Some universities will go bust thread 2

[GinForBreakfast]

Continuing as thread 1 has filled up.

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/10/25/the-fall-in-graduate-salaries-shows-the-argument-for-mass-entry-to-higher-education-has-failed/

so essentially his HEPI blog post from six months ago @Runemum

the comments, and tbf some of PW’s responses, in the HEPI link are worth a read through.

Paul is of course a parent campaigner against mass higher education. Some might be surprised therefore that all four of his DC went to Uni. 🤔

@boys3 Presumably he took a reasonable punt that his dc would get a grad job worth having. It’s dc who get little fiscal return that are the problem sector. They will be paying until they are 60 and feel hard done by. The IFS was pretty good at looking at degrees and universities for better paid outcomes. However this doesn’t give grads skills and the necessary attributes for employment. It just gives a steer.

Paul is of course a parent campaigner against mass higher education. Some might be surprised therefore that all four of his DC went to Uni.

I do sometimes wonder, when people opine about "too many universities" etc etc etc, are they prepared for their own DC not to get a university place?

Well of course - what would be the point of arguing for reductions in the number of graduates if it disadvantages your own offspring

It’s ALWAYS someone else’s kids that shouldn’t going to uni.

@titchy To be fair lots of parents are thinking about their own dc not going. You see this considered all the time. Yr then Labour tried to abolish grammar schools and then pay for dc to go private! It’s what they say that matters - not what they do! Always has been.

In general, I think parents need to take a step back from their children’s decisions.

However, while parents may think their children shouldn’t go to university, that’s very different from being told their children won’t be going to university, which was the situation before HE provision was expanded.

I am perfectly happy for my academic son not to go to university if he has the same job prospects. But this is the key question-will he have the same job prospects. Going to university now seems like placing a 45K gamble at a casino in the hope that you are a winner.
It is interesting that Paul Wiltshire is saying that only those with good A-level results are are likely to benefit from a degree in terms of earnings. So maybe those with good A-level results could also go straight into the workplace and earn well in the future.
A degree apprenticeship seems like the best financial bet but I know very competitive to get. However, my husband's company has just given one to a school leaver for the first time. So maybe if more companies don't expect a degree or offer degree apprenticeships, we can move away from expensive 45K student debts.

Wiltshire is not a genuine researcher - he starts from a premise (that too many teenagers go to university) and looks for stats and data that support what he already thinks. That approach is likely to suffer from confirmation bias and the tendency to discard or ignore facts which do not fit his agenda.

And of course as PPs he has hardly practised what he preaches within his own family.

It's eminently possible to do better at university than at school for a whole range of reasons. Presumably if universities themselves didn't believe that, they wouldn't be keen on making contextual offers... Many, many potential employers will look at someone with a First or a Masters and won't give a monkey's what that person's A level results were. Or they will conduct their own tests and use those to make a decision.

But a 1st from say the University of Bradford is completely different from a 1st from Cambridge. There is also a massive issue with 30% of students getting a 1st at the University of Bradford and yet only 35% getting one at Cambridge despite their A-level results and IQ being very different. I think this is too high a percentage for both universities but completely ridiculous for Bradford. In my day only 10-15% got a 1st from smaller pool of universities and it meant more. Now a 1st doesn't mean what it used to so I think employers do look at A-level results and work experience more.

What's wrong with Bradford? It's a well established university?

I'd actually argue that there should be more firsts at Cambridge rather than the other way round.

@RunemumI totally agree but the pressure/expectation for top marks starts in primary school, and now that consumer legislation applies to HE it’s becoming harder for universities to resist grade inflation.

Maybe employers should give out the message that they don’t value firsts over seconds. They could be aspirational for those who want an academic career.

This first thing seems to be especially a thing in STEM? A 2:1 in a more hums or arts subjects still pretty much seems to be the usual expectation.

Are there more students living at home in Bradford?

Less than the top third of the engineering cohort at Cambridge are awarded Firsts. DS’s girlfriend was ranked within top third but was awarded a 2.1.
DS read a humanities subject but was ranked third overall in his cohort after final year exams/dissertation and was awarded a First. (Doesn’t earn as much as his girlfriend though a year after graduating).

Tbf DS is on a stable competitive grad scheme whereas his girlfriend works for a niche higher risk small Cambridge engineering company.

@Piggywaspushed
If everyone has a degree and everyone has a 1st, how can employers choose candidates apart from looking at their A-level results or work experience? The degree becomes increasingly worthless in terms of job prospects. My issue as a parent is a degree leads to about 45K debt but I am not sure it will improve job prospects.

The degree at a 1st or 2:1 is the baseline @Runemum . The employer will then use other criteria like performance on tests, relevant experience and ultimately interview/group task performance. I haven't heard of employers using A Level results to differentiate between candidates and certainly in professional services/accountancy, where I have experience, the degree grade is irrelevant as long as the 2:1 threshold is met. However piggy may well be right that for STEM jobs, they prefer a 1st - and this would make sense if the subject of the degree is directly relevant to the job.

@crazycrofter
Yes, I think that many employers do just use their own tests, interviews, group tests to pick people. Accountancy is also one of the professions where they specifically say that a degree doesn't matter and they are happy to train school leavers.
I don't understand how the 2.1 criteria means anything as a 2.1 from a low-ranking university might even give companies a lower quality candidate than someone with a 3rd from Cambridge.

@Runemum The degree opens doors but not all doors. Some doors take a lot of pushing open.

@Runemum but the tests, interviews etc will hopefully give them the best candidates out of all those who got a 2:1 plus. It's not at all a given that the most academically able candidates will be the best candidates for the job anyway - that's certainly not been the case in my experience! The best people I've worked with as new recruits were from ex polys. But also, I guess they may have been academically able but underperformed at A Levels, hence going to ex polys rather than higher ranked unis. I think it's good that companies don't recruit on the basis of A Levels or type of uni, as people change a lot between 18 and 21/22 plus a successful career requires all sorts of other soft skills in addition to academic intelligence.

No, I meant Cambridge should have more firsts. These are the brightest and best people.

30 % is hardly 'everyone' that aside.

@crazycrofter
I agree with you that soft skills are important in the workplace and that academic qualifications are not always the best indication of work performance or problem solving skills. My husband who works in science and my father-in-law who works in engineering have moaned about how some employees despite having a degree can't solve a science/engineering problem.
This still doesn't resolve my conundrum of whether a degree is worth the 45K price tag. However, if companies are saying a 2.1 is the criteria for a job, then there isn't really any choice. Is an Open University degree whilst working a better choice? Is a degree apprenticeship a better choice? Are accountancy qualifications a better choice? My worry is that an OU degree or a degree via a degree apprenticeship may not be perceived by others as the same level as a degree from a high-ranking university but then again maybe work experience is all that matters once you've already worked for a few years.

It's definitely a conundrum @Runemum . Degree apprenticeships or accountancy apprenticeships are a great option and i really thought my ds was going to go down that route. However, you need to be sure what career area you want and he isn't. You also need to be pretty good at juggling work alongside study and potentially looking after yourself too (there weren't any options he was interested in in commuting distance) - ds has ADHD and does struggle with organisation. I feel he needs a few more years to get his act together and also add a higher qualification, as his A Level results weren't great due to lack of work until the last minute.

Open university degrees are also a great option if you're good at self-motivation and you don't need the experience of working alongside/with others. You'll still be paying tuition fees, but not maintenance if you're living at home - in essence, this isn't much different to commuting to the local uni, which is a good option for many, but not for everyone.

The main issue for the YPs I know is that quite a few do want degree apprenticeships but they learn quickly that they are way harder to secure than a university place. The admission process is convoluted, lengthy, doesn't fit in with other life planning dates and is quite a gamble in lots of ways. Debt aside, university seems for many the 'safer' option.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that educational advantage maps on to socio-economic advantage. Have a look at the work of the Sutton Trust.

You can scoff at the University of Bradford but it offers opportunities for education to those who might not otherwise have those opportunities.

I am very wary of arguments about restrictions on university education. Inevitably they seem to accentuate socio-economic inequalities.