Beware a politician in hot pursuit of a legacy, for they are liable to say and do stupid things. Reading about the latest bridge to nowhere, or a leader signing up to some teeth-clenchingly expensive and binding national commitment with little discussion of cost of practicality? Chances are we’re in legacy-hunting territory. It often means defending the indefensible. And earlier this week, Tony Blair doubled down on one of the worst aspects of New Labour’s inheritance – the target for 50 per cent of school leavers to attend university.
At the time, his Panglossian acolytes insisted the policy would boost the national skillset and turbo-charge social mobility. Many assumed you could dramatically expand attendance without diminishing a degree’s value. Instead, the intervening years saw higher education morph into a bloated basketcase; with millions more young people drowning in debt, paying ever-more eye-watering interest rates for a lower and lower return on their investment. When you’re in a hole, stop digging, as the saying goes. Fat chance. This week it was reported that Blair had upgraded his target to 70 per cent of young people entering higher education by 2040, from the 53 per cent it is now.
A growing body of thought now recognises that the original target was a mistake – right down to Blair’s son Euan, an apprenticeship entrepreneur who amassed a £160 million fortune by ignoring his father’s wisdom. Yet given the weight of opinion, remarkably little has been done to reverse the effects of the current system. The reason is simple and depressing – it is just too difficult to confront the appalling incentives and vested interests which underpin the status quo.
Between Blair’s target and the Cameron-era removal of the cap on student numbers, we’ve somehow achieved the unthinkable: creating a system in which it is rational, even financially prudent, for universities to recruit as many students as they can, ideally to full three-year degrees, as cheaply as possible. The explosion of unconditional offers and low entry requirements are two obvious symptoms of this trend, while the neglect of non-university courses has sparked a shortage of vocational skills.
Advocates of ever-expanding attendance often, disingenuously, accuse their opponents of classism. George Osborne, another politician with a legacy to burnish, came out in support of Blair, calling it a “bit odd when largely graduate-educated MPs say university isn’t for others”. But is this really so? Favouring the three-year degree over other credentials arguably makes it harder for young people to differentiate themselves from the graduate herd. This means that where you went to university will trump other factors, and seems more likely to harm social mobility than improve it. Osborne’s thesis also assumes that universities and courses are created equal – or at least, improve their students’ lot, when quite a few confer no obvious benefit whatsoever.
According to one recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, around 20 per cent of graduates would have been better off had they never attended university at all – and that is before considering how many employers and sectors that never previously required degrees now do. Around a third of graduates are in non-graduate jobs five to 10 years after leaving university, with taxpayers forced to make up the shortfall in lower-earning subjects and courses. Going to university shouldn’t just be about employability or earnings; but some level of rigour is crucial. Many students’ experience is worlds away from this; one of few marked assignments and little contact time.
Having unleashed this self-perpetuating cycle of credentialism; unpicking it will be well-nigh impossible. Despite everything, university education still carries disproportionate status and a cultural value that shows no signs of diminishing. The higher education sector employs battalions of people, creating new special-interest groups and altering the political incentives. Many Red Wall MPs would be reluctant to see their local universities – more likely to be non-Russell Group, non-selective or modern – go out of business. Earlier this year, when the Government simply mooted the idea of minimum entry requirements, the chief executive of Universities UK described the proposals as “madness”. Of course he did.
Worst of all, it is hard to see how to reform the system without inflicting ever-greater pain on students. Soaring loan interest rates seem shockingly unfair when young people have already been so comprehensively clobbered by the broken housing market, tax hikes and the impact of lockdown. But if this sorry affair makes a few more school leavers think twice about going to university, that might be the one silver lining to a very considerable cloud.
Any radical change to the system will involve the sacrifice of numerous sacred cows, such as the idea that some universities are “too big to fail” or the limited kudos attached to non-academic routes. Sadly the termites have spread too far, and dined too well for that – so perhaps doubling down is the only thing for it. We are all living Blair’s university dream now.
