University degrees are more valuable than they are given credit for

In the 1990s I acted in the capacity of admissions tutor for the Psychology department at the University College London, so I have some experience of the system, plus its history, that is I’m afraid more than can be said for Mr Ollie Cooper in his article: “If employers don’t value degrees, what’s the point of going to uni?”

First and foremost: “Those standards were watered down by John Major’s reforms” is not quite correct. Grade inflation in the rUK (ie the UK excluding Scotland) began in the mid 1980s with the Thatcher government coinciding with the formal unification of CSE and GCE examinations leading to the GCSE. The Thatcher government was also responsible for the move from an Elite to Mass tertiary educational system leading to 1 in 3 targets as stipulated by Kenneth Baker in the 1989 Lancaster Speech.

Moreover, while revenues are important to universities, especially to avoid closure of departments, Mr Cooper’s statement “too happy raking in the astronomical fees” is misleading, and demonstrably so. Overseas student fees are around £18,500 pa. UK students pay £9,500 or thereabouts per annum. The difference is paid by the government. Prior to the introduction of student fees, HFCE funding via government and LEAs paid 100 per cent of student university fees. Were government funds not available to supplement the difference between rUK and non UK student fees, obviously, universities could, depending on the funding mix, have looked to cut the number of rUK students in favour of non UK students to make up for financial shortfalls. It’s not fees that are of concern, but rather student numbers.

In absolute terms, and relative to independent school fees of £13,000-£15,000 a year, a rUK university education in the latter day is cheap. The broad question to ask, therefore, is whether the taxpayer should be responsible for investment in the education of our younger generation. In moving to a knowledge based economy, with greater educational needs than might otherwise be the case, the answer must obviously be yes. It makes little sense, given the rUK’s needs, to restrict educational investment to 18 years of age.

If it is indeed the case that university degrees are of no value to employers, one might argue that the 50 per cent or so with an independent school education are wasting their money in completing a university education. A similar argument might be used in terms of comparing independent versus state school educational outcomes, namely, a wastage of money.

In the respect of a university education, the economic benefits of the university system in a knowledge based economy for the individual are clear.

Obviously, there will be some folk without a degree that earn more than other folk with a degree. On average, however, there are enhanced job opportunities and higher pay for graduates compared with non graduates to the tune of around £10,000 per year.

The educational argument about a so-called reduction of education standards is simple enough. There is no point keeping educational levels targeted at the elite student – since covering material beyond the capacity of a mass student body would be a futile exercise. However, by altering teaching methods and delivery, coupled with material taught, one makes tertiary education accessible to a broader student body, that by itself raises the knowledge base of the population as a whole. Therein lies the benefit.

Learning leads to happiness and happiness leads to learning. We surely want more of this rather than less. I don’t want to be too hard on Mr Ollie Cooper, because clearly his “heart” was in the right place. Regrettably, the information was not quite in the right place, and this misinformation style panders to erroneous views on the modern educational system – and undermines the utility of education itself, namely to add value to the individual with the transferrable skills demanded by a knowledge based economy.

I’ll end if I may, with a little snippet I used for the last 3rd year undergraduate seminar before finals, in pointing out to students that it is a wise person that graduates with the realisation of how little they know. It follows that if some employers don’t value degrees, maybe they should upgrade their own knowledge base.

Dr Keith Langley

(Letter cut for brevity)

Is Liz Truss’s desire to create an ‘Aspiration Nation’, another Freudian slip? Is it actually a subconscious acknowledgement of the sound of a collective sharp intake of breath that everyone bar Tory party diehards make whenever she speaks?

Her unassailable self belief, at the same time as demonstrating that she is blatantly devoid of any discernible talent or ability, is enough to make any right minded individual gasp at the audacity.

Nigel Plevin

Somerset

Remembering that The Independent has a sizeable readership in the USA, I thought it vital to thank all the good people of Kansas that voted for sanity in the abortion referendum. Looking around the world at this moment sanity seems to be in short supply.

Robert Boston

Kent

Is the Rishi Sunak who insisted last March that the UK and Ukraine “shared values of freedom and democracy”, the same Rishi Sunak who has just promised that if he becomes prime minister he will make the “vilification of the United Kingdom” into an official definition of “extremism”, and that those judged to “hate” Britain would be handed over for “deradicalisation” and “reeducation” at the hands of the government’s “Prevent” programme?

Sasha Simic

London

Taxing rich people in the traditional way has never worked.  Money simply disappears through the many loopholes that governments are disinclined to close; and increases in tax measures have a greater impact on those of modest incomes.

A way forward is to avoid complex taxing at source and focus on increasing the taxation on real luxuries that only the rich can afford.  An example is raising the cost for private jet passengers. This should not affect the companies that provide the services, they still need to earn a living, nor would it have much impact on the super-rich for even substantial increases would be barely noticeable. In the United Kingdom there are around 90,000 private jet flights a year.  A 100 per cent tax plus a 50 per cent fuel tax could easily realise £1bn per year in tax revenue.

The same could apply to haute couture designer clothing, big name perfumes, road legal racing cars, and hotels which boast more than five stars. A 100 per cent purchase tax on just the supercars registered in Mayfair, Westminster and Knightsbridge would bring in £100m. This idea would surely attract huge support from much of the electorate, while allowing the super-rich more of the exclusivity they crave, and it would genuinely be in the spirit of Robin Hood.

Matt Minshall

Brittany, France

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

In March 1989, one month after the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, President George H Bush sent a message to Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping via his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. It said:  “The president wants me to tell you that he is your friend, your friend forever.”

Freedom and human rights have never been the motivation behind American foreign policy. America acknowledges that Taiwan is part of China. It should be working to ensure a transition to reunification which is peaceful and preserves the freedoms of the Taiwanese people. It should put an end to the ambiguity and tension over Taiwan which ultimately threatens the world with nuclear war.

Brendan O’Brien

London