Changes in UCAS trends

[poetryandwine]

PSA: there is a freely accessible article in the Observer today about changes in degree preferences from 2019 to 2025. It is summarised from a study by Britton et al at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, New estimates of the impact of undergraduate degrees on lifetime earnings.

Projected lifetime financial return of the degree (vs expected earnings without a degree) is plotted against the percent change in the number of students doing a given degree. There are separate graphs for men and women.

Pharmacology has the biggest gain for each sex, with increased lifetime earnings of just over £100K. For men, Economics has a medium increase in numbers and the greatest lifetime earnings increase, about £460K. For women in Economics the increase in student numbers - from a very low base - is similar. But sexism in the field us shocking, and the earnings increase is under £300K. Shamefully, the Observer article cites the men’s figure as the overall one. I don’t think female numbers are so small as to make this accurate.

More women than men are moving into Medicine and women have their greatest earnings gain, £400K, here, though it is still a bit less than the men’s gain.

For men, the second highest increase in student numbers is for Nursing even though the lifetime earnings gain is small.

Languages have lost the most students and I am sorry to say that a Languages degree is associated with a small lifetime loss of earnings. So are degrees in the Creative and Performing Arts.

About 25% of students are thought to be worse off financially for doing a degree, according to this summary. That is shocking and worth bearing in mind.

PS I was a bit sloppy above: Pharmacology has the biggest gain in student numbers for each sex

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/why-students-are-choosing-payslips-over-passion

This is the updated report from the IfS https://ifs.org.uk/publications/new-estimates-impact-undergraduate-degrees-lifetime-earnings

Thank you both, @1977thebest and @boys3

Daughter is choosing passion over payslips.

That said, she is studying a post grad degree in a medical related subject where there is a demand.

She has no interest in working in finance/law/other high stakes career.

What is their evidence that they're choosing payslips over passion? My assumption is that they are simply passionate about the idea of a decent payslip. That is a perfectly reasonable position.

They can also simultaneously be passionate about English Literature, History, Art or MFL as a hobby without paying £££££ to do a degree in those subjects.

My DS did economics & stats, but still progressed from his GCSE Spanish as an optional module in the final year of his degree, and enjoys speaking it when he goes on holiday.

His girlfriend did a STEM degree, and now has a legal training contract, but still indulges her passion for English Literature through her reading.

Thanks for posting this

While I think this data is fascinating and useful, I take issue with the idea that the discrepancy in lifetime earnings between male and female Economics graduates is due to sexism (discrimination). I think it is due to sex differences (the fact that however clever and educated you are as a woman, you have additional pulls on your time from childbearing and childrearing). I will die on this hill! Women and men are not identical interchangeable units of labour in a capitalist economy.

The study doesn’t seem to control for number of degree places (though I only skimmed the methodology so may have missed it). For most popular subjects universities have responded to demand by increasing the number of degree places, For example, for law the number of places has increased nearly three-fold since 2002 (the cohort used to establish income) and the proportion of law graduates becoming qualified solicitors has also dropped considerably to about 20%.

I agree, the data is a bit raw and can be misleading. The fact that MFL graduates have poor lifetime earnings outcomes does NOT mean that MFL are not valuable skills in the UK labour market. What it means is that the MFL degree is is not sufficient on its own to prepare students for the workplace. London and Oxbridge are teeming with students who speak multiple languages fluently but are studying sciences etc.

On the MFL issue, my DD loved her Spanish A level, but found MFL degrees tended to be literature and history based - and as she said, she didn’t choose these for her A levels, so why would she want them for her degree. She has every intention of taking her Spanish further - but is only really interested in the language, not the adjacent stuff.

MFL student numbers have more than halved since 2002 with loads of universities closing their MFL departments. Studying MFL is not just about speaking a language fluently any more than an English degree is. But I agree that that is probably seen as the main benefit for employers and can be gained from bilingual or polyglot students with other subject expertise. Though that does disadvantage British students without international links.

Sadly academic Economics at least has a well deserved reputation for brutal sexism. There are loads of sound recent articles about this that will turn up on a google search. It is more striking now than 15-20 years ago, because STEM fields are making more progress than Economics against sexism.

If you mean that fewer women than men want to put in the hours necessary for certain City jobs, or like the environment, that’s different. The lifetime earnings premium of an Economics degree, even for men, is under £12K pa (the study says £460K and I am assuming a working life of 40 years) - this shows the small number of men and women in super high paying jobs! So it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about them.

This is an important point. Thank ypu.

This is interesting. I suppose the sheer cost of doing a degree in the UK now forces young people to think about economic payback.

That said, the world is moving so fast now that the subjects in demand now might not be in 5 years. Just think - there was no widely available AI just four years ago, when some people who have just graduated started their degrees.

I dont quite understand how they work out the value.

So take creative courses they say it has negative value on earnings but are they comparing to a completely average non graduates or non graduates in that specific industry?

I suppose what im interested in is some industries pay less than others but are graduates in that industry earning more than non graduates working in that specific industry or less than non graduates in this industry, not just oh the creative industries have poor pay compared to city finance and plumbing which feels quite obvious?

this shows the small number of men and women in super high paying jobs

compared to city finance

It is important to note the study uses medians not means

I agree @bridgez Economics is now the 5th most popular A level so its reasonable to assume plenty of young people are passionate about it, certainly all the ones I know studying it are - it may be current affairs topics like Brexit, covid, numerous changes of Prime Minister fuelling some of the current popularity. Though with the difficulties in the jobs market it makes sense to be looking at career prospects when choosing and I think students when inbetween a few subjects may well chose the one with the best earnings potential.

The sexism around economics I would say is more general in society - high achieving girls are pressured/encouraged to do caring careers like medicine and there can be social/family/school pressure either not to do finance / law etc for girls or sciences are pushed. The pay difference may be part time working, even if you were to return to full time you would likely take a hit on career progression and it being private sector dominated. Men also often had a non-working wife and also a nanny whereas women could be heavily criticised and judged by society/family if not going part time, there is an expectation women are caring for others. This also leads to families being less willing to help finance extra academic qualifications for women or it certainly did back in 2002 when this dates from.

The only area I've come across girls being pressured to do is Medicine - when DD spent a year at a girls grammar which was 90% Asian, 27 out of 30 girls said they wanted to be a doctor. The 3 that didn't were the 3 that weren't Asian. I felt a bit sorry for those girls though it is a good well paid career.

I just don't believe in anti-female sexism in this way. When our Economics graduate children were job hunting, it was almost impossible for white males to get a first interview for jobs in finance, consulting etc whereas females and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ were being interviewed and recruited by the bucketful. However, 10 years later market forces have had their way. Statistics will show that women recruited to finance and consulting have not progressed their careers as much as men and attribute this to sexism but the recruitment was biased in the first place. FWIW a relative of mine is a very senior HR professional in the city and has a bird's eye view of this and rolls her eyes at the fallout.

What do you mean by rolls her eyes at the fallout?

I don’t think it is that! I think a lot of talented women in high finance/consulting marry men in a similar field/corporate law so when they have kids they take a step back. It is because the overall household income is sufficient for them to take a step back. Not because they could not have made it relative to their male counterparts or were lacking in talent or hunger.

The students I know getting the very high paid jobs in finance are generally wealthy well connected white or Asian males who speak multiple languages and had relevant work experience from 16 I would guess through family/school connections though it is a small sample. Rich white males always did very well in finance and are far more likely to be in management positions.

I don't agree women earning less in finance means they were poorer recruits initially - its more women have societal pressure to get married / have children and are also less likely to ask for pay rises / push for promotions. They also tend not to have a partner at home not working and just their to support them as many of the males once married do. I think women are also more likely to go for a role they enjoy which pays well enough rather than chase money. You also have to be very tough to survive in finance and women are often conditioned to be caring and more sensitive. HR also didn't tend to do much if women were sexually harassed or bullied though I think that has improved, probably due to the legal threat.

I did a MFL degree and have never used it.

I found there was a massive lack of advice on what you can do with it. For example, i only did one language and most teachers have 2 languages. And because a lot of it is focused on other things such as literature, I still didn’t feel fluent enough to be an interpreter tbh.

Also the NHS allows you to work part time readily and to work on the NHS and in private practice once you are at Consultant level. The dog eat dog world of high finance or corporate law etc does not. Typically once you are out of the rat race, you are in the long term jogging channel.

That she saw it coming and was over it before it happened! In HR people are well placed to see trends in recruitment and retention policy that are ideological and don't serve the real needs of the business, and to predict with great certainty that they won't deliver.