Why are so many YP going to uni, when uni isn't right for so many YP? AIBU to think fewer YP should go to uni as it's only giving them a huge debt?

[MerryAquaKoala]

It seems such a waste of time for so many, racking up huge debt and gaining no benefit from their degree whatsoever. It seems to me that uni's accept such low grades from A Level these days, it's literally a scheme to keep money going to the university and definitely not for the benefit of the YP.

It probably even comes further back to A Levels - A Levels aren't right for so many YP yet currently it seems they're funnelled into doing them anyway.

Something doesn't feel right with it all and in the end it's a YP left with huge debt for the rest of their life (usually). Seems so wrong.

I know! It’s frustrating because the evidence shows that in the long run, employment and pay outcomes remain consistently higher for graduates than for those who don’t go to university.

• The higher education entry rate among UK 18-year-olds increased from 24.7% in 2006 to 30.7% in 2015 and peaked at 38.2% in 2021. It fell back to 36.3% in 2025.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7857/

Many people go to uni as mature students. 50% of school leavers are not going to uni.

Above I suggested curtailing the all encompassing growth of AI, and its impact on jobs (and society). I don't see any other option.

You really need to start waking up. AI is only going to keep advancing because there’s so much money in it.

Agree, I'm in public sector and although we don't require a specific degree for the role we expect degree level qualifications or years of industry experience to get into the role. If they don't have the years of industry experience or a degree they wouldn't be able to even get their foot in the door. Not having a degree will limit the entry level jobs available to them in a lot of sectors.

The debts should be considered as a graduate tax, if they don’t pay it off it’ll get wiped out anyway. I think tertiary education should be free, but that’s a whole other discussion.

I don’t think curtailing AI is going to work either. It just hands over competitive advantage to others who will use it. AI is just a power tool, you still need to think, if anything, more than without AI. Young people need more opportunities and with AI those job opportunities are going to become scarce. I think the government needs to subsidise the employment of young people even more, in recognition of the fact that they now need more training than before to be useful to a business.

Someone else has posted this but what else can they do? Apprenticeships are non existent. Even a min wage job which should be achievable require experience.
I really feel for yp.

She is probably trying to go along with the MN abbreviation thing, and I guess DYP makes very little sense. To be honest I'm getting sick of typing DC etc when I could just say child and be normal. It doesn't save much time

So your evidence is one or two people who you personally, subjectively, consider to be in some way intellectually inferior.

sounds legit

I agree.

These comments are always made by people who haven't done one as well! They seem to presume you just keep writing until you reach x amount of words. In the more competitive universities the standard is actually very gruelling.

All I know is I can never find a decent plumber or chippie or sparky ...

Say YP one more time MF.

I’m on the fence about this one. As an ex academic, I can see how Universities have changed for the worse over the years. They have gone from places of curiosity and learning to profit and expansion focused businesses, to the detriment of students and staff. The fees and debt are extraordinary these days. DS went to an “elite” university followed by a masters at a Russel Group and has around £80k in student loans which to him, seems so high the chances of ever paying it back seem so unrealistic and not linked to the real world it might as well not exist - it’s like it’s a made up, abstract amount.

However, after leaving school at 16 and stating off on a Youth Training Scheme (80s apprenticeship) university changed my life. It not only provided me with a well paid and interesting career after years of low paid, tedious roles, it introduced me to new ways of thinking, how to put together structured, evidence based arguments, and opened my network and social groups after growing up in a council house in a small town. I suppose it enabled me to navigate the archetypal socially mobile route from working class to middle class, in terms of income, networks and taste. I appreciate my university experience happened in the 90s, before ridiculous tuition fees were introduced, but still, I think that a decent university education is valued by employers and that a young person aligning themselves with a narrow set of skills fixed to a specific role or industry via an apprenticeship may not be a good choice given the fast and changing pace of tech and the global balance economy. Having networks and high level analytical skills are valued by employers and may be harder to get experience of in role- based training

I didn’t say school leavers I said people. The 50% is up to 25 if you’d googled further.

In 1980 the number of 18 year olds going on to higher education was 15%, of which 7.5% were universities, the rest were polys and colleges.

I'm sorry you feel targeted

That has always been the case. Educated people who are narrow minded and dim.
The same as many intelligent people couldn’t go due to the financial burden and real life commitments.

Not much else to choose from apart from uni.
no apprenticeships and no jobs .

what else can they do at 18 other than uni ?

teenage girls have babies . Teenage boys turn to crime or sign on the dole .

depressing prospects

DD went to a comprehensive school and could tell that the head of 6th form was disappointed when she told them she was taking a gap year. It was because they couldn't add her to their destination statistics.

However, they came good when she applied to university with grades in hand and checked her personal statement and provided a reference.

What's definitely not the case? That there's value in education. Or that only the rich can afford an education?

Mine both went into L4 apprenticeships straight from school at 18. Everything was funded - college, exams, travel, books, uniform etc. Neither wanted to go to uni. DH and I are both graduates. I am pro education. I am not pro taking on massive debt, especially not at 18.

There are clear benefits to uni. It's a springboard into independence and adult relationships as has been said by other posters. I am sure both of mine would have benefitted from the social side of uni, and that is something that concerns me. But I'm not sure that those lessons are worth what uni now costs.

At DH's place of work they started taking apprentices at 18 because the graduates were so lacking in workplace skills that they decided they might as well take on school leavers. When DS interviewed for his apprenticeship, all the others in his group were graduates in their mid twenties. Make of that what you will.

I think there is a lot of wishful thinking at play here: it’s true that higher education has become a huge money maker, its also true that young people emerge with a lot of debt and that being a graduate is no longer the magic road to a higher paying or more secure career. A lot of people whose kids borrowed money to study and now can’t find jobs are understandably frustrated by the experience.

But that doesn’t automatically translate to higher education being worthless. Its still the case that graduates tend to out earn non graduates. Degrees are still a requirement for most of the really high paying jobs. Yes you can make a lot of money as a builder or plumber but you’re still an outlier if you earn more than a corporate lawyer or work in finance.

People are also ignoring the downstream economic effects of deemphasising higher education. The UK badly needs highly educated scientists at the moment, for example. We are becoming less competitive globally because we don’t have enough highly trained scientists, engineers etc.

Also a lot of these feted blue collar jobs such as plumbers depend on commission from mainly white collar people who have surplus cash and want to invest in their homes etc.

If people stop training as bankers/corporate lawyers/accountants/entrepreneurs they aren’t going to pay builders and roofers to do their expensive home extensions. Part of the reason why people are able to charge so much for good builders is that people who have made a lot of money at work are clamouring to upgrade their homes etc.

We need all of these people in the ecosystem but funnelling everyone into blue collar jobs just limits the amount of people who will be able to pay for the services they provide.

I have a degree but it's completely irrelevant to my job and no employer has ever asked to see the certificate. Pretty sure I could have just not bothered and said I had one and nobody would have been any the wiser.

I think we've created a terrible situation for young people where for many uni really does seem to be the only viable route. When there aren't jobs for young people, which at the moment there really aren't, they've got so little real choice.

Fwiw the school was useless and knew nothing about apprenticeships at all. All they cared about was uni admissions.

I wasnt disagreeing that more young people go to university now - everyone is aware of this trend. I just think that the 50% figure often quoted often implies that 1 in 2 18 year olds are going. The picture is a bit more complex. Many young people take a few years to decide what they want to study and go after a few years of work in their early 20s as your stat illustrates. I think that can be helpful. I worked (for a short time) before I went to uni and it helped crystalise what i did (& didnt want to do). I was also a little more mature & definetely more motivated.

Thank you, that's interesting.

But this is Feb 2020 data, using the tax and loan system from 2019. We're in a very different place now.

And more to the point it barely touches the debt issue. It has one throw away line as as far as I can see, with no more discussion at all. So whilst it is saying, in 2020 a graduate was more likely to get a job (earnings and income is all very well but what about the debt!?!) than a non graduate (who has no student debt to pay off), and to earn x more - it doesn't satisfactorily address the massive debt levels of graduates. Which obviously affects final income, and mortgage affordability. Not to mention psychological well being and financial freedom.

Why can't people say 'University' instead of bloody 'Uni'?