BEST COMPANIES ONLY CONSIDER GRADUATES FROM SHORT LIST OF TOP UNIS, EXPERT ADMITS
Got a brilliant degree — but can’t find a decent job?
That could be because your university isn’t on the ‘golden’ list of institutions that the top recruiters like to hire graduates from, a social mobility expert has said.
Dr Lee Elliot Major, Research Director at the Sutton Trust, confirmed that the UK’s top employers only consider candidates from a short list of universities — and that list has reduced further in the recession. He said:
“We know that many of the big companies — the big recruiters — have increasingly small lists of universities from whom they pick potential employees.”
When asked whether this was a known fact that the people recruiting for professional jobs only look at these top employees, he said:
“There are some signs that in the current recession, recruiters are actually shortening their university list.
“So for this particular generation coming out of university now, it’s an even bigger issue.”
In other words, employers were always picky – and now they’re getting pickier.
That a snobbery exists among recruiters isn’t news — we all know that bosses love to boast about their new Oxbridge hire. But hearing it confirmed by an expert in social mobility is shocking and significant.
We have no way of knowing exactly which universities are on this ‘golden list’. But we can be pretty sure who is likely to be – and who is unlikely to be.
Are now admitting publicly that graduates from less prestigious universities will NEVER be considered by these employers, no matter how good their grades?
Because if so…
…doesn’t anybody think that this is information that young people have the right to know BEFORE they sign up to do expensive degrees that have questionable value (or no value) on the job market?
Of course, the universities will keep this story nice and quiet, as they are still desperate to get ‘bums on seats’ in order for those students to keep paying expensive fees towards keeping them in work.
(How these people continue to peddle the hokey image of themselves as earnest and sincere, I just don’t know. How they sleep at night is another question that leaves me baffled.).
And schools are also unlikely to share this information with their sixth form pupils. A falling rate of pupils going to university looks very bad on the schools’ league tables.
Bloody hell, am I the only person who thinks that allowing another generation of bright, ambitious, hopeful young people to sign up to tens of thousands of pounds of debt for a degree that may well turn out to be worthless is kind of WRONG??
Then again, those who don’t go to university are likely to be jobless for longer than those who do. But they’re not in all that debt.
We need an alternative to university – and we need it fast. That this daylight robbery is this best option for young people in this country is a disgrace and a tragedy.
“We have no way of knowing exactly which universities are on this ‘golden list”
This is the very frustrating fact about this article. I think everyone wants to know if they’re on it!
@Nick – Sorry you were disappointed – I didnt’ mean to mislead you. I’m afraid I don’t have access to the list! Nobody does – that’s the whole point! Don’t you think we SHOULD though?? You guys are spending thousands of pounds here – don’t you feel you have the right to better information about what your degree is WORTH?
I agree that it’s bad but you’re over reacting a little. These ‘top employers’ are not the main employers of graduates. So while it’s disgraceful (and short sighted) of those employers to only be recruiting from selected universities it certainly doesn’t mean that degrees from other institutions will be worthless. Those degrees will still be valued by SMEs for example and other companies/ organisations who don’t run traditional, big grad schemes.
It’s important here to put the blame where it belongs; with the prejudiced employers and not with universities. As you say, many don’t know who’s on the golden list so they aren’t misleading potential students when recruiting.
@Ros
I take your point about SMEs – and I agree that they probably are more open-minded about where a graduate’s degree is from. (Graduates, is this your experience?)
However, the fact remains that a LOT of young people are investing a LOT of money on the understanding that a good degree will allow them to compete with their peers from the best universities, for the best (and best PAID) jobs around. If this is not the case, I think schools and universities have a duty to make this clear before they take thousands of pounds from their pocket. I disagree that I am ‘over reacting’ on this point. I think what universities are doing is outrageous and I will continue to campaign for graduates to be given a fairer deal (and clearer information about what they’re ‘buying’ with the enormous (and increasing) fees they are being charged.
I also think that it is not made clear to them that there is a clear conflict of interest here. Like everybody, university staff want to hang on to their jobs – of course they do. But that does not excuse what is happening here, on a national scale. Which is the nationwide conning of hundreds of thousands of young people out of thousands of pounds of their own money.
Also, I’m guessing that many employers would say that they aren’t ‘prejudiced’ – they’d just say that it’s a buyer’s market at the moment. In a recession, when good graduate jobs are thin on the ground, they can afford to be picky – and, yes, snobby.
I’m aiming for a career in PR and I often don’t bother with some applications when I read this: “a degree from a good University is essential.”
Employers covertly discriminate aganist students and graduates, yet motivate us all to go to university. This golden list should definitely be published so that students become aware of the disadvantages of a university education. Also this week national apprenticeship week so there could not be a more fitting time.
@Kahil
You’ve spent the same amount on your degree as those fellow graduates you say you can’t compete with. Do you feel like you’ve been conned – or is that too strong?
I get your point but they are being prejudiced. They are not being picky; that would mean they searched widely for the very best graduates. Restricting themselves with snobbery is lazy rather than picky.
I see your point, but I think you’re presuming that university staff A. Know they’re not on “the golden list”; and B. Are setting out to deliberately mislead. Most university staff are just like everyone else, wanting to go to work and have a reasonably normal life, so don’t blame the staff. Few people in the university workplace have ANY kind of decision-making authority, or even ability to influence change – even middle and senior management are somewhat paralysed.
Are you suggesting that universities that are low on the league tables should stop recruiting?
I’d also like to point out that universities should not just be there to churn out employees. Is it not also valid that universities produce educated citizens?
However, this is all going to be resolved one way or another anyway, as many universities are being gutted – staff made redundant, and courses slashed. Just as bad, research is getting slashed, which is soon going to be limited to the Oxbridge set as well. It’s all pointing to only the elite getting an education and the same elite getting those jobs.
Conned is not too strong, the suggestion that top jobs are available to everyone is a lie and something needs to be done before tuition fees go up.
@Ros
For the record, I agree with you! Lazy recruiters are one of my pet peeves. They use a similar argument about internships: “If people don’t do unpaid internships, how are we supposed to identify the best candidates for the job?” Er, isn’t that your job, to spot POTENTIAL?!
@AFarrington
Sorry, but I’m not having this! If they don’t know that their graduates aren’t being considered for the best jobs, then they damned well should do. Ignorance is no excuse. As for my suggestion that they deliberatly mislead their students, I don’t feel that’s wide of the mark either. If they claim not to know the truth about this, they are deliberately ignoring it.
Again, this is absolutely no excuse. If they are so desperate to get their voices heard so that those with any power can change things, why aren’t I hearing about it? From where I’m sitting, if they are speaking up, they’re not doing it publicly.
That’s one option, yes. I think we need to ask serious questions about why these kids (because they are kids at 17) are signing up to university when it isn’t going to help them get a job. Was it a mistake encouraging so many of them to go to university? Should we have kept the numbers small, but looked at ways to widen access to kids from all backgrounds?
Universities are out of touch on this one. Right or wrong, in 2011 most kids go to uni because they think it will get them a better (or better paid) job at the end of it. Education for the sake of education is a noble idea, but it is not what they are paying thousands of pounds for.
While this is obviously tough for those made redundant, I’m afraid we cannot have a situation where we continue to rob our young people of thousands of pounds just to keep university staff in jobs. As for research, as I’ve written before on this blog, I do not believe that it is young people’s responsibility to pay for academic research. Sorry. Can’t universities ask business to help with this?
Hole in uni funding is not students’ problem
Despite all our differences (above), please believe this is NOT what I want! So we agree on something at least! : )
@Kahil
I hope @AFarrington has read and noted your comments! I’m really not the only one thinking this stuff, folks…
@ Tanya
Don’t worry Tanya, the article is interesting enough to make me overlook my disappointment
I think that this situation only applies to a minority of employers in a limited number of fields, namely business and banking. I know for a fact that a lot of groups have promotional deals and specific sponsorship deals with a pool of universities. Is that unfair? Probably, but it is appropriate for them to target places that they know produce good graduates.
Is there anything stopping a graduate from a non ‘golden list’ university applying for a job with one of these companies? Not really, they will just need to have other things that stand out on the CV – the relevant experience and skills.
I think this problem is perhaps that some employers have become parochial in their selection and given automated CV screening this has only gotten worse. Before, someone in a relevant position would actually READ the application of a student to see how it matched what they wanted. Now if someone types in their uni’s name a computer can send a rejection if it is not on the ‘golden list’ –that is where the problem potentially lies. But if the employer has a big enough applicant pool from these top uni’s (and THEY DO) it doesn’t matter to them — which is shameful!
A further distinction this article requires is with courses — going to Oxford or Cambridge does not guarantee you a decent job, particularly if your subject is arts based. This ‘golden list’ if it ever existed is one of subject and university, not just university. I am confident that my uni IS a ‘golden list’ uni, but my degree probably isn’t on there.
@Nick
You’re right – this expert doesn’t specify which industries he’s talking about. But I took these quotes from the brilliant BBC2 documentary ‘Who gets the best jobs?’, in which they were discussion access to ‘the professions’, which seemed to include finance, law, medicine, journalism, pr, marketing etc. So I think it is a problem on a bigger scale than just affecting a few City firms.
Also, on your point:
… of course there’s nothing to stop grads from less prestigious unis from applying for these jobs, but if this expert is saying that recrutiers won’t even look at their application because of where they studied, is there any point?
Do people think that a good degree will allow them to compete with their peers from the best universities, for the best (and best PAID) jobs around?
I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that all universities are equal. For a start there are fairly detailed university league tables which rank all the universities. Then there are respected organisations like the Russell Group which highlight – in their words – “the 20 leading UK universities”.
I would suggest that the universities on this ‘golden list’ were probably the Russell Group universities (+ Durham). If the list is being shortened then knock off the bottom 5 (10?) universities from the Russell Group and that will give you a rough indication of which universities this ‘golden list’ includes.
It’s important to know though that this ‘golden list’ certainly not a criteria for all graduate employers, in fact not even the majority, so there is still value in going to a university which doesn’t make this list.
My own personal opinion is that these recruiters are missing out on lots of talent by ignoring people from certain universities. Unfortunately, the recruitment process is by no means perfect and is in dire need of updating. These companies complain about a lack of graduate talent, but perhaps they need to review their own recruiting techniques before they start criticising graduates.
I came across Graduate Fog the other day and have been reading all blog posts with much gusto. It’s great to see someone championing for graduates and interns. Just wish I had heard about the site when I graduated two years ago!
At the moment graduates and even first time salary earners like myself are getting such a tough deal. I do believe that a concerning amount of young people do go to University as a natural progression after college and don’t neccessary apply themselves to it beyond the social lifestyle. But those who do focus on their studies and believe a degree will make them a more attractive to potential employers are kidding themselves.
I left uni with a journalism degree, but all I was ever asked about during interviews was my ‘experience’.
As a result I worked as an intern for 6 months to gain the vital ‘experience’ needed. Degrees are essential for scientists, doctors and so on but more people need to take vocational courses that will put them in good stead for the future. I wish I had known that and saved myself six months of working all hours and unpaid.
Apologies that I am not really on topic, but great post.
Thanks
Tanya,
While I agree with your fundamental point (i.e. that more information should be given to young people BEFORE they start their degrees), I’m not sure it’s automatically ‘disgraceful’ (not your word) for some employers to pre-screen based on an applicant’s alma mater.
You say, “…graduates from less prestigious universities will NEVER be considered by these employers, no matter how good their grades” but I don’t think ANYONE can really defend the view that a 1st from Oxford (say) is the equivalent of a 1st in the same subject from a new university. Surely the applicant from Oxford has got better grades in virtue of the fact they got it from Oxford, even though the actual ‘grade’ (i.e. 1st) is the same.
Disclaimer: I did not go to Oxbridge (didn’t apply), but I did do a lot of research to select a university which I thought was excellent for my course and had a decent reputation, and then I worked hard to get in and I sure as hell worked hard once I was in there for my grades. I’m not denying that young people have been sold a lie, but the information is out there for them to find if they want to and I’m not sure that whining “we weren’t told we had to study a prestigious course at a prestigious uni!” is going to help the cause. What, did you really think studying a non-prestigious course at a non-prestigious uni was going to land you a prestigious City job?
I hope I’m not being too offensive here, but hopefully you can see what I’m saying. I am 100% on-board with your penultimate sentence… we DO need a decent alternative to university.
@Ayesha
I didn’t say this was disgraceful – as I said, i’m not in the slightest bit surprised that the top employers are total snobs about where there applicants have been to uni! My beef (!) is with the universities – and schools – who are taking students’ money while conveniently skating over the fact that in a lot of cases, what these young people are buying is worthless. They are concealing their own agendas for getting young people to sign up for degree courses. And as I say, students are only 17 when they sign up for uni, which is not old enough to vote. Don’t you agree that this is ethically questionable, to say the least?
You say:
Yes, actually, they did. It is shocking how little research young people do before going to uni – and how blindly they follow the advice of those who are supposed to be dispensing good advice. And where is this information out there about how prestigious your university is? How easy is it to find it? It’s very, very difficult – and there’s a good reason for that. It’s in nobody’s interest (other than yours) to tell you the truth about how little your expensive degree is actually ‘worth’. I wouldn’t have a clue how to find out who valuable a degree from the University of Hertfordshire / Wolverhampton etc is. And as you say, it varies from subject to subject.
Employers will always be snobs. But universities and schools should know better than selling young people a lie, because it suits their own agenda and keeps them in jobs.
@Ayesha
Also, it’s a common misconception among school-leavers that there is some kind of correlation between the number of places available on courses and the number of jobs available in that industry on graduation. If you don’t believe me, you only have to see what’s happening with media graduates, where we have FAR too many media graduates scrambling for a pitiful number of paid, junior jobs in that industry:
Are there too many media graduates?
Do you think all these young people are idiots? Or victims of taking some really bad advice from people who should have been helping them?
@Stacey
Thanks for sharing your views – and glad you like Graduate Fog! If you’d looked for this site 2 years ago, you wouldn’t have found it because it didn’t exist! But welcome to Graduate Fog – and do visit again soon!
So did your internships actually lead to paid work? Well done – you’re in the minority!
@Ben
I agree that this isn’t news that employers are snobbish about degrees – i just think this should be made clearer to young people BEFORE they sign up to expensive degrees that turn out to be almost worthless on the job market. That’s just THEFT!
Tanya, regardless of all we’ve debated, I think we can agree that until this ‘golden list’ is available for everyone — university staff and students alike — then NO ONE can make proper decisions.
Saying that the front-line staff at universities ‘should know’ and are therefore to blame is unrealistic. Do you realise that the recruitment teams at many universities are staffed by people who don’t have degrees themselves and earn well below the average salary? That many of them are in the same kind of role as people in Job Centres, often working without proper guidance or information? Yes, it should change, yes, it should be improved, yes, universities have a lot of change to bring about; but aim the blame from the top down. You don’t go charging into a City investment office barking at the receptionist about the failings of the economy, do you?
@Farrington
I see what you mean – and I agree with you to some extent – although I suspect some uni careers advisers might find it a teensy bit insulting to be likened to receptionists, when most of them have several qualifications and lots of experience in careers advice (but i’ll leave it to them to make this point!)
However, if you’re saying that none of these staff have any power to bring about any change, then I’m not sure where this leaves us. Are you suggesting that I go and knock on the door of every university chancellor in the land to ask why they aren’t being clearer with their prospective students about what their degree will and won’t be worth?
I’m confused – why has this suddenly become MY responsibility to do this? Please remember that I’m unpaid for my time, whereas all these careers people ARE paid – and mostly a reasonable salary. This is THEIR industry, and if they aren’t happy with what’s happening, they should do something about it. What I’m suggesting is that careers advisers – who presumably number an army of several thousand in the UK? – can do an awful lot more than I can. I’m very happy to shout about this, pick fights with people and draw attention to these issues – but it is not my (unpaid) job to audit these universities and hold them to account over their behaviour.
Tanya – I think the reason that people are getting angry with you over this is because so many people complain about these things (as they have complained about unpaid internships) and you’ve shown in the past that you’re more than willing to jump in and fight your corner on it. Publishing a damning article with an inflammatory headline will naturally prompt this response from readers that are used to how you normally construct these pieces.
Plus, this fear of companies recruiting from top industries is exactly the kind of alarmist propaganda that’s causing these pieces – if the knowledge that PWC or Unilever hire from your uni is the sole reason for your attendance, maybe you should save your money.
In other news…just noticed your point about lazy recruiters – I got sent a CV at work for an intern post we’re hiring for. The internship spec required the intern to have knowledge of a certain computer programme as standard. Said CV did not demonstrate this. I emailed the recruiter asking if the candidate had this knowledge. The recruiter replied, saying the candidate did but had left it off as she hadn’t used it in a while.
I always thought it was in the best interests of a recruiter to encourage graduates to put EVERY useful skill they have on their CV, to increase the chances of employment?
I told the recruiter this, though in slightly more polite terms. She hasn’t replied….:)
Incidentally, guess which agency that was?
It’s not just universities that are too busy to pay attention to who they get on their books.
@RedHeadFashionista
Do you mean that because of all my work following up outrageous internship stories, Graduate Fog’s users now expect me to challenge the entire university system too?! Good lord, what have i DONE?!?
Of course, if i had a whole team of unpaid interns working for me at Graduate Fog, we could take on the world! ; ) But I’ve tried working with universities before and can tell you that it’s a NIGHTMARE. It would be a case of changing each person’s mind one by one. It would be a full-time job – and it wouldn’t work. What would I be campaigning for – bad universities to close??
Any other ideas about what we can do to solve this complicated problem? I’m still hoping to interview AGCAS’s president Anne-Marie Martin, so that could be a good start… (Although she’s suddenly ignoring my emails about this interview – cold feet?)
Ummmmm… I’m not sure what you’re talking about re: monitoring universities. I said you as a collective “you”, not “you, Tanya”. Why would anyone think you (Tanya) should knock on anyone’s door to audit a university? Now I’m confused.
Can you explain why anyone would be (possibly) offended to be likened to a receptionist? What’s wrong with being a receptionist? They provide important services to a company and require a lot of specialist information, just like recruitment staff. I think it’s quite insulting to receptionists to suggest that anyone would be offended to be likened to them!
It doesn’t matter how many qualifications a person has in any role. If they’re not informed, they cannot perform, and they in turn provide a disservice. Again, we need to aim the blame from the top of the chain of command, not at the front line. But I agree that if ANYONE misleads students knowingly, then no excuses, no second chances, they should be sacked.
And if you (again, collective you, not you Tanya) think front-line university staff have any power to create change institutionally, then you aren’t aware of the massive beaurocracy in most universities. This should be the first thing to go and is definitely the bigger problem that is probably causing the biggest disservice to students.
Tanya – of course not! There are government funding cuts for that sort of thing! 🙂
Ha – exactly!
But seriously, who IS going to sort this mess? Boy, I really do need a generous benefactor… Any ideas?
I don’t think this is a revelation to anyone, really. I was definitely aware when applying to university that some were considered better than others, which naturally translates to employers seeing some as better than others. I recall being told, directly, that subject didn’t matter so much if I was unsure – the target was a 2:1 degree from as prestigious a university as I could gain entry to, and that’d be enough to set me apart from most people. It wouldn’t guarantee a job by any means, but it’d be the right start.
And with this in mind I think it is entirely natural for recruiters to aim for efficiency by shortlisting based on institution, especially where they have hundreds and hundreds of applications. All universities can do about this is try to get themselves up the rankings and improve their reputation (in my experience they spend a lot of time and effort doing this). It’d be nice if employers had the time and inclination to examine every application closely, but in reality they don’t/won’t. That isn’t the fault of the university, and I don’t think they should be expected to tell people that, especially given that it is somewhat nebulous anyhow.
Besides which all universities are required to – and do – provide statistics. Why not look at those? Here’s one easy, government sanctioned, starting place: http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/ It’s not perfect (these things never are, too many externalities), but it’ll help. So, for example, maths at Nottingham University – 68% with graduate job. At Nottingham Trent – 40%. It’s hard to translate that into whether it’s worth going, of course, as much of that relies on you personally. But you can get an idea of where it ranks comparatively and how employers view it.
It’s not like this sort of information isn’t widely, publicly available. There are league tables for that sort of thing, and they aren’t in short supply or top secret. Institutions with higher average acceptance rates are perceived as being more likely to foster and encourage that greater ability. There are exceptions, where lower tier universities are regarded by employers as exceptional for particular degree, but the entry requirements will tend to reflect that.
I appreciate that university results don’t necessarily equate to ability for any one career, but they’re the commonly adopted measure for many employers. it’s not necessarily fair, but it’s not a shock. Look at league tables when you apply, they’re pretty indicative (particularly the more conservative ones that weight perception over student experience). Look at graduate employment rates. Even look at RAE – not everyone’s priority but arguably indicative of an institution’s perceived worth.
@Lauren
Well done on sniffing out all this info about courses – you’re clearly better informed than most people. However, you say:
…but I wonder how many sixth-formers know about these sources of information and analyse them thoroughly before making decisions about where to study – or even whether to go to uni at all?
Also, like you, I’m not convinced about the employability stats. We might know these grads are employed, but what are they employed doing? And are those doing unpaid internships classed as being ’employed’ or ‘unemployed’? We all know how easy it is to massage and manipulate stats. I’d suggest that most grads just use the university prospectus as their guide for what’s a good course and what isnt’ – not registering the fact that the booklet is a marketing tool produced by the university which is trying to sell them the course. It’s not an independent reference book.
If sixth formers are reading all this information, why are these universities managing to fill spaces on courses where the rate of grads finding work is only 40%? I wouldn’t spend 27k on a course with those stats…
I’m conscious that some of what I’m saying might come across as patronising – and lots of grads did do their homework before choosing their course. But from what most grads tell me, the diligent types are a tiny minority. Most fully admit that they were naive and didn’t think it through at all. To which I say “Of course you were naive – you were 17 when you mad this decision, and you trusted the advice of those around you!” I know sixth formers aren’t stupid, but they simply aren’t clued up enough about the scale of the decision they are about to make. It’s not their fault – but I’m afraid it’s a fact.
Well, those particular stats say “hired in graduate level jobs”, and presumably that’s self-defined, which is in my view a decent way to do it as it would mean students who felt they weren’t in a grad level job would be able to express that. No definitions are given, but they really need to be taken as indicative whatever the case and are probably best only used in comparison with other values within the same dataset. For example, physics at Oxford only has an 85% rate and I suspect that might disinclude, for example, those who take higher level degrees. And of course the sample is skewed as it includes only those who reply to the survey, I believe. But it’s a decent indicator as to how well regarded a university is. League tables make the comparison easier, obviously, and some of the online ones are very easy to manipulate.
And universities should be allowed to market themselves, that’s an acceptable part of the system that can’t really be removed. It’s up to the student to look for outside sources. I really think at 17, people are capable of being smart consumers. They’re spending thousands of pounds, after all. Would you buy a car based entirely on the advertising? Most people – teenagers included – read reviews before they go to movies, buy books, etc. I’d certainly not buy an education on the provider’s word alone and I think I was smart enough at 17 to realise this. If I hadn’t been, I would have struggled with a degree! League tables are easily available from newspapers, on the internet and in books, and whilst not perfect, they remain useful.
So why do people buy degrees from universities that aren’t as attractive to employers, particularly in recession? I don’t want to sound too judgemental, but looking at it purely rationally, being underinformed is part of it. Whose fault that is can be debated, but in my view they should at the very least be looking at league tables, really. The fact that the cost is, to some extent, one placed in the future will also change their perceptions as consumers. Finally, peer/parental pressure and societal expectations are probably a big part of it. These might shift as perceptions of the value of a university education adjust.
I’d also add that if people are looking at prospectuses in the first place, I’d reckon that there’s a reasonable chance that they intend to go somewhere. I don’t think anyone’s sold on the concept of university or not on a prospectus or marketing. They are generally dull. If anything, they’ll be sold on the student lifestyle by the media as a whole, not even a particular institution. The idea of three years of living away from home (possibly), studying with plenty of cheap drinking and without having to worry about debt till the end are clearly a huge part of the appeal and I think noone should be pretending it isn’t. I think the hangover of the idea of what a student is (cheap living, drinking, work when you get close to deadline) from the days when degrees were financed by government still exists – and every teenager wants in on the rite of passage. Problem is, then only 5% or so were doing it, and often with grants and so they could leave without worry knowing they were still ahead of the game. Today’s graduates are entering a market with the same expectations – only difference is, there’s thousands of them.
“Of course, if i had a whole team of unpaid interns working for me at Graduate Fog, we could take on the world!”
Tanya, if it wouldn’t be totally against what your site stands for – I’d gladly take an unpaid internship at graduate fog!
AS Sir Humphery Appleby in “Yes Minister” put it when ranting about protecting the British way of life.
“Our great universities.Both of them!”
A Farrington said “I’d also like to point out that universities should not just be there to churn out employees. Is it not also valid that universities produce educated citizens?” With the amount it costs to go to university and the student loans graduates have to pay back, education for the sake of education is a bad idea when graduates have spent so much money and may get into serious debt because they are unemployed and struggling financially because their degree does not help them to get a job. Do you think education for the sake of education is a good idea for the graduates who spend a long time unemployed and being at the jobcentre?
@Grad26
I agree – There are still all sorts of reasons why young people go to university (I’m actually surprised by how many still say they go for the social aspect, the chance to live away from home etc) but I would say that in general the primary reason has shifted in the last few years – and they now see it much more as a financial investment that will ‘pay back’ with a good (ie well paying) job in the long-term. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have told the professors this – so we’re seeing a very clear clash of ideas about what university is for!
I wrote about this for the Guardian a while ago –
Graduates – a problem in four parts / Tanya de Grunwald
…and I’m more convinced now than ever that the key to this mess is reaching an agreement on what university is actually for – because at the moment all the different groups involved (students, universities, employers, schools, parents and MPs) seem to have very different ideas. And it’s the students / grads who are picking up the bill for this catastrophic communication breakdown.
@Lauren
I think you raise an interesting point about graduates being smart consumers in many senses (reading movie reviews etc). I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks. My concern is that 17 is actually still really young to be making such a huge decision about such a huge amount of money and if schools and parents – and indeed politicians – are telling sixth formers that uni is a the best (and only?) way to a good job in the future, this is likely to skew their ability to make a rational decision…
What does everyone else think?
The problem then is, at what age do we decide individuals are old enough to make this sort of decision? The obvious comparison being that people can legally reproduce at 16. Even if it were established that 17 were too young, what would be the alternate option? It can’t really be delayed, so the only alternate is fully funded education to remove the cost issue. Which is a whole different kettle of fish and, again, not the fault of universities.
I’d agree that it is hard for individuals to make rational decisions at this point – I’d argue, though, that the lure of three exciting years away from home and parental/peer expectations are more of a distraction than university marketing and politicians. Even at a school which was big on university attendance targets, had my parents really insisted university wasn’t a good idea I would likely not have gone, not least because like many students I needed some parental support, even simply in making the physical move there.
Whilst I don’t think that this is by any means an efficient market, blaming the universities seems rather strange. They are responding to a market constructed by politicians in the way in which they have to in order to continue to exist. I think you’re right that the role of the university needs further defining, but it’s not their fault that they are being asked to fulfil a confused role in a market that could use some clarification. To admonish them for not advertising their own shortcomings – which would be a rather self-destructive move given the nature of the system – seems rather unfair.
I think that schools (sixth forms and colleges) need to be more open with students when they’re applying for places at university. I’ve seen teachers recommend low-tier universities to students whilst promising that it will help towards landing them a job in investment banking/ the city. Furthermore, universities need to be clearer to students i.e. many of the low tier institutions claim that they have a 100% pass rate but omit to mention that these are for low-paid/ low skilled jobs. It’s also down to students to do research themselves and find out which universities are respected/ well regarded both overall and in their target disciplines.
I feel there is a huge amount of poor guidence and false hope given out by schools, recruitment agencies, the government and universities themselves. It’s unfortunate that people are unfortunately led to believe that any degree from any institution will automatically lead to a good job when in many cases its not true.
Blaming employers for being biased is harsh. At the end of the day the top employers want the brightest graduates. The harsh truth is that these bright minds will generally come from the top tier universities(after all they are the hardest institutions to get into requiring top academic grades from GCSE up).
One solution is to dispense honest advice to students, though this would of course end up sinking many lower ranked universities(which the government wouldn’t accept, after all keeping the unemployment level low by having more people at university is in their interests), or more radically for the government to simply pull the plug on the lower tier universities(this may happen anyway with the tuition fee raise)
Otherwise its such a shame for now that people wonder aimlessly into courses believing they will end up with a fantastic job at the end, only to end up with huge debts in jobs which never needed a degree.
@Daniel O’Connor
I agree with you – it’s a scandal that young people are not being better informed about what a degree will (and won’t) ‘buy’ them. After all, most make this decision aged 17, which isn’t old enough to vote. At this age, do young people really understand the scale of the debt they will be taking on – and what value their degree will actually have on the job market? In too many cases, I fear they don’t.
Again, I agree 100%!
Ditto. What was your experience of your university careers service?
I almost agree! One of the great tragedies of encouraging so many young people to go to university is that it has now created a situation where you do need a job to do jobs that never previously needed a degree. Yes, it’s tough for those with degrees, but from what I’m hearing it’s even tougher for those without degrees, who are now lucky they’ll even be considered even for junior admin roles. Because so many people have a degree nowadays, you need to have a degree to even stand a chance of being considered for jobs that never previously required one. Then again, those without degrees don’t have that huge debt that graduates have…
“I almost agree! One of the great tragedies of encouraging so many young people to go to university is that it has now created a situation where you do need a job to do jobs that never previously needed a degree. Yes, it’s tough for those with degrees, but from what I’m hearing it’s even tougher for those without degrees, who are now lucky they’ll even be considered even for junior admin roles. Because so many people have a degree nowadays, you need to have a degree to even stand a chance of being considered for jobs that never previously required one. Then again, those without degrees don’t have that huge debt that graduates have…”
I agree completely that the knock on effect is that its now even harder to get into say admin roles for those who don’t have a degree. I feel that in itself is evidence that there are simply too many graduates (an interesting stat is that in 2009 33% of grads were in non graduate level jobs five years after graduation http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article5488978.ece).
Another benefit of those without degrees is the value of three years of work experience or employment, which as you say is financially beneficial through saving on fees and earnings but can also look excellent and better on a CV in itself!
I was fortunate to have gone to a top university which has led me to a graduate job. However some of my friends who graduated elsewhere are beginning to regret having taken their degree, having seen few benefits, despite the promises of jam tomorrow from teachers, governments and universities themselves.It’s such a shame.
I hope the tuition fee rise will at least make people better research their prospects, rather than going in under false impressions…
@Tanya de Grunwald
In addition to the above, what do you think is the solution to people being forced to making choices so young?- increase the age limit of schools?- which is surely out of the question with all the funding required for that among other things
– maybe an idea is to change the structure so that the choices made by young people of say whether to go to university or not don’t have such deep repercussions?. At the moment if you are doing a degree and quit I beleive you leave with nothing formally recognised by employers. However introducing a system where at the end of each university year you are awarded a formal qualification would at least give people the chance to quit and change their minds on such a big decision without sacrificing everything they have done on their degree up to that point.
Do you have the actual interview for that Dennis? I would love to hear exactly what Matt said.
I totally agree. My undergraduate degree was from the University of Sussex and the Masters that I just finished is from the University of Birmingham. I went for an interview and my interviewer was asking me about the previous things I’d done. I mentioned that I had interned (!) at the Department of Education and his first comment was:
‘Really? But you didn’t go to that sort of university’
I was surprised more for the act that he actually said it to my face. And it’s such a loaded statement? ‘sort of’ I guess it goes with what’s being said, there IS a golden list and I’m pretty sure it’s the top tier redbrick. (Oxbridge, Durham, UCL, LSE, Kings, Warwick and at a push Exeter). I think it’s awful.
We’re told to get a degree and go to university but now there are ‘right’ universities to go to, otherwise you can forget about getting a job. And nevermind that these ‘top-tier’ universities have ‘special relationships’ (of course they exist) with a lot of recruiters, so a lot of students know they’ll have a slight edge over others on getting a job.
Personally, I think there should be more positive emphasis on skills. Electrician’s, plumbers, nurses, things that hold society together, because how many lawyers b(w)ankers to we need? Seriously how many? And more companies should offer PAID apprentice-ships for budding engineers. They have a system in Europe where kids are streamed according to their talents. I’m not saying it’s perfect but there is an equal value placed on the baker as there is the meteorologist, which is utterly lacking in British society.
Tanya, I know it’s late to comment on this article, but I couldn’t help feeling angry over your anger. You’re suggesting that poor sixth form students are duped by those around them into thinking that non-prestigious courses and non-prestigious institutions will secure them prestigious jobs. I seriously doubt that any intelligent sixth form pupil could take that idea seriously, if that were indeed what they were being told. We all know that you stand a better chance of gaining employment with a good degree. It is far from difficult to find out which courses and institutions are the most prestigious and have the best rates of graduate employment. If students are so naive and short-sighted that they lack the commitment to get some idea of these facts, then I don’t think it’s unwise of employers not to want to employ these graduates. If you decide to go to university to spend three years drinking and living away from home rather than because you’re interested in a subject and want to work hard, it’s no surprise that you’re not going to look hugely appealing to potential employers.
Equally, you seem to think that people who have done degrees at lower ranking institutions are entitled to jobs, and entitled to be considered on an equal footing with those who have attended the top institutions. Why so? People at the top institutions work harder, and have worked harder in the past to gain entrance to those institutions. Comparing a 2:1 from Cambridge to a 2:1 from Stoke on Trent just isn’t fair. The Cambridge grad will have worked far harder and had to demonstrate far more ability to earn that grade. There’s no point pretending that everyone is equal in ability. They just aren’t. If you went to university for a laugh and couldn’t be bothered to do a bit of research, it’s no surprise that you can’t find a job now. No one seriously thinks you can get a job in media just by having a media degree from any university do they? I was always aware throughout school that media jobs were incredibly difficult to get, required a very good degree (not in media) and a lot of experience. I don’t think I was the only one made aware of this fact.