The Headlines
A false dream?
Is the UK's crack down on "rip-off degrees" solving the problem of return on investment?
The UK is cracking down against university courses which it considers to fail in delivering “good outcomes”. While some in the sector agree this will allow students to have a quality education they deserve, others question the core purpose of pursuing a degree.
By Seb Murray, Contributing Writer
Share this page
What is the purpose of a university degree? One answer is that it should enable students to access their desired profession, leading to career progression or further academic pursuits.
Another perspective underscores its contribution to personal development, intellectual maturity and life experiences. While many graduates find a blend of these aims, the fundamental purpose of a degree is now coming under scrutiny in the UK – a matter of great significance to students investing substantial sums in tuition fees.
Concerns over low graduate employment and high student-dropout rates have led the government to launch a crackdown in July on the higher education sector. Universities offering what the government has dubbed “rip-off degree courses” – those leading to low pay and high debt – are now under the threat of stringent regulatory control.
The Office for Students (OfS), which regulates higher education in England, has been told to implement measures curbing the enrolment of students into specific degree programmes. Alarming OfS statistics reveal that nearly 30 percent of students fail to transition to highly skilled employment or further education within 15 months of completing their degrees.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, has estimated that approximately one in five graduates might have been better off financially had they not pursued higher education.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s statement in July crystallised the government’s standpoint: “Too many young people are being sold a false dream and end up doing a poor-quality course at the taxpayers’ expense that doesn’t offer the prospect of a decent job at the end of it.”
"Students from all backgrounds deserve to be on good courses leading to qualifications which stand the test of time."
Concerns have been brewing for a while. Last year, the OfS announced its intention to scrutinise and potentially fine universities that provide degree programmes where fewer than 60 percent of students attain such “positive outcomes”. Nicola Dandridge, the regulator's Chief Executive, said these proposals marked a pivotal moment in tackling subpar higher education in England. “Students from all backgrounds deserve to be on good courses leading to qualifications which stand the test of time and prepare them well for life after graduation,” she said.
Michelle Donelan, former Higher and Further Education Minister and current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, went further. “Students deserve an education that will help them achieve their dreams, so we need to crack down on those universities that are not delivering this ambition,” she stressed. “Our university system is acclaimed as world class, but there are too many pockets of poor quality.”
She has a point. By the OfS’ numbers, 11,000 students across 62 universities and colleges did not achieve the 60 percent benchmark for favourable outcomes last year. For context, this figure represents only a small fraction of the total student population – approximately 2.8 million individuals enroled in around 30,000 courses across the UK, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency.
Attack on aspirations
Vivienne Stern, CEO of Universities UK, an organisation representing over 140 universities, cautioned against generalised statements. She highlighted the substantial benefits of attending university, both for individual students and the nation as a whole. “Overall, those who attend university are over £100,000 better off across their lifetime – even after taxes and student loan repayments are taken into account,” Stern said, adding that going to university decreases the gap between the most and least advantaged students.
Nonetheless, concerns over high drop-our rates persist, with the OfS saying it might impose fines on universities where less than 80 percent of students progress to their second year, or fewer than 75 percent successfully complete their qualification. These measures reflect a broader effort to enhance the quality and success of degree programmes.
"This is simply an attack on the aspirations of young people."
Parallel to these developments, Sunak disclosed a reduction in the maximum fee that universities can charge for classroom-based foundation courses, lowering it from £9,250 to £5,760. The government’s rationale is rooted in the observation that a significant number of young people are enroling in unnecessary foundation courses, particularly in fields like business.
Philip Augar, a businessman who conducted an assessment of post-18 education for the government, known as the Augar Review, told the media that such measures signal a strong message for universities to exercise control over their recruitment practices, as such actions may not always align with the best interests of students. “I hope the sector responds constructively,” he added.
Nonetheless, reactions to these reforms have been varied. Bridget Phillipson, the Shadow Education Secretary, expressed concern that regions with fewer graduate job opportunities could witness the creation of new obstacles to upward mobility. “This is simply an attack on the aspirations of young people and their families by a government that wants to reinforce the class ceiling, not smash it,” Phillipson said. These words have ignited deliberations about the financial viability of certain degree subjects, particularly the arts and humanities, and the overarching purpose of pursuing a university degree.
Arbitrary caps
While the government has not yet singled out any specific degree subjects that it’s targeting, data from the longitudinal educational outcomes (LEO) database show that graduates in subjects such as design, languages and creative arts have the lowest rates of transitioning into employment or further education. In contrast, those in nursing, midwifery, medicine and dentistry stand out for achieving the highest proportions of “positive outcomes”.
The LEO's findings reflect those put forth in the Augar review, which unveiled disparities in earnings between male graduates in creative arts, English and philosophy, compared to their non-degree-holding counterparts. However, Education Minister Robert Halfon refuted claims that the government’s latest measures target arts and humanities courses.
There are concerns the proposed changes might target arts and humanities courses
He told Times Radio in July: “We’re not saying that particular arts courses are going to have limits.” Instead, Halfon emphasised that the focus is on poor outcomes from degrees, irrespective of their field, with an ultimate aim to equip students with relevant professional skills.
“The fundamental purpose of university, of course apart from education and research, which are very important, is to get a good skill and again a good job at the end of it,” he added.
Yet Chloe Field, Vice-President for Higher Education at the National Union of Students UK, urged a more holistic approach when speaking to the press. She advocated for an emphasis on enhancing education quality across all disciplines, “instead of imposing arbitrary caps”.
Meanwhile, Polly Mackenzie, Chief Social Purpose Officer at the University of the Arts, London (UAL), raised questions about the government’s measurement of positive outcomes, highlighting the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach.
In a blog post, she emphasised the contribution of creative graduates to society. “Sculptors, painters, film producers, performers, designers; graduates like these tend not to be highly paid — early on, at least — but they make life more interesting and enjoyable for millions,” she said, adding: “To build a truly innovative economy, politicians must be open minded about the potential of a broad range of disciplines.”