It has been said that there is a direct link between investment in a three-year degree course and national wealth, but the evidence for this relationship is hard to find. Switzerland has fewer graduates than the UK but a more impressive GDP. Poland has more graduates but a weaker economy.
Following Tony Blair’s wish that 50 percent of school leavers would go on to study at university, institutions have made changes in order to attract more undergraduates and receive more funding. The creation of courses with unusual names and less traditional content has probably gone some way to attract higher numbers and a wider range of students.
However, if university courses are to help our national economy there surely needs to be more thought surrounding the question of which courses will benefit most. A degree in “Surf Science and Technology” or “Equestrian Psychology” may be useful in specific fields but could be taught at college, rather than degree level. Does there need to be a more direct link between what universities offer and what the real world needs, so that graduates are not leaving university with high expectations of a graduate career that cannot be fulfilled?
Have your say -
Are there too many graduates now?
Has the prestige been taken away from British degrees because so many people have them?
Should an alternative form of higher education be available for non-academic courses that are valuable to society?