Category: humanities

  • 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

  • Our future may depend on the humanities

    Our future may depend on the humanities

    It’s natural that universities would contract. It is simply a market correction

    At least, that’s what a colleague recently said to me, referencing the earlier period of—some would say unfounded—growth in the UK’s higher education sector.

    But what we’re seeing now is not a neutral rebalancing of the books. It feels like a dismantling of the humanities, a retreat from the very fields of knowledge that hold the keys to our collective future.

    When and where

    The decisions being made about where and how to cut seem to reflect a logic of short-term profitability rather than long-term sustainability. Humanities programmes—often less lucrative than their STEM counterparts—have suffered disproportionately. Of the 400 job losses initially on the cards at Cardiff University, for example, as many as 120 were expected to be in the Arts and Humanities. Massive cuts in English, anthropology, theatre and music at Goldsmiths or philosophy, art history and music at University of Kent are only the tip of the iceberg.

    And yet, this is happening at the very moment we most need the humanities. As we face accelerating climate change, biodiversity loss, and a wider crisis of sustainability, it may seem natural to double down on disciplines like climatology and engineering. Few would question their centrality to the so-called green transition. But while these fields equip us with essential tools to understand and respond to environmental degradation, they deal with symptoms rather than root causes.

    Humanities in the environment

    Across the UK, humanities scholars are already playing a critical—if underappreciated—role in responding to environmental breakdown. At Bath Spa University, Samantha Walton’s “Changing Practice” project highlighted how a place-based lens, informed by arts and humanities, can help people connect with and care for their local environments, potentially overcoming feelings of detachment when facing large-scale crises like climate change. Through public engagement events, the project connected creative practitioners and academics with communities experiencing disruption and change, nurturing new collaborative networks and contributing to policy discussions about the meaning, ecology, and distinctive cultural characteristics of place. ​

    Researchers at the University of Leeds turned to British Romantic literature to explore how people have historically made sense of extreme weather, applying these insights to contemporary climate engagement. Their research informed collaborations with the Poetry Society and the Wordsworth Trust, including creative writing workshops and a youth poetry competition. These initiatives led to new learning programmes, shifts in classroom practice, and enhanced community well-being through creative expression. In drawing on the emotional and imaginative power of Romantic writing, the project showed how literature can deepen public understanding of climate crisis—not by simplifying it, but by inviting reflection, empathy, and a more expansive sense of connection.

    These are not abstract contributions. They are shaping policy, influencing institutions, and broadening how we respond to crisis. Yet the structures that enable this work are being steadily dismantled.

    The roots of the crisis

    Our current crises stem from narrow, technocratic thinking: a mindset that externalised environmental harm, reduced nature to property, and prioritised short-term gain over long-term survival. The humanities help us challenge that logic. Cutting them is doubling down on what brought us here.

    If universities are worried about low enrolments or declining interest in humanities programmes, the solution isn’t to axe them—it’s to reimagine them. It’s to find new ways of making the humanities matter to young people, and to society at large. That means reframing these disciplines not as relics of a pre-digital age, but as vital forms of inquiry and expression that help us live more fully, think more deeply, and engage more responsibly with the world.

    The role of a university cannot be reduced to supplying the labour force demanded by the current market. It must be a place that helps shape what we value in the first place. That means exposing students to ways of thinking they might not have encountered before. It means helping them see the world—and themselves—differently. And it means igniting the desire to study not only what is profitable, but what is meaningful.

    Pure imagination

    Ultimately, the antidote to our overlapping crises is not just better data or smarter technologies—it is expansive imagination. And that imagination is cultivated not in labs or spreadsheets, but through the critical, creative, and interpretive work of the humanities. Literature, philosophy, history, and the arts help us make sense of ourselves and others. They teach us to interrogate the present, reckon with the past, and imagine futures that aren’t simply extensions of the status quo.

    The humanities don’t just illuminate the blind spots of our civilisation—they challenge its assumptions, complicate its narratives, and expand the range of what we can think and feel. In a time of profound uncertainty, they offer not solutions, but orientation: a deeper sense of what is at stake, and why it matters.

    To treat them as dispensable is to confuse utility with value. The humanities are not a luxury—they are where a society’s ethical and imaginative life takes shape. They won’t give us all the answers, but they keep us asking the right questions—and without that, no future worth having can be built.

    Source link