Going to university is not what it once was - and students face a very different question
They matter because they open the door to higher education, and a crucial life decision based on an unwritten contract that has stood since the 1960s: the better the marks, the greater the choice of institution and course available to applicants, and in due course, the value of the degree at the end of it.
A quarter of a century after Tony Blair set a target of 50% of school-leavers going to university, however, the fundamentals of that deal have been transformed.
Today's prospective undergraduates face rising costs of tuition and debt, new labour market dynamics, and the uncertainties of the looming AI revolution.
Together, they pose a different question: Is going to university still worth it?
Huge financial costs
Of course, the value of the university experience and the degree that comes with it cannot be measured by finances alone, but the costs are unignorable.
For today's students, the universal free tuition and student grants enjoyed by their parents' generation have been replaced by annual fees that increase to £9,500 this year.
Living costs meanwhile will run to at least £61,000 over three years, according to new research.
Together, they will leave graduates saddled with average debts of £53,000, which, under new arrangements, they repay via a "graduate tax" of 9% on their earnings above £25,000 for up to 40 years.
A squeezed salary gap
As well as rising fees and costs of finance, graduates will enter a labour market in which the financial benefits of a degree are less immediately obvious.
Graduates do still enjoy a premium on starting salaries, but it may be shrinking thanks to advances in the minimum wage.
The Institute of Student Employers says the average graduate starting salary was £32,000 last year, though there is a wide variation depending on career.
With the minimum wage rising 6% to more than £26,000 this April, however, the gap to non-degree earners may have reduced.
A reduction in earning power may be compounded by the phenomenon of wage compression, which sees employers having less room to increase salaries across the pay scale because the lowest, compulsory minimum level has risen fast.
Taken over a career, however, the graduate premium remains unarguable.
Government data shows a median salary for all graduates aged 16-64 in 2024 of £42,000 and £47,000 for post-graduates, compared to £30,500 for non-graduates.
Graduates are also more likely to be in employment and in highly skilled jobs.
There is also little sign of buyer's remorse.
A University of Bristol survey of more than 2,000 graduates this year found that, given a second chance, almost half would do the same course at the same institution.
And while a quarter would change course or university, only 3% said they would have skipped higher education.
No surprise then that industry body Universities UK believes the answer to the question is an unequivocal "yes", even if the future of graduate employment remains unclear.
"This is a decision every individual needs to take for themselves; it is not necessarily the right decision for everybody. More than half the 18-year-old population doesn't progress to university," says chief executive Vivienne Stern.
"But if you look at it from a purely statistical point of view, there is absolutely no question that the majority who go to university benefit not only in terms of earnings."
'Roll with the punches'
She is confident that graduates will continue to enjoy the benefits of an extended education even if the future of work is profoundly uncertain.
"I think now more than ever you need to have the resilience that you acquire from studying at degree level to roll with the punches.
"If the labour market changes under you, you might need to reinvent yourself several times during your career in order to be able to ride out changes that are difficult to predict. That resilience will hold its value."
The greatest change is likely to come from AI, the emerging technology whose potential to eat entry-level white collar jobs may be fulfilled even faster than predicted.
The recruitment industry is already reporting a decline in graduate-level posts.
Anecdotally, companies are already banking cuts to legal, professional, and marketing spend because an AI can produce the basic output almost instantly, and for free.
That might suggest a premium returning to non-graduate jobs that remain beyond the bots. An AI might be able to pull together client research or write an ad, but as yet, it can't change a washer or a catheter.
It does not, however, mean the degree is dead, or that university is worthless, though the sector will remain under scrutiny for the quality and type of courses that are offered.
The government is in the process of developing a new skills agenda with higher education at its heart, but second-guessing what the economy will require in a year, never mind 10, has seldom been harder.
Universities will be crucial to producing the skilled workers the UK needs to thrive, from life sciences to technology, but reducing students to economic units optimised by "high value" courses ignores the unquantifiable social, personal, and professional benefits going to university can bring.
In a time when culture wars are played out on campus, it is also fashionable to dismiss attendance at all but the elite institutions on proven professional courses as a waste of time and money. (A personal recent favourite came from a columnist with an Oxford degree in PPE and a career as an economics lecturer.)
The reality of university today means that no student can afford to ignore a cost-benefit analysis of their decision, but there is far more to the experience than the job you end up with. Even AI agrees.
Ask ChatGPT if university is still worth it, and it will tell you: "That depends on what you mean by worth - financially, personally, professionally - because each angle tells a different story."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
31 minutes ago
- Times
Diploma finance chief quits over ‘comments to female colleague'
The £1.5 million-a-year chief financial officer of a FTSE 100 company has left with immediate effect after allegedly making inappropriate comments to a female colleague. Diploma, a £7 billion industrial group, announced on Thursday that Chris Davies, its finance chief, 'has resigned from his role and will step down from the board with immediate effect'. It added: 'This decision follows a recent company event where, through a lapse in judgment, his personal behaviour did not meet the high standards required of the group's leadership team.' Diploma is an industrial equipment distribution business The company declined to say anything more. Industry sources claimed that Davies was asked to resign following reports to executives regarding comments made at the event towards a female colleague. Davies will leave with no compensation. Executives can typically expect to receive a year's money when they resign, but the company confirmed: 'No payments will be made for loss of office.' Davies, 55, was on a basic salary of £510,000 a year and bonuses last year increased that to a total of £1.53 million. That reflects the strong performance of Diploma in recent times. The supplier of industrial components, cabling, seals, hoses and fasteners has been one of the great successes of the stock market in recent years and especially so under its current £4.5 million-a-year chief executive Johnny Thomson, who joined the company six years ago. Diploma's share price has risen from £5 in 2015 to the current £52.90. Following the news of Davies's departure, the shares were down 155p, or 2.9 per cent, from the £54.45 all-time high they had closed at on Wednesday evening. Davies joined Diploma in late 2022 after a five-year stint as finance director at National Express, the coach and bus group. Before that he had been group financial controller at Inchcape, the car dealer, and held senior roles at the drinks giant Diageo. Diploma has appointed Wilson Ng, 43, as its acting chief financial officer while it begins the process of finding a replacement for Davies. Ng joined Diploma in 2022, having previously been a divisional finance director at Spirax, the FTSE 100 engineer.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The UK tech sector is booming – but the government must do more to support it
With each passing day, UK tech grows in importance. What was once viewed by traditionalists as marginal and voguish is now the dominant force in British business. This is why the E2Exchange, or E2E, Tech Track 100 for 2025 is so vital, showcasing the domestic firms that have forged ahead and are succeeding. In association with The Independent, E2E, the leading business networking and mentoring organisation, has published the definitive index of the 100 fastest-growing tech-focused private businesses in the UK. The list is based on their profits over the past three years and is the latest Track 100 to be produced this year. Others in the 2025 series will cover different categories, including job creation, dynamic and profits. To accompany the unveiling, Shalini Khemka, founder of E2E, assembled an online panel of UK tech stars: Jared Owen of digital shopping partner Redbrain; Mike Walters from payment platform Form3; Peter King, director of business banking for fintech bank OakNorth; data-driven and intelligence supplier Quantexa's Imam Hoque; and Dhaval Patel, CEO of Universal Partners, the foreign currency payments provider that is also sponsoring the Track 100s. We kicked off with the key question: is Britain doing enough to support tech? Hoque said he felt the government was on the right lines with R&D credits, creating a 'Silicon Valley' between Oxford and Cambridge, 'but what we and they really need to fix is the investment model for scaling-up start-ups,' he said. 'There are plenty of initiatives for start-ups but as companies grow it starts to get trickier.' Hoque believes more could be done as well, since we're longer in the EU, to buy British. He cited structural models in Canada and Australia where public pension funds are encouraged to invest in tech. 'More pressure could be applied in the UK,' he said. Walters said Britain could 'never move fast enough', since tech is constantly accelerating. Where we can score, he said, is by achieving 'greater clarity and alignment with tech in purpose and regulation and being consistent in their delivery.' There isn't one solution but a host that can combine to create a healthy outlook, he added. 'Buy it if it's British and a British spend, invest so it's funded from UK pension activities, enable regulators to understand and support tech in the UK – all those things have to happen at the same time and consistently to make a real difference.' King addressed the challenge of beginning and entering a globally crowded space. He said that his area, fintech, was one where Britain had been, and is, a world leader. That was down to government and regulators being keen to encourage and lend their backing. He agreed with Hoque that the problems arise higher up, when companies increase in size. Then traditional conservatism and aversion to risk kick in, which is when firms are forced to look outside the UK for their funding. From Redbrain, Owen was asked if the company is getting the talent it needs? 'Honest answer, probably not,' he said. 'Really exceptional people are often drawn to the global tech giants and it can be hard to compete with that.' They choose to go to them because they are playing safe and that is down to a lack of optimism. They have to be invested in and encouraged, and likewise they have to believe in what they're joining and in the longevity of remaining. Recruiting from abroad is becoming more difficult, not helped by leaving the EU, but there is a talent pool in the UK – it just needs to be made bigger and its members need to be less easily swayed by inducements from elsewhere, especially from those big global players. On one issue they and the audience were as one: that we rely on the government too much and that the best assistance tech businesses can receive is from the businesses themselves. At the end, there was some advice for would-be tech entrepreneurs: 'Dig in. Learn it and dig in,' Walters said. Owen said it was about 'creating positive tech experiences for young people, to attract them to the sector, make them grasp its potential and opportunities.' King said while the education system catches up it was up to tech businesses to foster demand, to become as attractive as possible. Patel echoed that with the final say: 'Be the role model you've always wanted to be to others.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Is Britain's sluggish economy the fault of the Labour government?
The latest economic growth numbers may have been fairly unimpressive by most historical standards, but they were rather better than recent readings and surpassed market expectations. The first estimate of the size of the UK economy showed it had expanded by 0.3 per cent in the second quarter of this year, against a rise of 0.7 per cent in the first three months. Investors had 'priced in' a minimal 0.1 per cent rise. The annual increase, ie on the same period last year, is 1.2 per cent. Is this good news or bad news? What's happening? The pattern of sluggish economic growth that has prevailed in Britain, and most of the West, since the global financial crisis of 2008, is proving to be the new normal. It's not what we had come to expect. For most of the postwar period, punctuated by stop-go cycles, average economic growth was running at 2 to 2.5 per cent a year, with some endemic inflation and structural unemployment. By the 1990s this had accelerated to something like 2.7 per cent, combined with lower inflation and unemployment. In recent years, excepting the pandemic, growth has been more like 1 to 2 per cent. This is driven by low investment and a poor productivity record, exacerbated by market loss post-Brexit. Is this what Labour promised? No. It gave the impression that the very act of electing a Labour government to replace the incompetent Conservatives would lift confidence and 'kickstart' the economy, but no firm evidence of that has emerged. Expectations have not been fulfilled. For example, the Labour manifesto stated: 'Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. That is why it is Labour's first mission for government. It means being pro-business and pro-worker. We are the party of wealth creation.' Rachel Reeves, when she was shadow chancellor, promised 'securonomics', but little has since been heard about that either; tax rises and welfare cuts have been the main talking points. Will Labour's policies work? They may well do, but not necessarily fast enough to produce tangible results by the time of the next general election, and to rescue Labour's second term. There are many measures that should edge up growth, even if each is comparatively modest: the Brexit reset; trade deals with the US and India; making the public finances stable; reforming planning rules; expanding airports; building 1.5 million homes; green energy including nuclear power; loosening financial regulation; making room for cuts in interest rates; and some strategic investments in new sectors. Headwinds for the UK include the continuing world trade war, cuts in migration, a trend to higher debt-financing costs globally, and the prospect of more wars. The problem is that any major investment drive takes years, which means that much of the benefit in lifting the trend rate of economic growth won't be felt until the early to mid-2030s – by which time some other political party may be in power and claiming the credit. What can Labour do? Up its presentation. As with the NHS, voters need hard evidence that things are indeed improving, even if slowly, and that they are on the path to better times. That means explaining why present sacrifices have to be made, but also some vision of the rewards that will follow as a result. The party needs to boast and showcase its successes. Does it matter? The economy will always be central, which in a way is a strength for Labour given that it can't win on the 'culture war' issues. A display of determination and competence in running the public finances and the wider economy can win the confidence of the voters. Unfortunately, Reeves has made too many errors of political judgement to be confident that the public will be receptive to anything she says. But give it time, and some evidence of higher living standards and improved public services, and that can be turned around. Is the opposition capitalising on Labour's misfortunes? Not that much. The words 'Liz Truss' and 'mini-Budget' still make people – including the current shadow chancellor – wince. The memories of the Tory years in power aren't that rosy: a long spell of austerity, followed by Brexit, Partygate, splits, crises, and general 'chaos and confusion'. Labour can still rightly pin some of the blame for 'broken Britain' on 14 years of Tory rule. The electorate simply isn't yet ready to give the Tories a hearing; they've apologised for Truss, but it's not enough. Meanwhile, perhaps from frustration with the two main parties, voters are curiously susceptible to the lavish and unrealistic promises made by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Again, this could actually turn to Labour's advantage if it concentrates on the not-too-difficult task of proving that Farage's fantastical figures don't add up. Not much sign of that yet, though. Labour's biggest problem isn't so much the economy as complacency.
