Parents, be realistic about how clever your child is - university isn't for everyone |
This week, Professor Adam Tickell, vice-chancellor of the University of Birmingham, suggested something that was once unsayable in British education: perhaps we should reconsider lending student loans to people who have little realistic chance of completing a degree. It sounds harsh. But it also sounds like common sense.
Since Tony Blair set the tone in 1999 with his famous target that 50 per cent of young people should do so, Britain has pursued a single, almost unquestioned educational goal: get more young people into university.
The Blairite dream was realised by 2018 and today, the UK has one of the most university-heavy systems in the world.
Since 2018-19, more than 50 per cent of young people aged 17-30 have participated in higher education. Yet, still the pressure continues. Some education leaders are now talking about pushing participation even higher to 70 per cent of young people by 2040. But, why? Why have we built a culture in which a degree course is treated as the only respectable post-school destination?
Uncomfortably, the expansion of higher education has not just increased opportunity, it has also lowered entry thresholds.
Some new students with the equivalent of two E grades or lower at A-levels have gained places in recent years and admittance through alternative qualifications, such as access courses or other pathways, is becoming more common.
This is not inherently wrong. Education should offer second chances, and there are countless examples of people who only flourished after school. But it does raise a legitimate question: should everyone be on the same academic path?
The loophole which exposes how absurd student debt really is
Parents are scamming their own children by sending them to university
Grow up, freeloaders – students should absolutely pay for university
There is something strange about a country that talks constantly about skill shortages – in engineering, construction, digital trades and technical professions – while simultaneously nudging ever more of its young people towards university.
As Tickell underlined: “We are getting students without a single A-level or equivalent getting access to the student loan book. We’re investing so much money in people who … are not really capable of graduating.”
The irony is that alternatives already exist. At my previous school, T-levels were designed precisely to offer serious technical routes for 16- to 19-year-olds . Apprenticeships allow people to earn while they learn. Levels 4 and 5 higher technical qualifications can lead to well-paid careers without the degree course’s debt burden.
And yet, culturally we behave as though any alternative is a consolation prize. That mindset does no one any favours: neither the taxpayer, underwriting a student loan system already running into hundreds of billions of pounds, nor the universities themselves, facing financial strain despite expanding student numbers.
Pity too the young people who are encouraged to take on thousands of pounds in debt for unsuitable courses. At various schools, I have listened to pupils agonise about what they want, versus what their parents and society expect. I have also been through that stressful August “clearing day”, patiently trying to get them into a university course – somewhere – when they miss their grades.
A mature education system should offer multiple routes to success: academic, technical and vocational. That’s why Tickell’s intervention matters. It reminds us of something obscured by decades of policy enthusiasm. University is a wonderful thing – for those who want it and are ready for it. But it was never meant to be the destination for everyone.
Scott Mills: My husband and I know we’d be great dads – here’s why we’re childfree
Trump set out to humiliate Starmer – but instead handed him a lifeline
JD Vance is vanishing before our eyes
Ostracising Beatrice and Eugenie is a cowardly move