Conservative, David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science said: "The job market does remain competitive for new graduates in these difficult economic times, as it does for everyone. However, a degree remains a good investment in the long term and prospects for graduates in the labour market remain good." It is a difficult case to make. In 2008, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, around 40% of graduate jobs were found in the public sector. As recently as July HESCU were suggesting that graduate unemployment could rise as high as 20% and as many as 240,000 employed graduates could lose their jobs.
The expansion of higher education was possible because the government placed some of the burden upon graduates and justified it by arguing that they would reap the benefit of higher wages throughout their working lives. What this recession demonstrates is that a good degree is not enough. In 2008 and 2009, 50% of graduates were awarded a 2:1 yet 59% have been unable to find work in their chosen field. We are not talking about the much maligned Media Studies graduates. In 2009, 16% of computer studies graduates are unemployed. Carl Gilleard, the chief executive of the Graduate Recruiters Association has even recommended flipping burgers or stacking shelves for graduates wishing to build up their skill base.
What is most damaging is the continuing myth that all university degrees have an equivalent value. They don't. 60% of graduate employers now insist on a 2:1 and the larger firms, offering the best career prospects and earning potential, greatly favour the traditional universities. It can't be a surprise that the 2:1 from Cambridge might give you the edge over the 2:1 from Derby. For the first time ever graduate starting salaries have not increased for two years running and the number of applicants has leapt to 70 for each graduate vacancy. Yet, still the applications for universities increase. In 2010 there were over 640,000 applications for university places this autumn – an increase of nearly 14% on last year.
So why do politicians continue to fuel this higher education boom? Well the answer is probably down to universities proving to be very good at absorbing large amounts of young people for little cost. The Coalition's announcement that student fees will rise to £6,000 will make the whole process virtually cost neutral. With youth unemployment running at nearly 18%, you have to admire a government policy that gets young people off the unemployment statistics and at the same time gets them to foot the bill.
I feel there are 2 problems (there are probably more but these are the 2 that spring to mind) with universities and funding there of. The courses on offer and the requirement of so many jobs that applicants are graduates. With the first it appears (admittedly from an outsiders perspective) that universitiers offer a wide range of courses that should not be , purely because they are popular. Universities should focus on the sort of courses that are academic / vocational rather than drama (to use an easy example).
ReplyDeleteThe other problem is that in years gone by people could get good jobs in offices etc without the need for a degree, as the number of jobs decreases and the numbers at universities increases it makes itmore and more difficult to get any sort of job without a dsegree. This adds further pressure onto the system.
Having said all that making the students enter into a debt they are unlijkkely to clear for 10 years doen't seem te best way of encouraging the best students to attend university, rather just the richest.
Kitey, I agree. Graduates today will start their working lives in the type of debt that when we graduated could have bought a house in manny parts of the country whilst the earning potential of most of these graduates has simply not kept pace. There is a real problem in using average income as a benchmark because the divergence between the richest and the rest has increased so much and hides the real opportunities out there.
ReplyDeleteI think both Charles Clarke when sec state & the coalition make a strong case when asking why should the less well off majority without an university education subsidise the richer minority to get theirs when the latter will become richer still later in life? OK, we need skilled people who will benefit society but I think that defence is overused. While I agree with the concerns above I don't think you can divorce this problem from the wider problem of tax & spend - the easy ride the middle classes have had tax wise, especially in relation to the housing market. It makes more sense to charge or tax grduates fairly (I don't know what that rate would be)if there was reasonable housing available at reasonable prices. Build more houses (or use more at the very least)for workers & graduates alike & burst the housing bubble.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of courses, I think it is very difficult to plan centrally what is needed - after the 50s & 60s there were many big, empty chemistry departments that were meant to be the white hot future when planned. Students recently have been going into computer science & the law as that's where the jobs were. Media studies seems a very worthy subject after watching Charlie Brooker & even Harry Hill deconstruct television. I don't see why you should get a job within your field of undergrauate study & it was evident 40 years ago that a degree was a spring board to post graduate qualifications within law, business, academia, etc rather than immedietely opening the treasure chest.And while it is glib to say get experience flipping burgers, if you want to know about how franchise business works, you might learn more on the shop floor than you expect, though that may only take a few days rather than a career!
Slashing the public sector at a time of high unemployment, graduate or otherwise, does seem crazy though & likely to damage the private sector as well.