The government recently announced that it wants to limit numbers on so-called ‘low-value’ university courses, as they are deemed not to provide appropriate outcomes for students. The problem with this is that it seems to be a very narrow conception of value, based largely on economic considerations.
I can see that, of course, university needs to add value to a person’s life and skillset, but therein lies the subjective conundrum that needs to be unpicked. Labelling some courses as ‘low value’ is unhelpful and demotivating.
First, I agree that merely ‘getting through’ a degree that is of minimal interest to you and doing very little proactively at university to broaden your social, academic and career prospects is a crashing waste of money. But that could be history at Oxford, which could then be deemed ‘low value’.
The broad-brush statements about low value take no account of the following factors:
- Lots of jobs are for graduates, whatever the discipline. Employers are increasingly looking for diversity of discipline and wide skillsets, rather than specific degree subjects that might risk narrowing the cultural blend in the workforce.
- Suitability for roles is usually based on everything else you do, not just your degree: work experience, employment, volunteering, soft skills such as communication, people skills, problem solving and being task-driven.
- Many job opportunities are ‘degree- and institution-blind’. This means you progress through the first few rounds based upon your situational judgement tests and task completion, and those are not degree-based. A Cambridge mathematics graduate might get knocked out in the first round.
- Studying on a course that you find interesting stimulates and grows the mind and provides overt and subtle transferable skills.
- Being at university is often a way to build social independence and confidence and can empower and inspire people to look outside their usual sphere of experience.
- University can also bring you into contact with people who widen your perceptions on life, breaking down barriers and prejudices, and that in turn makes you a better member of society.
- A high percentage of graduates do not use their degree subject in their graduate role.
- Some of the universities and courses on the low-value ‘hit list’ provide valuable higher education to people who do not want to, or cannot, be away from home, but who still want to study after they leave school and to gain a degree.
- There are many well-paid non-graduate jobs with fantastic prospects, meaning your degree doesn’t need to be a necessity for work to make it worthwhile.
Let me add some flesh to the bones with a couple of direct examples to illustrate some of these points. Two candidates, Person One having done economics at a top five university, living away at university; Person Two having done psychology at one of the newer universities, and living at home.
Person One, with amazing A-levels and a top degree, was struggling to find a job, and when I asked what they had done in their long breaks between university terms, they reeled off a long list of sports and leisure activities (tennis, skiing, other holidays and some voluntourism) but no evidence of anything tangible that could help them demonstrate their value to firms.
Person Two, with good-to-average A-levels and a degree from one on the ‘hit list’ of low-value courses, had walked into their graduate role a couple of months after leaving university. I asked the same question of this person, and they had, immediately on starting their first year at university, begun applying for Easter holiday placements and longer internships in the summer holidays – and they had continued to do so throughout their degree. They had also had a placement year as their third year of their course, in which they had a real job with a real company. So when it came to applying and being interviewed for roles, they were able to demonstrate, and give examples, drawn from their working internships as to what made them a good candidate.
There is no doubt that graduates from some degree subjects, when analysed statistically, generally earn more than others. Medicine, engineering, computer science et al all score very highly, helped by their vocational nature. But that is not to say (see the example above) that to study a creative arts, arts or social science degree should be a limiter.
I do believe that not everybody should be made to want to go to university. I think we need to banish any stigma around a type of education after school that is not university. It’s not for everyone, and no one should feel less successful for not having gone. It might be that what you want to do needs a different type of training. And that is all for the good in terms of a balanced, hardworking society where jobs get done properly by qualified people. If we want to look at a new funding model, let’s invest in making those routes for training desirable and give them meaningful equivalence.
Having constantly encouraged a much larger uptake of university places, successive governments have created an impression that it is the ultimate in academic achievement. It is not, necessarily, and
I’ve written elsewhere on the alternatives. It seems a bit of a shame, having encouraged mass participation in universities, to now pour cold water on what are some of the most fun, enhancing and engaging courses.
My advice would be to take a course if it’s right for you and matches your enthusiasms, regardless of the subject, but make sure you do everything in your power to build your employability and skillset while you’re doing it.
Anna Rogers is an independent universities adviser with over 20 years’ experience helping and guiding pupils to make excellent, effective university applications. She can be contacted via email: annalchrogers@hotmail.com; mobile: 07810 437089; or her website: