Debunking the stimulus argument for higher education

In the past few months, we’ve witnessed a dramatic change in global rhetoric vis a vis public spending.  Even the stalwart socialist types across the globe are lately arguing for deficit reduction in lieu of the out of favour ’stimulus’ packages that seem consigned to Brown-era government.  It’s interesting to note that meanwhile, there are still those calling for huge and untenable public investment in universities.

Certainly, investment in higher education can yield economic results for years to come- but this is not an absolute principle and we must not allow for this idea to force our hands in distressing economic conditions.

There are plenty of factors to consider.  What kind of degrees are students obtaining?  How will they benefit the UK economy in decades to come?  What is the current public outlay per student, per degree, per lecturer, per module?  It’s not purely as simple as offering a one-liner about ‘the right to higher education’.

While lowering barriers to entry is a desirable and achievable goal – it’s no use if we’re producing 50,000+ more photography graduates per year.  There simply aren’t the jobs for them post-graduation.  More so, there are diminishing returns involved in terms of how much public money can be employed juxtaposed with potential future gains.

Pam Tatlow, of ‘Universities Think Tank – Million+’ has recently stated why she believes the coalition government should be promoting universities as ‘a source of long-term returns to the national exchequer’.  This is a false dichotomy founded on the ’stimulus’ principle which even the most socially driven politicans are steering away from.

Trying to explain to repossesed families or struggling businesses that they should be taxed more, or that they should benefit less from any tax cuts due to an investment in higher education is surely a kick in the teeth for those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives.  The argument falls short when you consider the opportunity cost of creating greater public debt for speculative future gains.

And that’s not all.  Recently, the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) has shown research that displays how 78 per cent of top employers are now filtering out any job applicants with less than a first or a 2:1 – thereby cementing the idea that a degree should not be viewed as a prerequiste to a right of employment.  In fact, they go as far to offer employment advice along the lines of ’shelf-stacking’ and ‘burger-flipping’ for those on 2:2s.

The point in this article, therefore?

Prospective students, current students and indeed graduates must not allow themselves to fall into the trap of assuming the right to higher education at a cost to the general public, nor assume the right to employment post-degree.  Education is an endeavour for knowledge, understanding and crucially in these times – a salary.  But let’s not fool ourselves into believing it is owed to us.  Your ‘rights’ stop where your ingenuity and tenacity does.

For all those on this path – best of luck, and keep on at it.