During the campaign for tory party leadership and Prime Minister earlier this year, the winning candidate Rishi Sunak made multiple promises to transform the educational system, with a particularly on higher level and universities.
As reported in both the Guardian and Sky News, Rishi intends to ‘phase out’ certain university degrees that do not improve the pupil’s ‘earning potential’. In order to work out the ‘earning potential’ of a degree, it will be looked at in terms of drop-out rates, salary thresholds and number of graduate jobs acquired. Rishi, however, did grant that certain degrees are of high social value, such as nursing, and will therefore be exempt from such qualifications. Though no degrees were specified as being likely to be removed, based on previous data, Languages, linguistics and classic graduates have the lowest chances of getting a job whilst creative arts and design degrees are likely to result in the lowest paying salaries. He claims that his goal is to “take a tougher approach to university degrees that saddle students with debt, without improving their earning potential”.
Whilst this approach may allow for university graduates to maximise their earning potential, it would also likely result in the removal of many humanities and arts-based degrees. Many institutions have already acted on such ideas, with Sheffield Hallam announcing that it will stop offering degrees in English Literature in 2023 and with other universities dropping the teaching of modern languages.
Arguably Rishi’s approach ignores the reason many apply for university, due to an interest for their subject rather than just monetary expectations. In fact, one Birmingham based survey found that when students were asked why they applied for their degree, 73% said it was because it was a subject they enjoyed, whilst the other 7% put employment opportunities as their main concern. Rishi also intends to introduce a British baccalaureate which would make maths and English compulsory for all students until they finish school at 18, further limiting personal preference.
While as a History and Politics student I may be slightly biased, I believe that individuals with humanity degrees do hold importance in society and worth should not be solely based on earning potential. Those who chose to stay in academia, for instance, may not earn as much as those who choose to apply themselves more vocationally. And yet, without constant improvements within academia, constants improvements in education, and subsequently the knowledge of future generations, would not be possible. While reform would likely be welcomed within the university sphere, I’m uncertain about these particular proposals. Rishi’s ideas are undoubtedly attempting to address the deficit the government holds in student loans given that many people are never able to pay them off. But is eliminating the wide choice, and thus diverse outcome, that university education provides the answer? Would, instead, placing more responsibility on wealthy university institutions, in addressing issues like the level of tuition fees or the cost of student housing allow a greater likelihood of paying back loans? I, however, am not a policy advisor nor an economist and so am not, and probably should not, attempt to claim a solution. And yet, I do question whether Rishi is looking at universities from the wrong angle.