I run the University Watch campaign. I am extremely interested in your work and I hope that you have seen mine at my website universitywatch.org. I was most recently attributed as a contributor to Iain Mansfield's report Tarnished Towers from the Policy Exchange. I currently have an on-going case at the Office for Statistics Regulation regarding the recent Graduate Labour Market Outcomes report which is misleading and is continuing to hide the truth. ie. That once you control for Prior Academic Attainment, then there is no Graduate Premium. This is consistent with the findings of a report from the team lead at UCL that you refer to in your sub-stack which I hadn't come across before, but it is excellent and very useful to my campaign. I think that it would be very interesting if I was to meet up with you to discuss my current case at the OSR, as the outcome is absolutely fundamental to Govt policy making. Official Statistics are supposed to tell the truth and not obscure it, which has been the case for the last 20 years and has led to the unfettered growth of the HE sector.
The point that there is no meaningful “average university student” really matters for families making decisions. We still talk about university as though it has one standard return, when outcomes vary enormously by subject, institution, prior attainment and what the alternative route might have been. It reinforces for me that the useful question isn’t simply “is university worth it?” but “is this course, at this institution, for this young person, better than the other realistic routes available to them?”
As we know, pre-1992 there were fewer universities and more polytechnics, the latter meant to be focussed more on vocational degrees.
The UK has absolutely now shifted to a place where parents expect their children to go to university, whilst at the same time fewer and fewer degrees prepare students for future careers.
Now, I do feel that all degrees are valid, but with a context of macro economics as well as the individual financial needs of students, the UK simply doesn't focus enough on the economics of education when people a) choose to go to university, and b) choose what to study.
These were all changes in place well before 2010, when the graduate tax system and the awful public education around it came into being.
Fast forward 16 years and we have nearly a full generation of past students weighed down with 9% additional income tax for decades to come.
All in all, a lot needs reformed.
One thought for future research, Neil, could be to look at similar numbers for Scotland. When England increased student fees in 2010, Scotland chose not to. I wonder what the return on university study for students in Scotland is compared to England and Wales? One thing that has already been studied is the percentage of students who stay at home. In Scotland that has risen even faster than in England and Wales. I'd pose the idea that the driver behind that is to further reduce any debt that students get into, given that Scottish students are already free of university fees.
I fall exactly into the weirdest bar on that first chart. It appears to show that only architecture (and building trades) has an inverse premium for prior educational attainment, and given my own experience in the profession over the decades I'm dying to know more about this
Yes sure choice has a big part to play but expecting 16 year olds to be the only decider is unrealistic - the information asymmetries are large and the loan system blunts any idea of pure market forces - so where politicians can see some things lead to very poor outcomes for taxpayers and students they have a responsibility to play their part too
When I went to university, I was amazed at how non-intellectual the environment was. How much are the top students being held back today by being surrounded by people more interested in partying?
You have misunderstood a few things about the IFS research.
First, they are not excluding the 40% of university entrants with the lowest attainment. The vast majority of those excluded by minimum GCSE scores/lack of KS5 record don’t access higher education. The IFS are capturing 38% of the entire age cohort! That will include pretty much everyone who went to HE by the age of 21 in the 20023/03 cohort (32% of the cohort) plus a useful control group who had the grades to get into HE
Second, the IFS concluded “we do not find any evidence that the graduate premium has declined for later cohorts” based on analysis up to the 2013 GCSE cohort.
Third, the IFS look at net present value using a real-terms discount rate of 3.5%. You can’t interpret that as students being better off if they did not access higher education e.g. it values earnings returns after 30 years at 34% of their real-terms value. This is especially the case as it compares their earnings to a simulated counter-factual that is missing a lot of controls.
Hello. You say "they are not excluding the 40% of university entrants with the lowest attainment." - I didn't say that they were? If you keep the share of cohort that you are looking at constant at the top 38% then by 2026 you are going to be missing a LOT of people who go to university. The statement that "we do not find any evidence that the graduate premium has declined for later cohorts” refers to the charts above with the lower prior attainment cut out - when they add them back in they see the falling graduate premium - that's the whole point I was making. They have to apply discount rates to both the cost and benefit sides of the ledger - that's very standard. Governments firms and individuals apply discount rates to almost every kind of mooted investment.
Neil,
I run the University Watch campaign. I am extremely interested in your work and I hope that you have seen mine at my website universitywatch.org. I was most recently attributed as a contributor to Iain Mansfield's report Tarnished Towers from the Policy Exchange. I currently have an on-going case at the Office for Statistics Regulation regarding the recent Graduate Labour Market Outcomes report which is misleading and is continuing to hide the truth. ie. That once you control for Prior Academic Attainment, then there is no Graduate Premium. This is consistent with the findings of a report from the team lead at UCL that you refer to in your sub-stack which I hadn't come across before, but it is excellent and very useful to my campaign. I think that it would be very interesting if I was to meet up with you to discuss my current case at the OSR, as the outcome is absolutely fundamental to Govt policy making. Official Statistics are supposed to tell the truth and not obscure it, which has been the case for the last 20 years and has led to the unfettered growth of the HE sector.
Paul Wiltshire
paulw4567@hotmail.co.uk
07768 915446
The point that there is no meaningful “average university student” really matters for families making decisions. We still talk about university as though it has one standard return, when outcomes vary enormously by subject, institution, prior attainment and what the alternative route might have been. It reinforces for me that the useful question isn’t simply “is university worth it?” but “is this course, at this institution, for this young person, better than the other realistic routes available to them?”
Quite
As we know, pre-1992 there were fewer universities and more polytechnics, the latter meant to be focussed more on vocational degrees.
The UK has absolutely now shifted to a place where parents expect their children to go to university, whilst at the same time fewer and fewer degrees prepare students for future careers.
Now, I do feel that all degrees are valid, but with a context of macro economics as well as the individual financial needs of students, the UK simply doesn't focus enough on the economics of education when people a) choose to go to university, and b) choose what to study.
These were all changes in place well before 2010, when the graduate tax system and the awful public education around it came into being.
Fast forward 16 years and we have nearly a full generation of past students weighed down with 9% additional income tax for decades to come.
All in all, a lot needs reformed.
One thought for future research, Neil, could be to look at similar numbers for Scotland. When England increased student fees in 2010, Scotland chose not to. I wonder what the return on university study for students in Scotland is compared to England and Wales? One thing that has already been studied is the percentage of students who stay at home. In Scotland that has risen even faster than in England and Wales. I'd pose the idea that the driver behind that is to further reduce any debt that students get into, given that Scottish students are already free of university fees.
I fall exactly into the weirdest bar on that first chart. It appears to show that only architecture (and building trades) has an inverse premium for prior educational attainment, and given my own experience in the profession over the decades I'm dying to know more about this
Surely parents need to be more discerning?
I had two sons do Medicine and a daughter do law, at good universities.
I would not have supported a no hoper degree, at a poor university.
Surely we need to educate parents, about what counts.
People have agency.
Is that not the conservative way, take responsibility
Yes sure choice has a big part to play but expecting 16 year olds to be the only decider is unrealistic - the information asymmetries are large and the loan system blunts any idea of pure market forces - so where politicians can see some things lead to very poor outcomes for taxpayers and students they have a responsibility to play their part too
When I went to university, I was amazed at how non-intellectual the environment was. How much are the top students being held back today by being surrounded by people more interested in partying?
I agree there is too much of that
I always find your work stimulating and informative. Please keep it up. I am pledging.
Thanks!
You have misunderstood a few things about the IFS research.
First, they are not excluding the 40% of university entrants with the lowest attainment. The vast majority of those excluded by minimum GCSE scores/lack of KS5 record don’t access higher education. The IFS are capturing 38% of the entire age cohort! That will include pretty much everyone who went to HE by the age of 21 in the 20023/03 cohort (32% of the cohort) plus a useful control group who had the grades to get into HE
Second, the IFS concluded “we do not find any evidence that the graduate premium has declined for later cohorts” based on analysis up to the 2013 GCSE cohort.
Third, the IFS look at net present value using a real-terms discount rate of 3.5%. You can’t interpret that as students being better off if they did not access higher education e.g. it values earnings returns after 30 years at 34% of their real-terms value. This is especially the case as it compares their earnings to a simulated counter-factual that is missing a lot of controls.
Hello. You say "they are not excluding the 40% of university entrants with the lowest attainment." - I didn't say that they were? If you keep the share of cohort that you are looking at constant at the top 38% then by 2026 you are going to be missing a LOT of people who go to university. The statement that "we do not find any evidence that the graduate premium has declined for later cohorts” refers to the charts above with the lower prior attainment cut out - when they add them back in they see the falling graduate premium - that's the whole point I was making. They have to apply discount rates to both the cost and benefit sides of the ledger - that's very standard. Governments firms and individuals apply discount rates to almost every kind of mooted investment.