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.

I see this as a problem with retention. Women do have children and do the main child rearing. I know many clever women who gave up their careers to bring up their families. While their husbands track forward in their careers. IMO I don’t think they’d be able to without someone running the home.

And also late 20s / early 30s finance its predominately private for profit so an equal male and female candidate the job will almost always go to the male as they won't get pregnant / have maternity leave / much less likely to ask for part time. Then that compounds the issue further down the line as women's CVs are then weaker from a point of view of maximising earnings. I was in finance in 2002 and asked if I intended to stop work because I had got married and would my husband give permission for me to carry on. HR then were often complicit or non existent and for the benefit of the business.

It is not, however, just a problem with retention after women start families and that is my relative's observation as it is the observation of my children and their friends in the Goldman Sachs McKinsey world. Hiring practices are in fact evolving but pre-Covid they literally went mad recruiting anyone but highly quantitative white males for roles traditionally done by highly quantitive white males.

This is quite interesting showing the different career routes women take versus men even with same degree with women having a much higher percentage in roles that involve caring / supporting others e.g. health, teaching and men in higher earning professions. A typical male maths graduate enters computer science, typical female one enters teaching.

https://www.ft.com/content/cb0e209c-0b08-4749-9d49-0ecfabe5a96e?syn-25a6b1a6=1

What is it then?

I think the sex difference (in my field of finance) is that the highly paid roles require risk-taking and confidence, traits which are more commonly found in men eg the quant trader who may rapidly make millions or blow themselves up. Women are more cautious and seek steady progression which means they favour the lower paid (but still well paid) roles in middle office and asset management. This is evident at the graduate application point, well before child rearing is a factor.

I’m generalising, of course.

I can see that.

I see when supporting applicants for jobs that girls will rule themselves out if they don’t meet the majority of criteria whereas boys will go for it if they meet far less.

Thank you, @OneZanyCat . Interesting.

The increase in male nurses was a happy surprise to me.

The well regarded (American) National Bureau of Economic Research has a series of papers on sexism in academic Economics.

Of course there are many humane economists with good values. I expect @Ceramiq ’s DC are amongst them. But speaking very broadly NBER has identified that the sexism starts early relatively to other male-dominated disciplines.

More troubling, they have shown that as late as 2025 Economics is the only discipline where the paucity of women in the higher academic ranks cannot be explained rationally. Broadly that means by the themes invoked by PP. Concretely it means grants, publications and esteems. The disparities between the numbers of men and women in the higher STEM ranks may be a problem, but it is a rational one insofar as it correlates with these metrics. The disparities in Economics do not.

Women in high finance may not find the environment congenial, fair enough. However in light of the NBER findings it is fair to ask whether they are freely choosing to step off the treadmill, or being pushed down the stairs.

Absolutely.

really interesting and a bit sad.

How does a degree lead to a loss? Compared to av someone who didn’t go to uni, including degree costs, you are out of pocket??

Yes, compared to someone who did not attend university.

Because it enable you to pursue a poorly paid and unstable career like acting, dance, music, artist. Even if you have the same income as non-graduates you will be down the cost of the degree and several years’ income. Lots of people with these degrees who fail to ‘make it’ In their industry end up in the same jobs as non-graduates after having worked years on minimum wage or zero hours to keep themselves free for auditions/gigs/short spells of work.

I was surprised by languages specifically. Why is that less useful than English Lit or History for example..

Within banking when languages where needed there was an expectation that people spoke other languages as well as a degree/masters/phD, which was often in economics, maths, physics. That meant many people employed were other nationalities where it's common to be multi lingual. For general jobs it's same as any other degree but languages teaching in state comprehensives is often limited to one language now and other countries are far ahead.

Exactly. The people who are required to speak several languages at work have those as an additional skill to their main academic discipline.

Which still doesn't explain why MFL might be less useful than English Lit or History though.

I don't think MFL is much different to English Lit or History for employment and earnings prospects - infact, on this data MFL is slightly ahead at 5 years. However, MFL due to the decline in state comprehensive teaching of languages I suspect has a higher proportion of private and grammar intake (does at Oxbridge at least) which may explain why its slightly higher. Children in other countries are often way ahead of ours in languages - I've known a 5 year old French girl already speaking 3 languages well. Its not every French child but there's sufficient numbers who can now move between countries that they often take the language needing roles.

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/graduate-labour-market-outcomes-leo/2022-23

The original article also may be taking into account the cost of doing the degree off from earnings and a languages degree would normally be 1 year longer so 1 more year with costs and not the earnings.

Yes. In my field this and at the risk of overgeneralising, this is especially true of Eastern Europeans and, interestingl, those from the Low Countries. @OneZanyCat ’s French 5 yo is an exception in my experience, but sounds delightful.

In the main European cultural and business hubs there are bilingual and plurilingual nursery options. Bringing children up who speak two or languages by the end of primary is most definitely a growing trend.

I think the mistake you're making here is that you're equating degree level study with casual hobbies. There is no parity.

Well said!
I have a degree in languages -have occasionally used it in my business career but it wasn’t the reason I earned the money I did /my job was totally unrelated to my degree. I did later train as a secondary teacher but ironically the language I taught was not one I had even studied at GCSE…
I love languages with a real passion, watch foreign tv every day and use languages on holiday. but don’t think they should any longer be taught in UK schiols as compulsory or uK universities because there are so many better ways now to learn languages (and lots of other subjects) than sitting in rows in a classroom with a non native speaker.
Similarly I love reading and have - literally- hundreds of books but can indulge that interest without doing s degree in it!

The mistake many young people make (often on the advice of well-meaning but naive parents and teachers) is that any degree will inevitably lead to a good job. That was true in the past, but has become increasingly less true as the number of graduates has increased and the job market has changed.

It's about dilution yes, but you can graduate from Oxford in literally anything and still land on your feet and do any career that you fancy. The difficulty comes when you go to some ex-poly for a traditionally academic subject and then expect to be employed meaningfully.