Blog5 June 2026
When my cohort went to university in the 1990s, we paid no tuition fees. Most of us didn’t have jobs, nor did we have to repay any debt, and student accommodation was relatively affordable. We had a great deal of time to learn, socialise, and enjoy the experience.
The reality for many university students today looks starkly different. Young people are facing a perfect storm: dramatic rises in the cost-of-living, reports of mental health difficulties at an all time high, and an already uncertain job market further upended by AI.
These issues have gained traction across the media in recent weeks. Last week, Alan Milburn’s report highlighted that nearly one million young people aged 16 to 24 in the United Kingdom are not in education, employment or training (NEET), of whom 15% – around 150,000 young people – reported a degree as their highest qualification.
As the student loan enquiry kicked off this week, the latest results of the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) gave us another reason to reflect on educational pathways for young people, and learners more broadly, with a third of respondents saying a university degree is not worth the time or money. This scepticism about the financial value of a degree has more than doubled over the past two decades.
Views on the value of a degree vary significantly across the population, with graduates and younger people far more positive about its benefits than non-graduates and older people. Since Brexit, these demographic differences have become an animating theme of our national debate, mapping onto wider political party support. In this environment, higher education as a sector – but also graduates themselves – appear to have weakened public support or sanction.
Don’t pump the breaks on social mobility
Public attitudes matter, but so too does the evidence on whether degrees pay off in the labour market. While pursuing a degree at university may not be the right choice for everyone, TASO research shows that further study is strongly associated with higher earnings and likelihood of being employed. This is especially the case for students who attend a ‘top third’ university – who see an average earnings premium of more than £20,000 16 years after sitting their GCSEs. Beyond earnings, we also know that graduates enjoy non-financial benefits too, such as better health and life expectancy.
Students from free school meal (FSM) backgrounds are shown to have stronger labour market returns across every qualification relative to peers who did not pursue further study, showing the importance of equal access to higher level qualifications as a priority for social mobility. Given these data, we should be very cautious in recommending that less well-off students avoid higher education. Such a suggestion risks worsening existing labour market inequalities by locking students from FSM backgrounds into lower wages.
Acceleration needed to close equality gaps
It’s timely and right to remind ourselves of the role universities play in driving social mobility, but we need to acknowledge that more work is needed to reduce entrenched equality gaps that follow learners throughout their working lives. While FSM graduates on average earn more than their peers who didn’t pursue further study, they still earn less than their more advantaged peers. In fact, the data could be interpreted as suggesting that regardless of educational qualifications, no matter how much talent they show or how much effort they put in, FSM children end up with lower incomes than their more advantaged peers.
We need to acknowledge both that all educational pathways result in worse outcomes for FSM children and that higher education pathways still yield better wages for those from lower income households in general. What, then, is to be done? The key thing is to reduce the costs of higher education and increase the benefits, particularly for disadvantaged learners, while explaining to students and the wider public how and why higher education is, or should be seen as, beneficial for everyone.
This means, first, we must double down on access to higher education. Far too few FSM children benefit from higher education, and this drives some of the employment and wage gaps we see in the labour market.
Second, we need to do more to address the costs of higher education, particularly for students from lower income backgrounds. It is reasonable for people to question the benefit of higher education in a context where costs are rising. The current debate and focus on tuition fees is important, but so too is targeted financial support for those with the greatest needs. Maintenance grants and bursaries remain inadequate for the true costs of living, resulting in higher proportions of students working. While this impacts many students, the consequences fall most on disadvantaged students.
Third, as TASO’s name highlights, we need to address gaps in student outcomes in higher education, not just access. It isn’t enough to admit students onto campuses and lecture halls. While completion and degree awards are the most direct outcomes higher education providers have control over, they need to do more to ensure their employability programmes are effective, including how these are effectively targeted on disadvantaged learners who face greater barriers in accessing the labour market.
Fourth, and following on from the above, employers clearly have a role to play here. Universities and colleges do not themselves hire graduates, and evidence of unequal outcomes and discrimination in the labour market remains. There are examples of good practice, but with a tighter labour market there’s a risk that more disadvantaged learners could be frozen out.
Fifth, alternative educational pathways are variable and less clear to young people, as well as their teachers, parents and employers. While it’s positive there’s widespread consensus that higher education isn’t the only way to achieve a good or well-paid job, ensuring high-quality pathways for qualifications at all skill levels remains more of an ambition than a reality. The establishment of Skills England and the post-16 skills and education white paper’s commitment to a ‘prestigious’ further education sector are signs that the government recognises the priority of this challenge.
Sixth, and finally, higher education providers and those of us advocating for the sector need to reflect and respond sensitively – not defensively – to public attitudes. Without social agreement of the value and contribution of higher education, including to non-graduates and the wider economy, the sector’s social licence to operate is threatened. Being more explicit about how the sector is addressing social mobility – not only through access but through outcomes – is important. So too is highlighting the wider non-financial benefits of higher education, reducing costs, especially for lower income students, and explaining its value to everyone, graduates and non-graduates alike. These are worthwhile aims in themselves, but are also vital for communicating the role and value of higher education in Britain more effectively.
While I’m not naive to think that we can return to the university experience I had, I do hope that we put in place better policies to support students from all backgrounds to access, succeed in, and progress from higher education – and perhaps even have some time to enjoy the experience along the way.