Is it worth going to university? Since 1999, when Tony Blair declared higher education the answer to all society’s problems, it has been a question Britain prefers not to ask. Every September, hundreds of thousands of school leavers pack their bags, wait for their maintenance loan to arrive and head off to their chosen city to drink, go clubbing and occasionally hand in an essay.
Does this well-trodden path leave young people better off? It’s almost impossible to find out, not because the information isn’t available but because the government won’t let us see it. The Department for Education knows very well what graduates can expect when they start looking for work. The Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) database, produced by the DfE, contains extensive data on labour market outcomes for students leaving university. It is described as ‘a unique source of information, with the potential to provide transformative insight and evidence on the long-term employment outcomes and educational pathways of around 39 million individuals’.
So you might think it would be quite helpful if the rest of us could see it. But access to LEO data is only granted to ‘approved third party researchers’. If you want to know what’s happening in our universities, you must be a ‘full credited UK statistics authority’ able to prove ‘clear public benefit’ for your work. So no chance for students hoping to avoid wasting 50 grand.
Lawrence Newport, whose campaign group Looking For Growth is calling for the release of LEO data, thinks that ‘the government is hiding behind easily resolved concerns about anonymity’ and allowing universities to sell a bad product. As a former academic at Royal Holloway, University of London, he adds that he has been ‘directly told by people in admissions at universities that entry requirements are a marketing scam’ used to foster an air of credibility for courses with no corresponding academic rigour. Sadly, as with data about education outcomes, there is almost no information on the A-level grades attained by successful university applicants.
Newport also fears that many universities hide behind the fact league tables count further study alongside employment, allowing them to funnel students through endless education (and debt) to avoid facing the real-world irrelevance of what they’ve learned.
Despite the government’s obstinance, there are ways of identifying universities and courses that are failing students. While it’s hard to get detailed data, some third-party sites such as Discover University, which uses LEO data, paint a grim picture.
Unsurprisingly, creative students have the worst post-university outcomes. The average graduate with a BA in professional acting at Drama Studio London isn’t even breaking minimum wage, with earnings of £18,500 three years on; only 30 per cent are using skills they learnt during their studies. Meanwhile, those who study film production at Southampton Solent University bring in just £24,000 on average 15 months after graduating.
Some universities seem to be actively harming students’ chances of success. An Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and DfE report found that women graduating from the University of Bolton, now renamed the University of Greater Manchester, earn around 10 per cent less by the age of 29 than women who didn’t attend university at all. Further analysis from the IFS suggests that one in five students who go to university will earn less than their counterparts who didn’t.
Attending a Russell Group University provides no insurance against poor outcomes, either. Three years after completing a sociology degree at the University of Glasgow, the average graduate is earning just £23,000. Even the Oxbridge name won’t save you. Fine arts graduates from Oxford earn £26,000 15 months after leaving, while only 30 per cent of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic graduates from Cambridge are working 15 months after graduation.
These students are not paying a penny of their loan back each year because their income is below the threshold. In fact, only 32 per cent of the recent cohort who took out a loan will ever pay off the whole thing. The system was designed with the assumption that university would bring with it a ‘graduate premium’. In many cases, until a graduate earns £66,000 a year, the interest on their debt will outstrip payments made. Cumulatively, students owe a quarter of a trillion pounds to the Student Loan Company.
When a graduate’s media studies career leaves them pulling pints in the local pub, the debt they never pay off falls on the government’s books. It won’t be universities held financially liable, it will be the taxpayer.
Comments