University education does not benefit the economy.

Economically marketable skills benefit the economy.

We do not expand those economically marketable skills. We expand useless skills "Media Studies".

Twas ever thus. Some graduates picked jobs, some couldn't get jobs, and the main driver was not the person but the subject.

I would reckon most of the expansion is either in useless (economically) subjects or low-quality skill subjects. There's a reason public sector IT work is almost entirely a mess,

Simple economics would tell us that you can't increase the number of highly paid jobs in the economy without increasing the production to match.

(Unless you do it via tax and useless non-jobs of course)

Posted by: Paul at June 7, 2005 09:31 AM

It would be interesting to know if the premium for graduates at top universities has fallen in line with the premium for all graduates. The issue is that there may still be point in going to university and incurring all that debt but only if you get into one of the elite institutions like Oxford or Edinburgh.

Posted by: Bishop Hill at June 7, 2005 01:48 PM

If expansion of higher education was just because it was thought that more media studies graduates = more wealth for the country then such stupidity, particularly as demonstrated by our ruling elite, would take my breath away. In fact, whilst attributing stupidity to the motives of Nulabour is often a safe bet, perhaps a combination if cynicism and ideology rather than ineptitude applies in this case.
You may remember debates in the last decade concerning rising youth unemployment. We don't hear so much these days because the majority of school leavers automatically go into further education. You might think that this would have only given the politicians tempory relief, just transfering the problem 3 years down the road when the students eventually hit the jobs market, but rising numbers entering further education every year has sustained the "Nulabour employment effect".
Furthermore, when those that can't manage shelf stacking or burger flipping do eventually hit the unemployment statistics I suspect that they are lower profile than school leavers were in the past.

Posted by: John East at June 7, 2005 06:37 PM

A reality which Nulabor will not accept is that there is a bell curve of ability ; there always has been and there always will be. You can move it up - a little - it's easier to move it down. But there is always going to be an intelligent top, a dim bottom, and a mass in the middle.

You just can't move it significantly to get 50% in University education. So you have to make entry easier, and the courses easier.

I think much depends what you are doing rather than where you are, though a "Premium" university helps.

Posted by: Paul at June 8, 2005 12:26 AM

I'm no economist but I think you overlook one reason why more graduates improve the economy and that's because a better qualified populace makes a country more attractive to investors, particularly in hi-tech industries, does it not?

That said, speaking as a current student, I do agree that there is little point setting targets like "50% of school leavers entering Unviersity" when it seems a rather arbitrary figure aimed more at social levelling than meeting the needs of the economy. When you can do "degrees" in things like Travel & Tourism or Women's Studies (and I believe there's one on David Beckham?) it seems like they're handing out glorified NVQs (and some of that's insulting to those with NVQs!)

There's no point lowering standards (like the entrance requirements) just to let more people in if they're then going to be incapable of keeping up once they're there, and there's certainly no merit in lowering the difficulty in the content of the course (as was done on my old course) just because you're letting in people that are incapabale of passing parts of it.

Posted by: beano; EverythingUlster.com at June 9, 2005 10:54 AM

Beano,

You have a point, but in fact the trend is in the opposite direction to the one you describe. Fewer and fewer students are doing 'high-tech' subjects like physics and engineering. This is not just because they're difficult. It's because they have poor employment prospects (as reported recently in the Times), poor job security and only modest salaries. "High tech' investment in the UK is going down. Increasing the supply is not the answer - this will naturally happen if the demand increases.

Why ? Because scientists/engineers generally work in industries which are subject to huge international competition and price pressures, but they live in a country where they are highly taxed to pay for an inflated public sector paying good salaries to graduates from mickey mouse courses. They also have to pay highly for closed shop professions which face little or no international competition, such as the law or medicine (hence the huge rise in popularity of these subjects). If you're an electronics engineer and a company can get an equivalent engineer in India for half your salary, you're out of work. If you're a lawyer or doctor here and a lawyer or doctor in India only gets 10% of your salary for the same level of expertise, then it doesn't affect you in the slightest as your product is not generally internationally traded. Tony Blair recently boasted in parliament about how well paid NHS doctors are paid here compared to France (they're paid about double). That's one reason why the French have a better healthcare system - the producer is less able to fix the price so you get less for your money.

This is why we have a huge trade deficit and in the longer term it will be a disaster for the country. But from an individual's point of view, better to go for a subject which will get you public sector or closed shop employment.

Posted by: HJHJ at June 9, 2005 11:47 AM

God I hope you're wrong, I'm working for an IT company in Belfast on my year out from a Computer Science degree at the minute!!! Crumbs!

Posted by: beano; EverythingUlster.com at June 9, 2005 04:09 PM

I'd like to be wrong but the shakeout of highly skilled jobs in industry is continuing apace as is obvious to everyone in 'high tech' industries. The industrial output of this country has performed far worse since 1997 than ANY other G8 country - it has been almost flat compared to good growth in others. We had a small trade surplus in 1997. The deficit is now nearly £5bn per month (around £80 for every man woman and child in the country every month). It's only sustainable because interest rates are comparatively low worldwide so it's cheap to borrow. But the flip side of that is that inflation is also low so we can't rely on it to wipe out the value of debts. There will be a long hangover.

Posted by: HJHJ at June 9, 2005 09:35 PM

"But the flip side of that is that inflation is also low so we can't rely on it to wipe out the value of debts"

US Dollar M3 has doubled in the last 7 years, this has a huge inflationary effect that has been masked by the imports of cheap Chinese goods. If China falters, or "protectionism" happens then expect a huge wave of inflation and high interest rates.

Posted by: Rob Read at June 10, 2005 04:56 PM

Rob, I agree. So-called stagflation is a danger.

Posted by: HJHJ at June 11, 2005 11:17 AM

Absolutely right, everyone! I graduated in 1984 with a 2.1 in two subjects, from a degree course which was worthy of the name and academically as rigorous as higher education ought to be.

It was only when I tried to get a job afterwards that I found out that my degree was about as good as a criminal record.

Posted by: Michael Petek at November 21, 2005 05:12 PM