Category: graduate outcomes

  • What SHAPE graduates do | Wonkhe

    What SHAPE graduates do | Wonkhe

    As debates continue about the value of degrees, and the role of universities in society and the future economy, understanding graduate outcomes is more important than ever.

    Yet much of the current discussion – and policymaking – is shaped by narrow metrics, which over-focus on graduate earnings.

    This approach overlooks many of the ways graduates contribute to society and distorts our understanding of the value of different subjects.

    The right SHAPE

    The British Academy represents SHAPE disciplines; social sciences, humanities and arts for people and the economy. SHAPE graduates develop crucial skills like critical thinking, creativity and problem solving. These skills help them contribute to tackling many of today’s most pressing challenges, from climate change to the ethical deployment of AI.

    However, we wanted to know more. How do they use these skills? What do SHAPE graduates do after university? How can we best measure the full breadth of their contribution to the UK economy and society? And do we have the data to address these questions comprehensively?

    To help provide answers, the British Academy has launched a new data-rich policy resource, Understanding SHAPE Graduates, which illustrates exactly how SHAPE graduates contribute to the UK economy and society. The toolkit consists of an interactive data dashboard, a series of key findings drawn from the data, and a policy briefing contextualising the measurement of graduate outcomes.

    SHAPE graduates and the economy

    The toolkit offers several myth-busting insights into SHAPE graduate activity, some of which we will outline here. Importantly, it challenges the narrative that SHAPE graduates have weak labour market prospects, showing that their employment rates are strong: 87 per cent of SHAPE graduates were in work in 2023, compared to 79 per cent of non-graduates with level 3 qualifications and 88 per cent of STEM graduates.

    SHAPE graduates also earn significantly more than non-graduates, with an average real hourly wage of £21 in 2023 – £5 higher than the average for those with at least two A levels or equivalent. And you can increasingly find them working in the UK’s fastest growing sectors; between 2010 and 2022, the top three sectors by GVA growth – manufacturing; transport and communication; and professional, scientific and technical services – saw growing numbers of SHAPE graduates. These sectors are outlined in the Government’s Industrial Strategy green paper, and SHAPE graduates comprised 52.8 per cent of the graduate workforce in all of them combined in 2023, up from 45.8 per cent in 1997.

    They are also well represented in the UK’s most productive regions. In 2023, SHAPE first-degree graduates accounted for 71 per cent per cent of the graduate workforce in London, 64 per cent in the North West and 58 per cent in the South East of England – the three regions with the highest GDP levels that year.

    What the data doesn’t show

    While the Academy’s policy toolkit marks a step forward, it also highlights the limitations of current graduate data. For example, while broad categories like SHAPE and STEM are useful, they can mask significant variations between disciplines.

    The toolkit uses the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset. Most significantly, both LEO and LFS focus primarily on earnings and employment. This narrow lens misses non-financial aspects of graduate impact – such as contributions to public life, wellbeing, culture, and civic engagement – which are especially important in understanding the SHAPE disciplines.

    Limitations in longitudinal graduate data also present specific challenges. Response rates to the LFS have declined in recent years, affecting its robustness, particularly for smaller cohorts like doctoral graduates. And the LEO dataset, which offers rich England-only data by tracking individuals from education into the labour market, has its own knowledge gaps. For example, LEO does not distinguish between full-time and part-time work, making it harder to interpret earnings data, especially for female graduates who are more likely to work part-time due to caregiving responsibilities. LEO also struggles to fully capture self-employed graduates, including freelancers in the creative industries and other sectors, due to its reliance on PAYE data.

    Looking ahead, the HESA Graduate Outcomes Survey (which replaced the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey in 2018) offers promise. Over time, it will offer increasingly longitudinal insights to help us deepen our understanding, and it is encouraging to see that HESA is already exploring non-financial measures of graduate activity. We plan to incorporate these into future work.

    Starting the conversation

    The Understanding SHAPE Graduates toolkit shows that SHAPE graduates are vital to the UK economy. As we approach the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review and await the publication of its refreshed Industrial Strategy, we must remember that the UK’s future success depends on drawing talent from across all disciplines.

    We want to continue exploring how we capture non-financial outcomes, to reflect the full value of a university education.

    At the British Academy, we will continue to champion the diverse and vital contributions that SHAPE graduates make across society and the economy. We look forward to working with the sector to develop better data, better metrics, and better understanding.

    You can see and use the data here.

    Source link

  • Subject-level insights on graduate activity

    Subject-level insights on graduate activity

    We know a lot about what graduates earn.

    Earnings data—especially at subject level—has become key to debates about the value of higher education.

    But we know far less about how graduates themselves experience their early careers. Until now, subject-level data on graduate job quality—how meaningful their work is, how well it aligns with their goals, and whether it uses their university-acquired skills—has been missing from the policy debate.

    My new study (co-authored with Fiona Christie and Tracy Scurry and published in Studies in Higher Education) aims to fill this gap. Drawing on responses from the 2018-19 graduation cohort in the national Graduate Outcomes survey, we provide the first nationally representative, subject-level analysis of these subjective graduate outcomes.

    What we find has important implications for how we define successful outcomes from higher education—and how we support students in making informed choices about what subject to study.

    What graduates tell us

    The Graduate Outcomes survey includes a set of questions—introduced by HESA in 2017—designed to capture core dimensions of graduate job quality. Respondents are asked (around 15 months after graduation) whether they:

    • find their work meaningful
    • feel it aligns with their future plans
    • believe they are using the skills acquired at university

    These indicators were developed in part to address the over-reliance on income as a measure of graduate success. They reflect a growing international awareness that economic outcomes alone offer a limited picture of the value of education—in line with the OECD’s Beyond GDP agenda, the ILO’s emphasis on decent work, and the UK’s Taylor Review focus on job quality.

    Subject-level insights

    Our analysis shows that most UK graduates report positive early-career experiences, regardless of subject. Across the sample, 86 per cent said their work felt meaningful, 78 per cent felt on track with their careers, and 66 per cent reported using their degree-level skills.

    These patterns generally hold across disciplines, though clear differences emerge. The chart below shows the raw, unadjusted proportion of graduates who report positive outcomes. Graduates from vocational fields—such as medicine, subjects allied to medicine, veterinary science, and education—tend to report particularly strong outcomes. For instance, medicine and dentistry graduates were 12 percentage points more likely than average to say their work was meaningful, and over 30 points more likely to report using the skills they acquired at university.

    However, the results also challenge the narrative that generalist or academic degrees are inherently low value. As you can see, most subject areas—including history, languages, and the creative arts, often targeted in these debates—show strong subjective outcomes across the three dimensions. Only one field, history and philosophy, fell slightly below the 50 per cent threshold on the skills utilisation measure. But even here, graduates still reported relatively high levels of meaningful work and career alignment.

    Once we adjusted for background characteristics—such as social class, gender, prior attainment, and institutional differences—many of the remaining gaps between vocational and generalist subjects narrowed and were no longer statistically significant.

    This chart shows the raw proportion of 2018-19 graduates who agree or strongly agree that their current work is meaningful, on track and using skills, by field of study (N = 67,722)

    Employment in a highly skilled occupation—used by the Office for Students (OfS) as a key regulatory benchmark—was not a reliable predictor of positive outcomes. This finding aligns with previous HESA research and raises important questions about the appropriateness of using occupational classification as a proxy for graduate success at the subject level.

    Rethinking what we measure and value

    These insights arrive at a time when the OfS is placing greater emphasis on regulating equality of opportunity and ensuring the provision of “full, frank, and fair information” to students. If students are to make informed choices, they need access to subject-level data that reflects more than salary, occupational status, or postgraduate progression. Our findings suggest that subjective outcomes—how graduates feel about their work—should be part of that conversation.

    For policymakers, our findings highlight the risks of relying on blunt outcome metrics—particularly earnings and occupational classifications—as indicators of course value. Our data show that graduates from a wide range of subjects—including those often labelled as “low value”—frequently go on to report meaningful work shortly after graduation that aligns with their future plans and makes use of the skills they developed at university.

    And while job quality matters, universities should not be held solely accountable for outcomes shaped by employers and labour market structures. Metrics and league tables that tie institutional performance too closely to job quality risk misrepresenting what higher education can influence. A more productive step would be to expand the Graduate Outcomes survey to include a wider range of job quality indicators—such as autonomy, flexibility, and progression—offering a fuller picture of early career graduate success.

    A richer understanding

    Our work offers the first nationally representative, subject-level insight into how UK graduates evaluate job quality in the early stages of their careers. In doing so, it adds a missing piece to the value debate—one grounded not just in earnings or employment status, but in graduates’ own sense of meaning, purpose, and skill use.

    If we are serious about understanding what graduates take from their university experience, it’s time to move beyond salary alone—and to listen more carefully to what graduates themselves are telling us.

    DK notes: Though the analysis that Brophy et al have done (employing listwise deletion, examining UK domiciled first degree graduates only) enhances our understanding of undergraduate progression and goes beyond what is publicly available, I couldn’t resist plotting the HESA public data in a similar way, as it may be of interest to readers:

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • Second-generation student borrowers | SRHE Blog

    Second-generation student borrowers | SRHE Blog

    by Ariane de Gayardon

    Since the 1980s, massification, policy shifts, and changing ideas about who benefits from higher education have led to the expansion of national student loan schemes globally. For instance, student loans were introduced in England in 1990 and generalized in 1998. Australia introduced income-contingent student loans in the late 1980s. While federal student loans were introduced in the US in 1958, their number and the amount of individual student loan debt ramped up in the 1990s.

    A lot of academic research has analysed this trend, evaluating the effect of student loans on access, retention, success, the student experience, and even graduate outcomes. Yet, this research is based on the choices and experiences of first-generation student borrowers and might not apply to current and future students.

    First-generation borrowers enter higher education with parents who have either not been to higher education, or who have a tertiary degree that pre-dates the expansion of student loans. The parents of first-generation borrowers therefore did not take up loans to pay for their higher education and had no associated repayment burden in adulthood. Any cost associated with these parents’ studies will likely have been shouldered by their families or through grants.

    Second-generation borrowers are the offspring of first-generation borrowers. Their parents took out student loans to pay for their own higher education. The choices made by second-generation borrowers when it comes to higher education and its funding could significantly differ from first-generation borrowers, because they are impacted by their parents’ own experience with student loans.

    Parents and parental experience indeed play an important role in children’s higher education choices and financial decisions. On the one hand, parents can provide financial or in-kind support for higher education. This is most evident in the design of student funding policies which often integrate parental income and financial contributions. In many countries, eligibility for financial aid is means-tested and based on family income (Williams & Usher, 2022). Examples include the US where an Expected Family Contribution is calculated upon assessment of financial need, or Germany where the financial aid system is based on a legal obligation for parents to contribute to their children’s study costs. Indeed, evidence shows that parents do contribute to students’ income. In Europe, family contributions make up nearly half of students’ income (Hauschildt et al, 2018). But the role of parents also extends to decisions about student loans: parents tend to try and shield their children from student debt, helping them financially when possible or encouraging cost-saving behaviour (West et al, 2015).

    On the other hand, parents transmit financial values to their children, which might play a role in their higher education decisions. Family financial socialization theory states that children learn their financial attitudes and behaviour from their parents, through direct teaching and via family interactions and relationships (Gudmunson & Danes, 2011). Studies indeed show the intergenerational transmission of social norms and economic preferences (Maccoby, 1992), including attitudes towards general debt (Almenberg et al, 2021). Continuity of financial values over generations has been observed in the specific case of higher education. Parents who received parental financial support for their own studies are more likely to contribute toward their children’s studies (Steelman & Powell, 1991). For some students, negative parental experiences with general debt can lead to extreme student debt aversion (Zerquera et al,2016).

    As countries globally rely increasingly on student loans to fund higher education, many more students will become second-generation borrowers. Because their parents had to repay their own student debt, the family’s financial assets may be depleted, potentially leading to reduced levels of parental financial support for higher education. This is likely to be even worse for students whose parents are still repaying their loans. In addition, parental experiences of student debt could influence the advice they give their children with regard to higher education financial decisions. As a result, this new generation of student borrowers will face challenges that their predecessors did not, fuelled by the transmitted experience of student loans from their parents (Figure 1).

    Figure 1 – Parental influence on second-generation borrowers

    As the share of second-generation borrowers in the student body increases, the need to understand the decision-making process of these students when it comes to (financial) higher education choices is essential. Although the challenges faced by borrowers will emerge at different times and with varying intensity across countries — depending in part on loan repayment formats — we have an opportunity now to be ahead of the curve. By researching this new generation of student borrowers and their parents, we can better assess their financial dilemmas and the support they need, providing further evidence to design future-proof equitable student funding policies.

    Ariane de Gayardon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) based at the University of Twente in the Netherlands.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link