Written by Classical Liberal
On 23 June 2021, Ewan Somerville reported in The Telegraph that ‘Universities that value diversity over correct spelling could face investigation’ as the watchdog launches a review into ‘inclusive’ assessment policies ‘that mean students are not marked down for spelling and grammar mistakes’.
Once again, we must ask ourselves: are degrees from UK universities worth the paper they are printed on?
A historical perspective might help to shed some light on this question. Higher education in the UK has a long history. Teaching in Oxford is documented from 1096, making the University of Oxford the oldest university in the English-speaking world. The University of Cambridge celebrated its 800th anniversary in 2009, commemorating the association of scholars who first gathered in the town in 1209. Three Scottish universities – St Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen – were founded by papal bull in the 15th century, and a fourth – the University of Edinburgh – was established by royal charter in 1583.
A significant expansion of higher education in the UK occurred in the 19th century with the awarding of royal charters to St. David’s College, Lampeter (subsequently part of the University of Wales), Durham University, King’s College London, and University College London. In addition, the latter part of the century saw the foundation of medical, science, and engineering colleges in England’s major industrial cities, some of which eventually amalgamated to became the so-called ‘redbrick’ universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield.
During the 1950s and 1960s, as a direct response to the demands of an expanding population and the needs of an increasingly technological economy, the British government set out to expand the higher education sector. New colleges of advanced technology were established from 1956 onwards and were awarded university status in 1966. Aston, Bath, Bradford, Brunel, City, Loughborough, Salford, and Surrey all became universities in this way. The University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology became a constituent part of what is now Cardiff University in 1988. A further 13 UK institutions, including Hull and Leicester, both former university colleges, gained university status during these two decades. The seven new universities of East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Lancaster, Sussex, Warwick, and York were also created.
Significant expansion followed in 1992 when, through the Further and Higher Education Act, the UK government granted university status to 35 former polytechnics and several other institutions, principally colleges of higher and further education. Between 2001 and 2013, an additional 31 universities were created, including those resulting from the federal University of Wales break-up. But they are excluding the merger of institutions already possessing the university title. A further ten university colleges have recently had their applications for university status put forward to the Privy Council for formal approval. Collectively these universities are referred to as ‘post-92’ or ‘modern’ universities, though it should be noted that many of them have long and illustrious histories as vocational institutions.
A diverse range of organisations now provides higher education in the UK. One hundred sixty-six institutions currently have their degree awarding powers. The majority of these also have ‘university’ title, which is only granted to those institutions which meet specific criteria. However, there is also a growing number of ‘listed bodies’ – institutions that do not have the power to award their degrees but may provide complete courses, which leads to a degree of institutions with degree awarding powers. In 2011 the UK government estimated that, in addition to degree-awarding institutions, there were over 1,600 bodies, including 250 further education colleges, which currently offer some form of UK higher education provision.
In 1950 just 3% of the tertiary-age population in the UK entered higher education. By 1970 the figure was 8%. By 2000–01, participation of English-domiciled young people had reached 40%. Following a further period of rapid expansion, participation stood at 50% for English-domiciled students in 2011– 12. The total number of students in the UK has grown from 1.6 million in 1994-5 to 2.3 million in 2012- 13.
Has the value of a university degree eroded as the number of graduates has increased?
A study by the Sutton Trust in 2015 found that, after taking student loan repayments into account, a higher apprenticeship (at level 5 in the national qualifications frameworks) delivered higher lifetime earnings on average than a degree from a non-Russell Group university. Despite this, polling for the report found that apprenticeships have a lower perceived value than degrees.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that, after controlling for differences in student characteristics, graduates in medicine and economics earn (on average) 20% more and graduates in business, computing, and architecture 10% more than average graduates. In comparison, graduates in creative arts earn 15% less. It also found a wide variation in graduate earnings within subjects, even between graduates with the same degree from the same institution. One reason for this variation is the wealth of graduates’ family backgrounds, but subject and institution choice and prior education attainment level can be a more significant determinant.
The Intergenerational Foundation found in a 2016 paper that the ‘graduate premium’ had fallen to around £100,000 averaged across all subjects, degree classes, and universities, although with such a wide variation by subject and institution that it was impossible to quantify in a meaningful way. They argue that the graduate premium has been diluted by many graduates, particularly those with non-vocational degrees from non-elite institutions. Making matters worse, employers have responded to the oversupply of graduates by raising the academic requirements of many occupations higher than is necessary to perform the work. The study concludes by asking ‘why bother to study at any other than the top few institutions when a lifetime of debt is the almost certain consequence? What then of the public good of having a huge range of purely academic courses on offer?’ The paper then issued a warning that the proposed deregulation of higher education could result in the growth of low-quality for-profit education as in the USA. Further study of the graduate premium by HESA and Warwick University shows that, while graduates born in 1970 earned 19% more than their non-graduate peers, the dividend has fallen to 11% for graduates born in 1990.
A 2017 study by the Office for National Statistics found that, although university graduates are consistently more likely to be employed than non-graduates, they are increasingly expected to be overqualified for the jobs which they do hold. In peak earning years, a university graduate will earn an average of £36,000 per year; an apprentice will earn £30,000 per year, an A-level graduate will earn £24,000 per year, while someone without an A-level will earn £20,000 per year. Breaking down the university degrees into separate professions, undergraduates in engineering or medicine earn the most at £44,500 per year, while undergraduates in the arts earn the least at £20,700 per year. Finally, Russell Group graduates hold 61% of all jobs that require a university degree, despite being only 17% of all higher education graduates.
In a 2018 study, the National Audit Office reported that, although some progress has been made in increasing STEM subject enrollment since 2011, the progress does not match labour market demand. For example, too many students seek a degree in the biological sciences, while the shortage in STEM apprentices has seen slight improvement. In particular, women have shown scant interest in acquiring high-demand skills such as a computer science degree.
Returning to the question that I posed at the start of this essay: are degrees from UK universities worth the paper they are printed on?
For centuries the UK Higher Education sector grew sensibly to meet the demands of the labour market. The Victorian universities were founded to train much-needed graduates in the scientific and technical disciplines needed by the Industrial Revolution, for example. This all abruptly changed for the worse in 1992 because the government – who else could be so stupid – had decreed that 50% of school leavers have to go to university. And Mickey Mouse degrees proliferated like mice! Yet, does the UK need tens of thousands of ‘graduates’ with 2:2 degrees in Media Studies from ex-polytechnics? Do these young people benefit from the experience? Or, do they become embittered, knowing that they were conned into getting into massive debt by going to mediocre post-‘92 ‘universities’ to get degrees that will not help them get the graduate job that they were assured it would? Research suggests that Degrees from Russell Group universities are worth having, especially those in STEM subjects and economics/business. In contrast, degrees from non-Russell Group universities are not worth having, especially those in the arts and humanities. Young people who are not academically gifted enough to gain a place at a Russell Group university would do far better with an apprenticeship than a degree from a non-elite institution.
Photo by astro_matt 
I am of that lucky generation that got grants, although, if your parents, (usually your father then) earned above a certain amount they were expected to make up the difference on a sliding scale as the grant was means tested. No good then, if you did not want to, or could not, be dependent on comfortably off parents – but if you were prepared to get a job and wait until you were over 21 a full grant , as a mature student,was possible.
That was no longer sustainable when that 50% target was set, so the poor students got neverendum loans and, in many cases, degrees of dubious value. I just hope the social life was worth it. And is there really a degree in Museum Studies? My daughter graduated in Fine Art & Philosophy, with a Masters in Sculpture and now works in one of the country’s leading museums – she loves it and loves learning the job.
I am a proud Poly Dolly, I went out to work at 16 and got all my qualifications day release. There was a reason – I needed that wage to enable me to move out as soon as I could afford the rent, due to mental abuse over many years. This is why I was opposed to the decree that full time education should go on until 18. Training yes, apprenticeships yes, but young people with difficult home situations need the promise of independence via a regular wage – either enough to rent, or provision of subsidised accomodation. The longer they have to wait the more tempting alternative solutions like county lines and gangs become.
We need to cut cut University admissions by at least 75% and create instead Technical Colleges to teach trade and domestic science skills, and University should be reserved for only the brightest of students to study Mathematics, Physics , Chemistry, Law and Engineering. We don’t need youngsters going to University and studying ‘mickey mouse’ subjects like media, journalism, museum management, politics and social sciences. Most of us of a certain age went to the well known ‘University of Life’ and got on pretty well. I’ve known people to join the police as graduates with an MA in Medieval History etc , but don’t know how to spell, form a sentence of words or paper, or able to speak and relate to their fellow human beings. Also we don’t need to put anyone through University to study Nursing and Policing, which is an absolute waste of time. We need to go back in time where nursing and policing were vocation occupations, and where you went to initial training schools and learnt on the job. This is not rocket science, but unfortunately most of our political class who form policy are inept and useless muppets who have never held down a proper job in their life who I wouldn’t trust to run a bath let alone a country.
PS……All the above or most of it was at one time UKIP policy and were common sense policies, and even then it was a job and half trying to get the voters to treat us seriously.
Indeed Colin.
Perhaps it was something to do with – relating to your fellow human beings Colin.
Good article.
In times gone by, the nationalised industries, electricity, gas, railways, NHS, GPO all trained thousands of apprentices (most of whom have retired by now)
Only the NHS is left, privatised companies would rather import E.Europeans than train their own workforce.
Really? Are these East Europeans already well trained then?
University for all was a con trick by politicians anxious to ‘burnish their credentials’ and be seen to be ‘doing something’. They had to stave off the denouement that Comprehensive education had proved not to be successful!
As soon as we had the ‘all must have prizes’ concept it was obvious that it was a sham! Not all can rise to the top of the pile! Teachers were keen to push as many of their pupils into ‘university’ as possible because it boosted their (and their school’s) reputations! Universities couldn’t wait to get their hands on the easy money! Standards had been dropping for years! I had stand up rows with my sons English teacher who prater that spelling and grammar were not important! The late great Keith Waterhouse was hugely vocal (and published) on this subject as has been Simon Heffer.
The biggest ‘losers’ were always going to be the ‘students’. University might be ‘fun’ and pitchfork you into life away from home but as soon as it began to ‘cost’ shedloads of money there were bound to be ‘tears’ when the debt began to bite. But, as I understand it the deal was that the debt did not have to be repaid until a certain level of earnings was reached. So does it follow that if the level is not reached, the taxpayer stands the loss?
Education should be taken out of the hands of politician (as should be Health). They cannot be trusted to play fair at the best of times. When they lead the young on (like the pied piper of Hamelin) with false promises, it is time to call a halt to this charade!
University should be for the education of those who have the makings of our scientists, doctors and ‘true’ educationists etc. Polytechnics and ‘proper’ time serving apprenticeships would be better implemented to produce a more skilled and useful workforce! To dumb down the system has not been helpful!
Frederica. Yuri Bezhemov in his account of the subtle subversion methods the KGB used to gradually undermine the West , said one of their ploys apart from attacks on family life etc, was to get as many youngsters as possible to waste several years of their youth at “university” studying mickey mouse subjects. I suppose this was to delay them getting stuck into a job and raising a family, making them out of touch with reality and giving the State a chance to complete their marxist indoctrination.
Stupidity of governments all through. Well, is it stupidity or is it corruption?
I’m still in two minds as to whether Comprehensive schools were a good or bad thing. The previous tripartite system was not intended to classify those who failed the 11+ as ‘inferior’. It simply meant that some people were better able to do useful jobs like Engineering than to studying high faluting subjects like Greek and Latin !!
For heavens sake – what the hell are ‘Media Studies’ as an example. The media is press, broadcasting, internet, etc. Do you really need a 3 year degree course to learn how to work there?
I’m pretty sure that apprenticeships are a much better option than 50% attending so called universities.
The qustion(s) posed in this article are directly to the point. Who in government will ask them and who will listen to replies? One hopes someone in the Higher Education section is asking similar things and pondering the purpose of having 50% attend ‘university’ with fewer attending courses and apprenticeships which have real on the ground value for the partakers and more widely for the rest of us.
Whole streets of houses in every university town and city have been bought up and are now let out as student accommodation. They are lived in for just 6 months of the year. Students don’t pay council tax so the other residents have to fork out more for local services. The housing crisis could be solved in one swoop if numbers of students was reduced. Not to mention the reduction of traffic as parents waft their progeny from one end of the country to another numerous times a year. As a well known developer said this week, How can we build back better when we don’t have enough builders. The world’s your oyster if you are a plumber, electrician, plasterer, scaffolder at the moment. If only the youth would learn a trade.