The UK education secretary warned English universities on Wednesday to address “stark disparities” in earnings by graduates studying the same courses at different institutions, adding to growing pressure on the sector to improve quality.
Damian Hinds, the education secretary, expressed concern over new research pointing to “drastically different outcomes and experiences” in earnings, employability and teaching quality depending on the university at which people studied.
His comments follow publication of the latest round of the government’s Longitudinal Education Outcomes (Leo) data linking education and tax records, showing widespread variations five years after graduation in incomes and sustained employment.
For undergraduates finishing in 2010-11, those studying medicine and dentistry had the highest median salary in 2016-17, £46,000, while those in the creative arts had the lowest, at £20,000.
However, some degrees led to extremely wide variations in subsequent salaries depending on where the course was taken. Pay for business and management graduates varied from £16,400 to £74,000 while there was a range in income of around £40,000 between the lowest and highest earners in law and computing.
The proportion in sustained employment after five years was highest for nursing graduates, at 92 per cent, and lowest for those studying languages, linguistics and classics, at just below 80 per cent.
Mr Hinds said: “It cannot be right that students studying the same subjects at different institutions, and paying the same fees, are not getting the same positive outcomes which are evidently achievable.
“All students should feel they are getting value for money and the stark disparities between some degrees show there are universities that need to improve and maximise the potential of their courses.”
An official review published last month of post-18 education chaired by historian and businessman Philip Augar also highlighted concerns over quality provided by some universities, which were allowed to charge the maximum £9,250 a year in tuition fees per student through the government loan programme regardless of dropout rates or longer-term outcomes.
The review called for the tuition fee to be reduced, with the government — at its discretion — directly topping up funds to universities and courses considered strategically important or offering good value for money. It encouraged greater investment into further education including higher level apprenticeships and vocational training.
The Leo analysis follows separate research last year by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, which showed that the variations in graduates’ outcomes could not be explained by differences in students’ prior attainment and social background.
The latest Leo data also revealed wide gaps in earnings for men and women based on their degree subjects. Only female graduates in English, and communication and media had higher median salaries than their male counterparts, although the actual salaries were relatively low. Nearly all courses in nursing and agriculture and food led to higher median salaries for men after five years.
In response to the Leo report, a spokesperson for Universities UK, a trade body that represents universities’ interests, said: “Students are right to expect good value for money and universities must reflect on what they can do to address concerns where there is evidence of poor value. Most university graduates continue to earn significantly more than non-graduates . . . but earnings should not be the sole measure of successful outcomes.”
The Department for Education said that it had supported two apps earlier this year to help students make better choices on what and where to study: ThinkUni and TheWayUp!
