OECD chief: UK ‘doesn’t need more people going to university’

UK ‘needs more good post-secondary education’ but via ‘diversified’ routes, and nations might have ‘limit’ on need for university expansion, says influential expert

November 22, 2023
Visitor punting on river Cherwell in Oxford
Source: iStock

The UK “needs a lot more people getting a good post-secondary education” but does not need “more people going to university”, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s head of education, as political debate over higher education expansion intensifies in Westminster.

Rishi Sunak, the UK prime minister, said recently that the Labour government’s 1999 target for 50 per cent of young people in England to enter higher education was “one of the great mistakes of the last 30 years”, leading to “thousands of young people being ripped off by degrees that did nothing to increase their employability or earnings potential”.

Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s director for education and skills, said that the organisation’s data for the UK showed the earnings advantages of tertiary education were higher than in many comparator countries. But there were also “low marginal earnings returns”, he said.

Earnings and employment returns, he continued, “used to be very strong for the UK…It was almost a sure bet to go into university. I don’t think you can say that now. It works for some. But the variability in earnings for university graduates is very high. It’s still a great investment for some, but certainly not for all of them.”

Others might argue that graduate earnings data in England reflect its high level of economic inequality between regions and the structure of an economy widely seen as not creating enough high-skilled jobs.

“I would say the UK needs a lot more people getting a good post-secondary education,” Mr Schleicher said. “But I don’t think it needs more people going to university. That’s really where the issue lies. The future is a much more diversified set of pathways.”

The Westminster government said in its recent King’s Speech setting out plans for the coming parliament that “proposals will be implemented to reduce the number of young people studying poor-quality university degrees and increase the number undertaking high-quality apprenticeships” in England.

Mr Schleicher said that nations with strong advanced technical education systems such as Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland “don’t pitch technical education at low skills – you can go to a high-skilled profession through the vocational route. It’s basically the style of learning that is different, not the level of education.”

But in England, it is “still a little bit the case that university and the vocational routes, we are talking about hierarchy”, he added. “You cannot say that in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland – they are pretty much different ways of learning similar things. They have a high share of transversal skills in vocational programmes.”

He continued: “People vote with their feet. Despite the fact that Germany pays you if you go to university rather than asking for fees, they still have lots of people opting for [vocational] alternatives.”

Is it possible for England – or any developed nation – to get to a point where it has enough people going to university? Until now, participation has gone up and up in developed nations.

“That’s very much a question of what you want universities to be,” said Mr Schleicher. “If you want them to be institutes of broad tertiary education that provide a mix of skills at varying levels, then you just shouldn’t charge young people [such] high fees – that’s one option.

“Or you say, [we] want universities to do what they are best at: namely to provide theory-based, research-oriented education. And then I do believe there is a limit [to what] a country needs in the skills mix of its people.”

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (6)

The problem we have is that our population is ill-educated, and older cohorts particularly so. We are falling behind many other developed countries now. Do we really not want to have a highly educated population, able to cope in a globalised workplace, with all the opportunities and pressures it creates? I think a less educated population might suit populist governments which want them to vote for nonsense..... But yes, multiple pathways would be good, and we need to back away from the toxic commercialisation of universities (some of which are more focused on their "brand" than research for the public/ global good).
OPR is correct but we also have an issue where jobs like cleaners, drivers, shop shelf stackers, are slow to be automated not because IT can't do the job, it can and does, but because a human is often cheaper to employ than to get an expensive robot. Given that, if everyone has a degree, we end up with graduates shelf-stacking. There is also the Engels Pause, where IT displaces workers - always into lower pay jobs because if it was to higher pay jobs they'd have moved already. After the Engels Pause of course IT has improived productivity to the point where, in theory, all jobs are upgraded, but that Pause can take decades (maybe the Luddites had a case, in a self-interest perspective). Maybe a case for Govt rgeulation, not the free market, here.
The email that brought me here said this: 'we asked the OECD’s influential education chief for his view on whether the nation has too many graduates - and he told us that the UK “doesn’t need more people going to university”, but does need more and better post-secondary education'. Maybe this is just the vagaries of how things get reported, but the number of graduates and the number of people going to university aren't and needn't be the same thing. More flexible entry and exit points, removing the stigma of not studying to degree level, credit transfer, and (means-tested) state investment in people to benefit from all levels of higher education should be discussed in this regard. More flexibility might also lead to good ways of undermining the obsession with graduation and attrition rates, etc.
AI will change everything , students taking on large amounts of debt now could find the skills they have learnt utterly defunct in a decade with their loans still to be paid. Prestigious subjects such as Law could be hit hard given the reliance on precedent for judgements - what lends itself more readily to pattern matching 'judgebots' than this ? Even in Medicine ,initial dignosis is made based on the symptoms presented which could be done easily through a VR GP in the first instance. So if the nature of work changes, will the biggest financial rewards go to those who have studied in the arts(the so called poor quality degrees !) - we'll need to be entertained given all of the free time we'll have as the bots do the mundane parts of our jobs ? Furthermore, what difference does that degree make in lifelong earnings terms other than getting you through the door for interview ? Having worked in HE for the bulk or my career, skills and experience are certainly secondary to relationships in terms of progression and greasing the right wheels counts far more than any knowledge you have. The time is right to stop and pause and consider the nature and relevance of all education types and the focus changed to a lifelong learning model rather than the all education 'up front' one it currently is.
Typical that most politicians cannot see beyond 'getting a job' as a reason to go to university. What about curiousity? What about learning to think critically? What about learning how to learn independently? Or are these skills that they don't want in the population as they make for people who ask awkward and challenging questions, who see straight through the self-serving utter garbage and petty squabbles and complete lack of public service displayed by today's politicians?
So true - the politicians monetarise everything as it is allt hat matters to them.

Sponsored