Forum menu
Maybe they should charge more than £9k a year 😉
The financial rewards of a degree from an elite university are revealed today in a report which estimates that an Oxbridge graduate will earn an average £10,000 more every year of their lives than a graduate of a non-Russell Group university.According to the report by the Sutton Trust, graduates from Oxford and Cambridge will over their lifetimes earn on average £46,000 annually, compared with £41,000 earned by other Russell Group graduates, and just under £36,000 by graduates from other universities.
In stark contrast, those whose education ends after A-level will earn an average salary of £23,000 over their lifetime, and those with no qualifications will earn less than £16,000.
Correlation is not causation
They should - barking mad system.
Not sure there is anything startling in the article and hardly surprising numbers on graduate salaries.
But the conclusion made a lot of sense
“Yet figures for graduate salaries are skewed by the very high earnings in certain occupations – the truth is that apprenticeships can also be a financially and personally rewarding choice.”
Correlation is not causation
Doesn't really matter. Given they're almost giving away degrees with Cornflakes, the institution's name and reputation will be used as a proxy for quality far more than the actual degree itself. So as long as Oxbridge keep turning out (or just passing through) talent, the premium will be justified.
Comparing students from Oxford and Cambridge to a non-Russell Group university is like comparing an Arsenal trainee to one at Brentford of course on average they are going on to earn more as they are better. The comparison with the Russell group is more significant and in that case there is a greatly reduced difference.
We shall see if the latest fad for blind interviewing makes a hoot of difference - I doubt it, more likely a lot of contrived HR-led interviews instead.
Maybe, just maybe, we should recognise the value that higher education contributes to the economy as a whole, and fund universities appropriately. That way students can attend based upon their academic potential, rather than their parents' earning potential.
[i]In stark contrast, those whose education ends after A-level will earn an average salary of £23,000 over their lifetime, and those with no qualifications will earn less than £16,000.[/i]
Based on leaving school at 16 and having averaged more (according to the post) than those who went to Oxbridge, means a load of other folk have earned bu99er all.
Stats...
The folk who have to fund others to go to Uni might find the concept of positive externalities rather far fetched? Appropriate could also include allowing the finest Unis to compete on the world stage - and why not, they are among the best in the world?
Russell Group is also a slightly artificial grouping especially as it does not include the UK's second oldest and Scotland's finest academic institution 😉
And fwiw, unless my career goes very wrong, I'll have earned an average wage considerably higher than that in the OP for an Oxbridge graduate, given that I'm only 32 and already well above that. I didn't go to a prestigious uni, but had the fees in place now been in place 14 years ago I would never have gone at all. Most of my colleagues would be in the same boat.
The folk who have to fund others to go to Uni might find the concept of positive externalities rather far fetched?
People's taxes fund all sorts of stuff they never use, or may never want. Education is far more important than most of it. Your point is a [i]non sequitur[/i].
Appropriate could also include allowing the finest Unis to compete on the world stage - and why not, they are among the best in the world?
Look at any international ranking, and you'll see that they do, albeit currently at the expense of opportunity for a large swathe of the population
Uni funding is massively complicated as remember the top Uni's in particular are much more than just teaching, they are also world class research centers. A uni as well as receiving money from students (home and abroad) will be attracting money from the RAE exercise, research council grants, external charity/company grants (e.g. Cancer Research, Wellcome Trust, Rolls-Royce, BP, GSK, BAe), plus their own spin out companies, and they are also now getting more into the american model of tapping up alumni.
Did they take into account what people study at Oxbridge, vs others? E.g if you're teaching lots of future doctors on medical degrees they are going to earn more than social workers.
Did they take into account what people study at Oxbridge, vs others? E.g if you're teaching lots of future doctors on medical degrees they are going to earn more than social workers.
I'd guess the Russel group is a good proxy for that as it puts an emphasis on research.
It'd be interesting to see where the difference is though, I've not noticed a glass ceiling in engineering to non-Oxbridge grads, and I guess medicine/dentistry are the same. In fact IIRC 'Process Engineers' from Imperial earn the most as almost all go to work in investment banking.
Interesting analysis of scrapping tuition fees in Scotland:
[url] http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21670045-scrapping-tuition-fees-has-helped-rich-students-expense-poor-ones-costly-promise [/url]
Imperial is up there with Oxford and Cambridge when it comes to science and engineering and i'd put them on a par for students and potential earnings. Imperial used to receive more money than Oxford from EPSRC and were pretty much on a par with Cambridge.
Your point is a non sequitur.
Oh, I see.
That the do compete on global scale despite the inbuilt disadvantages makes their performance all the more credible...
At the expense of...
Really?
Imperial was almost certainly stronger than Oxford at Engineering in my day.
[quote=NewRetroTom opined]Interesting analysis of scrapping tuition fees in Scotland:
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21670045-scrapping-tuition-fees-has-helped-rich-students-expense-poor-ones-costly-promise
what analysis and could you highlight from the text anything that even hints at the headline?
All it did was repeat it with more words and no evidence
Grants offered to poor students in Scotland are now worth little more than half those offered to the English. Lucy Hunter Blackburn, a policy analyst, calculates that the net effect of the SNP’s no-fee, low-grant policy is a £20m-a-year transfer from poor students to their richer classmates.
Have you a link to actual research?
To be clear I am offering no opinion on the claim beyond saying that article proved nothing and IMHO it did not even try
Education is safe with the SNP - ditto health, policing etc.... 😉
And fwiw, unless my career goes very wrong, I'll have earned an average wage considerably higher than that in the OP for an Oxbridge graduate, given that I'm only 32 and already well above that.
You obviously didn't read Statistics though....
*sigh*
Junkyard - lazarus opinedTo be clear I am offering no opinion on the claim beyond saying that article proved nothing and IMHO it did not even try
Newspaper articles don't ever prove anything.
It does raise some interesting points about what the consequences of not having university tuition fees might be.
For example "while the proportion of university students from non-professional backgrounds has risen by just 0.2 percentage points [since 2011], to 26.8%, in England it has gone up from 30.9% to 33.1%"
Yes that is interesting but proves nothing as is just a statement of fact concerning two countries.
It would seem incredibly unlikely that making people pay for something makes them more likely to do it and i doubt the research gave a causal mechanism or suggested a reason.
I cannot believe anyone wants to say they are introducing high fees to help the poor and to encourage them.
I cannot believe anyone wants to say they are introducing high fees to help the poor and to encourage them.
Have you met Nick Clegg?
And fwiw, unless my career goes very wrong, I'll have earned an average wage considerably higher than that in the OP for an Oxbridge graduate, given that I'm only 32 and already well above that. I didn't go to a prestigious uni, but had the fees in place now been in place 14 years ago I would never have gone at all. Most of my colleagues would be in the same boat.
was talking about the the other day with the other half, that golden post war era of further education for the masses has now past, it’s back to being for the wealthy only. i grew up on a council estate and had free school meals and was the first family member to get a degree (early 90’s). now for somebody of a similar background in 2015 it’s an entirely different prospect and a serious commitment to make at 18years old deciding to take on 40k of debt. i don't envy anyone in that position.
But the different today is that you don't need a degree to earn good money. Out of my group of long term mates about half, maybe a bit less went to uni and we're not earning better money than them, just comparable money. This myth that you cannot get a good job without a University degree is crap. You just need an appropriate level of education/training in the industry/area you work ultimately end up working. In fact even tough i'm now earning a comparable salary, I had a good 6 years of earning alot less while I was in tertiary education which I am unlikely to claw back.
Yes but back in the early 90's the number of kids going to Uni was nothing like the numbers now, number of degrees awarded in 1970/71 was ~5,000*, by 1994/95 it was ~25,000 and by 2009/10 it was over 40,000. That is a huge change that has to be paid for.
(* I think this number excludes polytechnics that then became Uni's in 1992.)
This myth that you cannot get a good job without a University degree is crap.
Yes and no, there are always exceptions to any 'rule', but more and more careers have a basic degree as an entry requirement, so without one you're struggle to get your foot in the door no matter how good you are.
Eg Take Nursing, was vocational and then went degree only.
and those with no qualifications will earn less than £16,000.
Yey for me for bucking the trend
Do you forsee this happening? Because right now the opposite has happened - indisputibly in terms of total school-leaver application numbers, which have continued to increase after an initial drop in 2012, and arguably in terms of applications from poorer families [arguable because it's harder to measure].was talking about the the other day with the other half, that golden post war era of further education for the masses has now past, it’s back to being for the wealthy only.
Things could change - it's early days and the first 9k payers are just graduating. But as of right now, the argument that tuition fees would decimate uni applications has been shown to be wrong.
that golden post war era of further education for the masses has now past, it’s back to being for the wealthy only.
How many kids of "the masses" went to FE/uni in the postwar era (1945-1965?) compared to today?
[quote=piemonster opined]
and those with no qualifications will earn less than £16,000.
Yey for me for bucking the trend
you have a degree and earn **** all? 😉
I left Oxford in 2008 and I have trouble believing these statistics.
A lot of people go into investment banking and law, so they would obviously earn quite a bit more than the average.
But many people go into teaching or stay in academia from Oxford.
I went to a bog standard comp on a council estate and I know plenty of people with zero qualifications who do very well for themselves as tradesmen.
Do you forsee this happening?
TBH not sure but fee's/loans are not an insignificant amount of money, and let's face it if your parents are minted and you have something to fall back on then going into higher education is an easy decision to make.
How many kids of "the masses" went to FE/uni in the postwar era (1945-1965?) compared to today?
Page 13/14
[url= http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf ]http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf[/url]
I've got three degrees from a russell group university and earn 7k a year lol
getting a degree from cambridge/oxford wont get you any more money than one from glasgow in my field. the university that awards the degree has no bearing on your pay
If you stop thinking of the fees as debt and realise that it's just a grad tax, most won't ever pay it back and will just make the extra monthlies.
The skew in the a level earnings basically reflects the fact that heaps of jobs are declared graduate when plenty of good a level kids could walk into them and start a rewarding career and earn plenty.
f you stop thinking of the fees as debt and realise that it's just a grad tax, most won't ever pay it back and will just make the extra monthlies.
Fortunately today's potential students understand this, unlike posters here, hence the statistics, augurs well for the future.
Yes the average 18 year kid is really financially savvy and able to make appropriate decisions
All the statistics show is that many parents are aspirational for their kids and that kids would rather do a degree than stack shelves/work in a shop/do admin.
I would love to see what the degree premium will be in the next 20 years/for the current crop when half of us have them but not half the jobs*. My best guess is less than say being a plumber or engineer but hey those savvy teenagers they know best eh
Its also worth noting that the current point at which you pay is 21k and the govt is considering freezing it for 5 years so it will be pretty close to what the "living wage" will gain FT. the rate is also set at RPI + up to 3% .Its not a graduate tax even though it as you can pay it back [ or be wealthy enough to not take it out anyway].
I can think of may auntie as my uncle but it wont make her my Uncle
PS worst appeal to authority ever using teenagers who get it factually wrong
How many kids of "the masses" went to FE/uni in the postwar era (1945-1965?) compared to today?
Page 13/14
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf
Your "golden era" seems to have about 3-8% of kids going to uni compared to about 33% going to uni in 2000ish. Are you still sure it was that golden?
I know you love calling out debating tactics but I am not sure it was one. The statistics seem to suggest no significant drop off in admissions, more people from deprived backgrounds going to university because there is more money for "living grants" - albeit this is changing to a loan system - and the government numbers suggest significant expectation of future write offs. In terms of policy I think it is certainly progressive for potential high achievers, but my criticism would be a substantial cost will be borne by people who don't personally benefit from university - albeit this cost has been kicked down the road. I am also concerned that the "graduate premium" may decrease which will only increase the cost to government and therefore the population as a whole.
Paid off £11.5 k worth of student loan accumulated from a failed degree this year with my s-grade/GCSE level job, earning at the average uni cap right now and if I get promoted will be well over the Russell average.
So how would I be doing better from a degree again? And yes, exception not rule but not unique.
Personally I dont see what the article is claiming, they seem to be confusing correlation with causation, there are other factors that hold back those from poorer backgrounds, I sincerely doubt £9k per year plus loans is more attractive than £4k a year in loans even to those with the poorest money management skills imaginable.
Its not as th best paid graduates will stop paying it back - those who gained the most dont continue to pay for the rest of their lives.
retty sure you did claim young folk were better informed but it is not that important
he statistics seem to suggest no significant drop off in admissions, more people from deprived backgrounds going to university because there is more money for "living grants"
The first part is true- its just a fact- the second part[reason] is just a guess based on the first part. It could be that more are going because there are fewer jobs and youth unemployment was at record levels,
If we gave everyone 10 k free grant and tuition fees paid to go to uni do you think numbers would increase or decrease?
In terms of policy I think it is certainly progressive for potential high achievers, but my criticism would be a substantial cost will be borne by people who don't personally benefit from university - albeit this cost has been kicked down the road. I am also concerned that the "graduate premium" may decrease which will only increase the cost to government and therefore the population as a whole.
Dont disagree
Personally I dont see what the article is claiming, they seem to be confusing correlation with causation, there are other factors that hold back those from poorer backgrounds, I sincerely doubt £9k per year plus loans is more attractive than £4k a year in loans even to those with the poorest money management skills imaginable.
Did you actually read the article? Because literally every one of those points is addressed in it.
Yes I did and they literally aren't.
Please feel free to prove otherwise.