Julia Buckingham:
With more than 50 per cent of young people now entering higher education, doubts have crept in as to whether a degree holds as much weight as it once did. Even those who are proud of our universities may question whether each and every course is good value.
The Tory manifesto made an explicit commitment to address “low value” courses, while the wider political narrative is shining a light on the need for courses to show value for money both for the graduate and for the taxpayer and local economies too.
These are fair challenges and the universities must heed them. It is not enough to say that we are committed to ensuring good value. It is time for actions as well as words. However, the big question is how to define something like “value” and whose definition to use.
One of the key measures for judging whether a degree has been worthwhile for a student is their future earnings potential. On average, graduates are likely to earn £10,000 more per year than non-graduates. Where graduates are not earning as much as nongraduate peers, questions should be asked. But it’s often not as simple as saying a particular course has failed a graduate and the taxpayer due to earning outcomes.
Our research with Savanta Comres revealed that 84 per cent of students and recent graduates agreed that future salary was not the only factor for them in choosing their degree course. Interest in the subject and whether it broadens life experience, and develops wider skills were all high on their list. By measuring success based on earnings alone, we are doing a disservice to students. Doing so also does not take account of the self-employed or those who used university as a platform to launch their own firms.
Although there have been attempts to take account of regional variations in the jobs market, this still isn’t properly costed-in. We risk causing graduates to dismiss career opportunities in regions where their skills are much-needed.
It also overlooks hugely important, but not hugely paid, vocations in the public services. Nursing and social care students deserve better than to be told that their degree holds less value because they earn less than some other graduates. Salary outcomes are a blunt snapshot of a person’s life a few years after graduating, and fail to recognise a broader definition of value.
To help government identify what this wider definition might look like, we are working to define some of those less celebrated but vital benefits. We will propose a framework, with a package of measures of value, giving government and universities greater insights into the impact of a specific course on students, society and the economy. It will also mean students and their parents can have confidence in their choices.
The new measures could include the proportion of graduates from a course who work in public services, how many work in regions with relatively lower growth or how likely they are to be business owners. It should include the wider benefits to individuals’ life satisfaction, contributions to the community and personal health. Universities should then be asked to show how students have benefited across this basket of factors.
It is not enough to say that we are proud make a difference to our students. We need to be able to show, openly and consistently, how we do this. A bold new approach from government and universities is needed and that’s a challenge we must meet head-on. I’m determined we should work together to do this.