Download files
Abstract
In the well-being literature an association is commonly drawn between higher education levels and higher income, better health, better employment opportunities, or even happier marriages. Despite such objective outcomes, most socio-economic studies of well-being have identified a negative or zero relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) and higher educational achievement. However, there is little understanding of the grounds of this relationship. Some scholars, in explaining the link, have called for further research into the theoretical and empirical relation between education and well-being. Using empirical data from national surveys, this thesis explores the relation between SWB and higher educational achievement in the Australian context.
In the past decade subjective well-being has become an important item on the agenda of governments and measures of subjective well-being are often used to assess the costs and benefits of policies. Most governments and international organisations (such as the OECD) regard SWB as the most comprehensive measure of wealth, replacing traditional measures like Gross Domestic Product and some social indicators.However, subjective wellbeing is a complex concept developed mainly through inferential measures, individuals being asked to evaluate their wellbeing by answering either of the two questions (or their close derivates): Generally speaking, how happy are you these days? or All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life? . Furthermore, psychologists argue that individuals have different perceptions of what contributes to their well-being.
In this thesis, the relationship between SWB and higher educational achievement is conceptualised in a life-domain approach and by exploring the heterogeneity of SWB by higher education. The thesis employs cross-disciplinary theories, building on concepts from life course theory, stress research, quality of life theories, social capital theory and the capabilities approach to education. Time-series cross-sectional (TSCS) data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA) in Australia survey, the Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth (LSA) and the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) was analysed.
The results challenge the well-being literature at both the methodological and theoretical levels. One of the key findings of the thesis is that accounting for differences in individuals conceptualisation of SWB is fundamental in the accurate evaluation of self-assessed well-being. The analysis establishes that the tertiary-educated (TE) and the non-tertiary-educated (NTE) have different concepts of what counts towards their well-being. The negative relationship between tertiary educational achievement and SWB previously identified in the literature is found to be the result of biases or measurement errors incorporated in traditional, single-item measures of subjective well-being (such as overall satisfaction, or overall happiness). When an alternative, multiple-item measure of SWB is computed as the average of the levels of satisfaction with key domains of life, the tertiary-educated are identifiably more satisfied than the non-tertiary-educated. These findings allow for the conclusion that there is no puzzle or paradox of SWB and tertiary education in Australia.
Generalising these results, the thesis argues that there should not be a one size fit all measure of SWB. Instead, in order to identify sources of well-being, or to find ways to increase well-being, researchers and policy makers should first understand what counts for the SWB of target groups of individuals (for example for low, middle, and high income groups, or males and females), then find the best means to increase their well-being accordingly.