We are going down a dangerous path – equating the value of a university education with what a graduate might earn afterwards

We are going down a dangerous path – equating the value of a university education with what a graduate might earn afterwards. Why? Because the way successive governments have sought to reform higher education and introduce a market has resulted in increased competition, sometimes just for competition’s sake; a focus on money rather than value, and a casual disregard of the contribution of social sciences, humanities and the creative arts to our national life.

The Universities minister, Chris Skidmore, recently said: “Our future success depends on all these disciplines being completely intertwined.” He meant the social sciences, sciences, arts and humanities.

Listening to policy makers and politicians you could be forgiven for thinking it is only Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) graduates the country needs. Of course we need more doctors, nurses, engineers and computer scientists. No one disputes that. But now, more than ever, Britain needs an economy and a society where people have a broad range of skills and experience.

"Of course we need more doctors, nurses, engineers and computer scientists. No one disputes that. But now, more than ever, Britain needs an economy and a society where people have a broad range of skills and experience."

And we should be promoting social mobility, encouraging and supporting the aspirations of those who are less well off. Not punish them by making humanities or social science degrees so expensive they are out of their reach.

The creative economy accounts for one in 11 jobs across the UK and employs 700,000 more people than the financial services industry. Just as importantly, they are part of the rich fabric of our society and make a positive contribution to all our lives.

Our fashion designers, film producers, museums and galleries often are the envy of the world. Earlier this month, the UK sealed its reputation as the leading creative nation when the Royal College of Art and the University of the Arts London were named one and two in the QS global rankings of art and design institutions. Graduates from these institutions are showcasing their talent all over the world and flying the flag for Britain across continents.

"Our fashion designers, film producers, museums and galleries often are the envy of the world. Earlier this month, the UK sealed its reputation as the leading creative nation when the Royal College of Art and the University of the Arts London were named one and two in the QS global rankings of art and design institutions."

And where would we be without those who help us to understand and interpret the world? Who work tirelessly in NGOs and not-for-profit organisations bringing help and support to people who desperately need it. Those who fight for our rights, where others have given up.

While the IFS report and its conclusions will make an important contribution to the national discussion about the value and contribution of a university education, it is vitally important that we don’t have a knee-jerk reaction and conclude that degrees such as arts, humanities and social sciences are failing to contribute. Far from it. Creative Industries Federation data shows that in 2017 our creative industries were worth ￡101.5bn.

Relying on earnings alone to define contribution is a dangerous approach that fails to recognise these wider positive impacts on our culture and society.

"Relying on earnings alone to define contribution is a dangerous approach that fails to recognise these wider positive impacts on our culture and society."

Chris Skidmore, who taught history, understands the importance of interdisciplinary research and studies. He chose the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (where Glenda Jackson and Richard Attenborough honed their craft) to make his first higher education speech and in doing so took aim at misguided notions of what we mean by value for money in the context of higher education.

He said: “Successful outcomes for students and graduates are about much more than salary: if we are to define value purely in economic terms, based on salary levels or tax contributions, then we risk overlooking the vital contribution of degrees of social value, such as nursing or social care, not to mention overlooking the arts, humanities and social sciences – the very disciplines that make our lives worth living.”

The government has already acknowledged this in its approach to the Industrial Strategy and in its investment in the Global Challenges Research Fund. We know that the grand challenges humanity faces can’t be solved by scientists and engineers working alone. Collaboration is key. They need the designers who can bring solutions to life, the social scientists who understand the human condition and the artists who inspire us to change our behaviour through their images, words and music.

Whatever path a student chooses, whether it is the arts or the sciences, their opportunity must not be cut off by an approach to funding that looks only to reward outcomes based on earnings, at the expense of the wider benefits which we all gain from those going to university.

This article was first published in The Independent on 6 March in response to the International Fiscal Studies report on the value and contribution of a university education.