What is a degree for?
This blog was kindly authored by Paul D. Sweeney, former Chief Strategy Officer at Unite Group, current author and strategic advisor.
Before deciding whether university is worth the price, it would help to know what is being sold. ‘What is a degree for?’ ought to be a straightforward question – British universities have had several centuries to consider it – yet the answer changes depending on whether you ask a student, a parent, an employer or the university.
A degree is expected to provide knowledge, unlock professions, signal ability to employers, create a network, establish independence, deliver a social life, allow time for exploration and confer status. Somewhere in the package, the student is also expected to become an adult. The prospectus is suitably vague about how this metamorphosis is delivered.
Universities put one price on this bundle and call it ‘the university experience’. Student and parent can support the same purchase while imagining different products: independence and three interesting years for one; professional access and improved earnings for the other. Both can leave the open day delighted, each believing the other has agreed to the same thing.
I avoided the question when I applied to study Engineering. I was good at Maths and Science, Engineering sounded respectable and the adults approved. The admissions process established that I could obtain a place, but nobody established whether I wanted the education. I left after a year. For a while I regarded leaving as failure; in retrospect, it was my first informed decision about the degree.
The numbers are not as helpful as they first seem
The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ 2026 analysis estimated that university increased lifetime pre-tax earnings by around 20 per cent on average after adjusting for attainment and background. After taxes, student loans and study costs, however, it estimated that a quarter of graduates could be financially worse off than if they had not attended.
The 2026 HEPI and Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey surveyed more than 10,000 full-time undergraduates. 45 per cent rated their course as good or very good value, with teaching quality the strongest driver. University remains valuable on average while leaving ample room for disappointment. An average is useful evidence, but not a prediction for the applicant at the kitchen table with five browser tabs open.
Different purchases need different evidence
Different benefits need different evidence. Professional access needs current accreditation and every recognised route into the work. Learning needs scrutiny of curriculum, teaching and assessment; an employment signal needs evidence from employers; a network needs repeated useful contact, not an alumni logo. Many universities already publish information about teaching, assessment, placements and outcomes. The weakness is inconsistent presentation and a loose connection between claim and evidence. A course-level percentage based on 12 respondents moves by more than eight percentage points when one answer changes. A decimal point would not make it more reliable.
The decision before the application
Schools and colleges should create a decision stage before applicants rank institutions. In it a student and their parent/carer would be supported to each record what university is expected to provide; which benefits are essential; what evidence would show that a course delivers them; and the strongest realistic alternative. They should answer separately before comparing notes.
The aim is not to force agreement but to expose assumptions. If the student is buying independence while the parent believes they are financing professional access, it is useful to discover this before accommodation deposits are due. Two written answers may reveal more than another family tour of a photogenic library.
The comparison must use credible alternatives. ‘I could always get an apprenticeship’ is no more a plan than ‘I will go to a good university’. A real alternative has names, dates, entry requirements, costs and a next step. Compare the degree with the best available option, not imaginary unemployment.
Schools and colleges could run this at the start of guidance, before course search hardens into a shortlist. UCAS could reinforce the sequence in its advice and online journey: test the route first, then search for courses. Universities could answer a common set of questions course by course: what students learn, the amount of direct teaching, the assessment mix, who teaches, placement participation and graduate outcomes. The evidence should show the year, cohort and sample size. That would be more useful than another generic claim and photograph of the library.
The exercise could produce three honest answers: yes, no and not yet. ‘Not yet’ is legitimate when delay is used to test a subject, experience work, improve a qualification or resolve a health or financial constraint. A seventeen-year-old need not know what they want to do for the rest of their life. The application process rewards a clean story about future ambition, even when reverse-engineered from the course choice. Uncertainty is not the problem. Spending three years and a substantial amount of money to avoid investigating it might be.
Universities should welcome this scrutiny. An applicant who knows why a course beats the alternatives is more likely to arrive with realistic expectations and reasons that belong to them. If the comparison leads elsewhere, it may prevent an expensive mismatch. We can ask whether university is worth it only after the applicant has established what they expect it to be worth.
Comments
Jonathan Alltimes says:
What is the basis for comparison? I agree the schools and colleges could do more to inform choice, but I am reluctant to call for more work given the frequent reports of teachers about their work pressures. The State has structured the education and training options to the point where a degree has become a pre-requisite for employment. The alternatives have dwindled over the decades. Once a student has deferred entry, it becomes less likely that they will choose to return later as they become committed to earnings and expenditures from employment. As advised in comments on earlier blogs, the prospective students needs to consult more widely before making choices and they need experience of employment and voluntary work, as it through work we discover our likes, dislikes, aptitudes, and interests from a wider variety than school subjects, which may sustain us through the completion of a degree. Balancing depth with breadth is complicated. The Advanced Level system narrows specialization early and it is unlikely a student can make different choices later, which is why the Scottish Highers and the International Baccalaureate provide flexibility although the former is a bit too wide and the latter is demanding. Generally, a pupil has some options to begin a different path at A-level, as the schools and colleges can teach a compressed subject from a GCSE standard in much less than a year. The school curriculum is too ambitious and too academic, homework and coursework dominated, so non-academic subjects and extracurricular activities were squeezed out, never mind what the home can teach. The new technical pathway has gone someway to providing choice. Providing more comparative information on its own is not going to provide more choice if the choices are already heavily determined by other common and uncommon factors, particularly those outside of the control of the student, including those factors not discussed in the blog, which could be more powerful than information about degrees and institutions.
Reply
Replies
Paul Sweeney says:
Thank you, Jonathan. I agree that more information alone cannot create choices where the available routes have already been narrowed by qualifications, geography, finances, family circumstances or the structure of the labour market.
The basis for comparison I have in mind is therefore personal rather than universal: what does this student need the next step to provide, what constraints are real, and how well does each genuinely available route meet those needs? That might include professional access, subject interest, the learning environment, employment prospects, cost, independence and the consequences of being wrong. The comparison is not between university and an imaginary world of limitless alternatives.
I also agree that “not yet” is not a neutral or risk-free answer. Deferral should have a purpose — gaining work experience, testing an interest, resolving a constraint or pursuing a specific alternative — because returning to education may become harder once employment and financial commitments take hold.
Your point about work and voluntary experience is particularly important. Decisions improve when young people have evidence about themselves beyond the subjects they happened to study at school.
Nor would I want this to become another administrative burden for teachers. The case is for a better-structured conversation within existing guidance, not another form to complete. But you are right that the article could have said more clearly that better information helps people navigate their available choices; it cannot remove the structural forces that created them.
One possibility I am exploring is a student-led digital version of this process: something that helps a young person identify what they want from the next stage, recognise the constraints on their choices and compare the genuinely available routes. Parents could contribute where invited, while schools might simply make the resource available rather than having to administer another programme. It would not create choices that do not exist, but it might help students understand the choices and constraints they actually face.
Reply
Add comment