50% student target key to a successful economic strategy

So, having used one sentence to bat away the AGR’s argument in its entirety, you simply restate your own broad-brushed case with the barest facade of supporting evidence.

OK, suppose the target is 100%; everyone has a degree – what sort of degree? who cares. The increased-expected-earnings statistics do exist, but are not shown here. Either the general level of skill and training in the workforce will have increased dramatically – which is completely, not to mention historically implausible – or the general worth of a degree must have fallen.

Just as now, while many degrees will carry a lot of weight with employers, other degrees will carry virtually none, and employers will simply choose other ways of determining aptitude. So the net result of pressing for quantity of graduates over quality may be to fool some students into making a potentially very expensive mistake.

RT @leftfootfwd: 50% student target key to a successful economic strategy: http://cli.gs/bbU8U

RT @susan_nash: RT @leftfootfwd: 50% student target key to a successful economic strategy: http://cli.gs/bbU8U

It is a complete joke that New Labour claims it cannot afford free education, while spending billions on murdering people around the world. It is all about priorities.

Restore free education!

This is a rather stupid article. Graduates per se will not necessarily contribute to the knowledge economy; having 50% of our population being experts in studying the media will not lead to economic growth. What Rayhan should’ve done is mention the various different models out there for determining what proportion of graduates qualify in particular subjects.

For example, the German government* determines the ratio of different types of degrees available to applicants for university places in any given year by consultation with business groups. The reason for this is the greater levels of information available to business groups about likely future employment activities compared to the nation’s 18-year-olds. Currently in the UK, the number of degree places available in a particular subject is to a large degree determined by demand from applicants. In both systems, the market determines what degrees are available, but under the German system the market participants have greater access to information, producing a more effective outcome.

*This is something I faintly recall, so may be wrong about the Germans, but sounds like a fairly sensible proposal.

Anon – please don’t fall off your chair but for once I agree with you wholeheartedly on this!

I have always been concerned by the obsession with getting 50% plus of young people in to University – I really do think it inflates degrees especially when you see the type of degrees people are taking & being offered these days, not to add some former FE type colleges having university status. It doesn’t help anyone especially those students who end up with massive student loans for a degree that just might get them a job in Starbucks. I think it was wring to merge Polys with Universities for the simple reason that they were 2 quite different beasts/personalities not for any ‘snobbish’ reason and they enjoyed as much respectablity as Universities and there were those polys that enjoyed good/bad reputations just like Universities did.

I would bring back student grants for all, reduce the targets and make University access based on stringent educational merit/achievement and nothing else irrespective of income/social status etc.

All this education inflation has resulted in the marginalisation & ‘airbrushing out’ of apprenticeships & trades which is now so apparent. These are things that Thatcher dismissed in her mission to make everyone feel that if they didn’t have a degree of some sort then they weren’t a proper or respectable human being and unfortunately Tony Blair continued where she left off.

Adam you describe my piece as ‘rather stupid’, yet you make an incredulous assertion that 50% of young people who go to University will study media. You are also wrong about graduates not necessarily boosting economic growth. The larger our graduate pool, the more competitive and stronger our labour market. It is an economic fact. Higher qualifications create a higher-skilled economy, attracting investment and trade.

You make a better point about businesses needing to have more of an input over the types of degrees offered at universities. The university of hertfordshire works very well with businesses and industries in developing their educational programmes. I agree we need more vocational style education like this. However, the prime purpose of universities and higher education are to be centre’s of academic excellence, to stretch and challenge the minds of students. They form the core for our nation’s research and innovation. Too much business influence can dilute this academic mission.

Liz, empirical evidence has demonstrated that bright individuals from poorer backgrounds who attend University but with slightly lower grades and marks than those from more privileged and affluent backgrounds do as well, if not better than them. It simply would not be socially fair or just for poorer individuals to be denied access to attend the best universities due to misfortune of birth.

Adam – I did not suggest at all that i proposed excluding people from poorer backgrounds at all in fact I was saying the opposite or at least meant to say the opposite!!!!!!!

University access should be based soley on educational achievement and having grants rather than loans will encourage people from less well off backgrounds on going on to do degrees rather than those from private/public school where financial access is not a problem irrespective of their educational attainment or ability.

I do not think it socially fair or responsible to encourage people to do ‘soft’ degrees at let’s say, weaker universities and be burdened with loans at the end of it. Educational attainment & ability is not purely based on income – although I do think private/public schools give their pupils an unfair advantage.

I hope this clarifies my position.

“The larger our graduate pool, the more competitive and stronger our labour market. It is an economic fact. Higher qualifications create a higher-skilled economy, attracting investment and trade.”

Rayhan, you’re blogging off the top of your head – this site is supposed to be evidence-based. Besides, if you cite economic terms, you should address this issue as an economist, in a methodical way. Where are the statistics on graduate earning premiums, grouped by degree? To what extent are the degrees actually improving labour productivity? What about international comparisons – to what extent are we attracting investment and trade in comparison to other countries? What about the value accruing to a degree simply reflecting its scarcity – and the *kind* of person that student is – rather than its economic benefit? And finally, if targets at all, why 50% and not 100%

RT @leftfootfwd: 50% student target key to a successful economic strategy http://cli.gs/bbU8U