Some degrees are useless, but it’s the 2:1 obsession we really need to leave behind
Creeping credentialism reinforces the narrative that a degree is the most reliable route into an ever-increasing number of jobs, writes Emma Revell.
Terms like crackdown are usually reserved for crime: you’d expect a government crackdown on anti-social behaviour, burglaries, or corner shops selling vapes to pre-teens. But not on little Jimmy nervously awaiting his A-level results while dreaming of freshers’ week.
Enter the government. As part of its new crackdown on low value courses, the Office for Students will be asked by ministers to limit the number of places universities can offer on courses which are “failing to deliver good outcomes for students”. Post-graduate earnings will presumably rank quite significantly.
This may sound harsh. But if you’re a new graduate trying to enter the world of work, and find that your shiny new degree – and accompanying £45,000 worth of debt – doesn’t actually qualify you for much, you’d certainly be within your rights to feel a little hard done by.
While employment is not the only reason to go to university – the pursuit of knowledge and education for its own sake is valuable to many – potential future earnings are often a key part of the equation. And the uncomfortable truth is that many students are promised the world, but find the reality is quite different.
Take creative arts. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows it has zero impact on the future earnings of female graduates, and a negative impact for men. Students who are tempted to take that course should probably know that in advance.
It also concerns the cost to the state. If we had a system in which students self-funded, it wouldn’t be anyone’s business if someone wanted to spend tens of thousands of pounds studying a subject that wouldn’t increase their future earnings. But because student debt is eventually written off if people don’t earn enough, the financial burden of paying for university ultimately lies with taxpayers – regardless of whether they attended themselves.
The government could change the funding system, making the Treasury loan money directly to institutions, which in turn lend to students. The students then repay the university, and universities repay the government an agreed fee. This would incentivise universities to trim lower-value courses and prevent students being missold on their likely graduate salary – because they would pay the price themselves.
However, we must be careful not to put all of the blame on universities. The truth is that politicians, teachers and parents have been consistently pushing the degree route for the last 25 years. Head to any recruitment website or jobs page and you will find countless ads claiming a 2:1 degree in any subject is a “required” or “necessary” criteria for the role. While I certainly hope a cardiologist or a structural engineer has spent an above-average amount of time in the classroom, this creeping credentialism reinforces the narrative that a degree is the most reliable route into an ever-increasing number of jobs.
Say I wanted to retrain as a police officer. Since 2020, I would need to have a degree apprenticeship, a professional policing degree, or a degree in any subject. I’m not sure my BA Politics from Leicester qualifies me in any real way to keep London’s streets safe.
How about working with children? If Labour gets their way, we could be heading towards graduate-led nurseries, increasing the barriers to entry for those wanting to work in childcare. All of this at a time when Brits are facing the highest childcare costs in the OECD and many nursery workers are paid less than supermarket staff.
The government can announce all the crackdowns it likes, but if we really want to move towards an education system where the skills match up with the jobs on offer, universities, parents, teachers and employers all have to play ball.