth and Child Rearing in Sewon, Central Java. Jogyakarta: The Institute of Social Research and Therapy (BPPS), Ministry of Social Affairs, Republic of Indonesia.

Jencks, Christopher 1968 "Social S tratification and Higher Education." Harvard Educational Review. 38.2. Spring 1968: 277-316.

Jencks, Christopher 1972 Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books Publishers Inc.

Juhari 1984/1985 Report on the Preparation for Overseas Training of Indonesian Private University Faculty Members: Through General Participant Training (GPT) II). Jakarta

Keppel, Geoffrey 1982 Design and Analysis: A Researcher Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, Hew Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

King, Dwight Y. 1979 "Indonesia's New Order as a bureaucratic Polity, A Neopatrimonial Regime or a bureaucratic Authoritarian Regime: What Difference Does It Make?" Interpreting Indonesia P o litics. B. Anderson and Audrey Kahin (Eds.). Ithaca: Cornell Modern Indonesia Project.

Kish, Leslie 1965 Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons

Knocke, D. 1975 "A Comparison of Log-Linear and Regression Models for Systems of Dichotomous Variables." Sociological Methods and Research, 3: pp. 416-434. 147

Lancaster, Jones F. 1969 "Social Mobility and Industrial Society: A Thesis Reexamined." Sociological Quarterly, 10. Summer: 292-305.

Lenski, G. 1966 Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Liddle, R. William 1984 's Indonesia: Personal Rule and Political Institution. Unpublished Paper: Prepared for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 1984.

Liddle, R. William 1978 "Participation and the Political Parties." Political Power and Communications in Indonesia. Karl D. Jackson and Lucian W. Pye (Eds.). Los Angelos: University of California Press, Berkeley.

Lipset, Seymour, Jr. 1955 "Social Mobility and Urbanization." Rural Sociology, 20: 220-228.

Lipset, Seymour Martin and Reinhard Bendix 1964 Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mangindaan, Christina, R. K. Jembrining, and Jan D. Livingston 1978 National Assessment of the Quality of Indonesian Education: Survey of Achievement in Grade 9. Jakarta: BP3K-Department of education and Culture of Indonesia, in Association with the New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Mani, A. 1980 "Determinants of Educational Aspirations Among Indonesian Youth." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madi son.

Moegiadi, Christina Mangindaan and Warwick B. El lei 1976 National Assessment of the Quality of Indonesian Education: Survey of Achievement in Grade IT! Jakarta: BP3K-Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia, in Association with the New Zeland Council for Educational Research.

MUCIA 1984 Unpublished Note

Nas, Peter, J. M., Gert-Jan V. Reenen, Linda Darmayanti and Farida Sjami si r 148

n.d. Indonesian C ities: A typology of Kotamadya. Unpublished paper, University of Indonesia, Jakarta.

Nasution, S. 1983 The History of Indonesian Education. Bandung: Jenmars Publishers.

National Development Agency 1984 Policies and Prospects for Sustained Development Under Challenging Conditions: REPELITA IV, The Fourth Five-Year Development Plan of Indonesia, 1984/1985-1988/1989 (A summary). Jakarta: Republic of Indonesia.

Ndapatondo, Manasse Malo 1978 "School Quality and Educational Achievement: A Study on Educational Achievement of Ninth Grade Students in Indonesia in 1976." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Neter, John 1983 Applied Linear Regression MOdels. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Nie, Norman, C. Hull, J. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. Bent. 1975 SPSS (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Palmier, Leslie H. 1957 "Occupational Distribution of Parents of Pupils in Certain Indonesian Educational Institutions." Indonesia, 10: pp. 321-376.

Pardoko, Saidin Pabbadja, Sugeng Maegono, Subegyo, S. E. Mintowacti, and Gandung Sujianto (Eds.). 1982 Kumpulan Data Kependudukan Indonesia (Compilation of Data on Indonesian Demography. Jakarta: Biro Data ’ Kependudukan, Badan Koordinasi Keluarga 3erencana Nasional. 2nd Edition.

Parkin, Frank 1971 Class Inequality and Political Order: Social Stratification in Capitalist and Communist societies. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Parsons, Talcot 1959 "The School Class as a Social System: Some of Its Functions in American Society." Harvard Educational Review. 29-1959: pp. 297-318. 149

Pearse, Richard 1978 "The Role of Selection Based on Academic C riteria in the Recruitment Process at an Indonesian Government University." Higher Education. 7-1978: pp. 157-176.

Pearse, Richard and Sumarno 1982 "A Comparison of Educational Aspirations and Occupational Aspirations of Students in Some Selected Higher Education Institutions in Indonesia." Analisis Pendidikan. II. 4-1982: pp. 62-69.

Poerbakawatja, S. 1970 The History of Indonesian Education. Bandung: Jenmars Publi shers.

Rushing, William H. 1964 "Adolescent-Parent Relationship and Mobility Aspirations." ocial Forces, 43: 157-166.

Sagir, Soeharsono n.d. "Population Growth, Economic Growth, and Equability." Profil Indonesia 1981-1982. Jakarta: Institute for Development Studies.

Scott, H. K. and J. G. Lussier 1963 Background Studies for Resource Development in the Tweed Forest District, Ontario: Study Ho. 4, Plans and Attitudes of High School Students. Guelph Ontario Agricultural College: Department of Agricultural Economics.

Schwirian, Kent P. and R. Helm n.d. Sociology 650. Unpublished.

Sewell, William H., Archibald 0. Haller, and Murray Straus. 1957 "Social Status and Educational and Occupational Aspiration." American Sociological Review, 22: 67-73.

Sewell, William H. and Vimal Shah 1967 "Socioeconomic Status, Intelligence, and the Attainment of Higher Education." Sociology of Education, 40: 1-23.

Sewell, William H. and Robert and Hauser 1976 "Causes and Consequences of Higher Education: Models of the Status Attainment." Schooling and Achievement in American Society, eds. W. H. Sewell et al. New York: Academic Press Inc.

Siemens, Leonard B. 1965 The Influence of Selected Family Factors on the Educational Md- occupational Aspiration tevglya'f High 'Scttool Buys and~ G irls. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba. 150

Simandjuntak, I. P. 1969 "Selection and Social Mobility in Indonesia." World Year Book of Education; 1969; pp. 310-318.

Simpson, D. C. and A. J. Loughton Human Resource Development Sector Study: Indonesia, prepared for Canadian International Development Agency. Hamilton, Ontario, Salasam Associates. Hull: Quebec

Sudijarto, Lexy Moleong, A. Suryadi, D. Machmud, F. Pangemanan, A. F. Tangyong, N. Nasution, and R. Murray Thomas 1980 "Indonesia." Schooling in the ASEAN Region: Primary and Secondary Education in Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore and ThailandT T. Neville Postlewaite and R. Murray Thomas (eds.) New York: Pergamon Press.

Soedjatmoko 1976 "Some Thoughts on Higher Education." Prisma, 5.2., March 1976: 21-34.

Smith, Theodore M. and Harold F. Carpenter 1974 "Indonesia University Students and Their Career Aspirations." Asian Survey. XIV.9. September 1975: 807-826.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1927 Social Mobility. New York: Harper and Brothers

Spiegel, Murray R. 1961 S ta tis tie s . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Sumardi, Muljanto 1977 Sejarah Singkat Pendidikan Islam di Indonesia (A Brief History of Islamic Education in Indonesia): 1945-1975. Jakarta: Departemen Agama

Suprapto, R. K. Sembiring, and Jan D. Livingston 1981 National Assessment of the Quality of Indonesian Education: Survey of Achievement in Grade 12. Jakarta: BP3K-0epartment of Education and Culture of Indonesia in Association with the New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Suriasumantri, Jujun S., Ch. Hasbullah, and Y. Dadiliani 1976 Program dan Sasaran REPELITA II: Pendidikan (Program and Traget of the Second National Development Plan: Education). Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 151

Tabachnick, B. Robert 1983 Access to Post Secondary Schooling: Individuality and Equality in American Education; paper presented at the public symposium on Searching for the Fundamental Functions of Schooling in America and Japan. , Japan.

Thomas R. Murray 1973 A Chronicle of Indonesian Higher Education: The First Half Century 1920-197fc Singapore: Chopmen Enterprises.

Tisna Admidjaja, D. A. 1983 Higher Education Development in Indonesia Jakarta: Directorate General of Higher Education-Department of Education and Culture.

Tolhurst, J. L. 1983 Report on the Feasibility of Making Government Loans to Private Universities in Indonesia, University of Queen!and, St. Lucia, A ustralia, JuneT

Treiman, Donald J. 1977 Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press, A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich, Publishers.

Van der Veur, Paul W. 1969 Education and Social Change in Colonial Indonesia (1). Athens: Center for International Studies: Southeast Asia Program.

Waskito, Tjiptosasmito 1976 "People's Mandate That is Carried Out by the School System." (Mandat Masyarakat Yang Dijalankan oleh Si stem Sekolah). Prisma. Jakarta.

Wertheim, W. F. et a l . (Eds.) 1961 Indonesian Economics: The Concept of Dualism in Theory and Pol icy. The Hague: W. van Hoeve Publishers Ltd.

World Bank 1980 Indonesia: Employment and Income Distribution in Indonesia. Washington, D.C.: East Asia and Pacific Regional Office.