If you are a registered HEi-know user, please log in to continue.
You must be a registered HEi-know user to access Briefing Reports, stories and other information and services. Please click on the link below to find out more about HEi-know.
Interventionism is suddenly all the rage with the Westminster Conservative government, and higher education is feeling the impact as new policies and legislation are brought to bear on the sector, writes Johnny Rich, Chief Executive of Push and of the Engineering Professors’ Council.
Mike Boxall, an independent researcher and consultant on higher education policies and strategies, and a senior adviser to PA Consulting, considers the emerging post-COVID world and its implications for the future of universities. His blog is based on a paper published recently by PA Consulting, and co-authored with its HE lead, Ian Matthias.
The Westminster government should wake up to the full potential of higher education to help it meet its ‘levelling up’ goals, argues Professor Martin Jones, Deputy Vice-Chancellor at Staffordshire University.
Jonathan Baldwin, managing director of higher education at Jisc, reflects on a week that’s felt the force of people power – and says it’s time for university leaders to respond to students’ calls for change.
Following last week's Institute for Fiscal Studies report on graduate earnings, John O'Leary, editor of The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide, examines the problems with using data on pay to compare universities.
Measuring graduate destinations six months after graduation probably made sense 50 years ago, when the big employers’ Milk Round provided enough options for every student who wanted a job to go straight into one from university. In an age when so many graduates start out in internships and most young people have several different jobs before they reach 30, the process has become an embarrassment.
Last week's report on graduate earnings by the Institute for Fiscal Studies may be the first step towards more useful information for university applicants. That is certainly what it was intended to be by David Willetts, who paved the way for the research as Universities Minister, knowing that it would create pressure for fuller disclosure.
The report contains few surprises – well-qualified students from affluent homes who take subjects like medicine or economics at leading universities earn a lot more than others. But by demonstrating the differences in average graduate earnings at Russell Group universities, it naturally begs questions about what the range would be at some of the rest. Jo Johnson, the current Universities Minister, has already promised to let us know as soon as the law allows.
Since the researchers have demonstrated that family background is as significant as the choice of university or subject, perhaps we shouldn’t care – but we will and so will ministers. The fact that average graduates in some subjects earn no more than those who went straight into work from school has already restarted the debate over so-called Mickey Mouse degrees.
Yet, as the report itself makes clear, comparing universities on the basis of graduate earnings is not as straightforward as it may seem (which is why they have never been used in league tables). In particular, regional differences in pay rates skew the picture. It is noticeable that four of the five Russell Group universities that opted out of the exercise are in areas of relatively low pay. Other universities outside London that attract a high proportion of local students will be affected even more.
The subject mix would be another huge factor if universities were to be judged on overall average earnings. At the extremes, having a medical school would be a considerable advantage, while large numbers in the creative arts would be bad news. The IFS report is careful not to provide overall figures in its institutional comparisons.
Of course, it is possible to allow for any differences, but ministers tend not to want to complicate such exercises because the figures lose their force. The Prime Minister has promised greater transparency, not complexity.
Ideally, the 10-year comparison would be based on categories of job rather than salaries, as the six-month snapshot is at the moment. It is the point at which that snapshot is taken that is unsatisfactory, not the currency of the comparison. A degree is not just a route to a big pay cheque and universities should not be incentivised to produce bankers rather than vicars.
The trouble is it would be vastly more complicated (or maybe impossible) to break down HMRC data by occupation. We may be stuck with salary data as the only available long-term information on graduate careers unless universities track their own graduates for much longer than at present.
© 2013 Media FHE, all rights reserved