Tag: Graduates

Graduates are paying more and getting less

There’s an absolutely jaw-dropping passage in this year’s IFS Annual report on education spending in England.

In total, we now estimate that under current policy, the long-run cost of issuing loans to the 2022–23 starting cohort will be negative (–£0.8 billion), with graduates repaying more than they borrowed, when future repayments are adjusted for inflation.

In other words, we’ve gone from government suggesting that the state would subsidise undergraduate student loans by about 45p in the pound, to making a profit on them for that cohort.

Put another way, we’ve stealthily moved from a £4,950 (graduates) £4,050 (state) cost sharing arrangement in the headline tuition fee to a £9,606 (graduates) -£356 (state) split for that 2022 cohort.

“Tuition fees almost doubled in a decade on average” is not the story that universities tend to tell. But it is, according to the IFS, the reality.

Floods of tears

I like to think of the English student loan system as an onion with several layers, all of which make people cry.

On the surface there’s the headline fee, even though you might not pay that in the end. Below that there’s the “debt” figure that appears on your student loan statement, which is impacted by interest. You may well not pay that either, because student loans are written off after a certain number of years.

What really matters – several layers down – is the repayment terms. And that 2022 cohort have been double whacked.

Back in 2022, then universities minister Michelle Donelan announced a response to the Augar review, in which she was “delighted to announce” that she would deliver the Conservatives’ manifesto commitment to address the interest rates on student loans by reducing it to down to inflation only.

To pay for that reduction in eventual repayments, the new “Plan 5” was only going to write off loans after 40 rather than 30 years, and the repayment threshold would be set at £25,000, rising with inflation from April 2027 onwards.

But for 2022 starters on the old Plan 2 – the ones with interest rates at RPI-X plus 3 per cent – she also announced a decision to hold the Plan 2 repayment threshold at £27,295 until April 2025.

Fixing the threshold in cash terms was going to pull more borrowers into repayment and increase repayments year by year, which at the time the IFS said would mean nearly all borrowers would lose from the reform, with graduates with middling earnings set to lose the most:

And on the Plan 5 changes, the IFS said that cutting the repayment threshold and then freezing it (and changing how it is uprated thereafter), extending the repayment term from 30 to 40 years, and cutting the interest rate to inflation only would result in graduates with lower-middling earnings losing the most, while the highest earners would gain substantially:

The changes were, in other words, both stealthy and regressive.

The Pink Panther meets reverse Robin Hood

In 2022, Labour’s then Shadow Secretary of Education, Bridget Phillipson, said:

The Tories are delivering another stealth tax for new graduates starting out on their working lives which will hit those on low incomes hardest.

In her September 2023 speech to Universities UK conference, she said:

…student finance will be the first to see change, although by no means the last. We have been clear about that from opposition and we will be clear about that from power.

She was concerned about distributional impact:

The Tory changes which bite a first cohort of students this autumn are desperately unfair. More unfair on women. More unfair on low earners. More unfair, not just for a few short years, but all through a generation of working lives, with higher loan repayments eating away at pay for young graduates just as they’re starting out on their working lives, and deterring older learners from retraining or upskilling.

And we got commitments on change, and the speed of that change:

Future nursing graduates repaying about £60 more a month. The Tories’ choices are hammering the next generation of nurses, teachers and social workers; of engineers, of designers and researchers. It’s wrong. It’s unsustainable. And it’s going to change. And why I tell you today that the next Labour government, whenever it is elected, will move swiftly to right these wrongs.

In an interview with the Telegraph on 7th October 2023, she doubled down – saying that the new system is “going to become more regressive for lower middle earners” and:

…is not a sustainable system… we will have to confront that if we win the election.

And then on BBC Question Time in May 2024, she said:

I am determined that we can deliver a more progressive system without any more spending or borrowing.

But rather than deliver on that raft of promises, they’ve done the stealth and regressive thing again.

Blink and you missed it

Buried in the Budget in November, chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a freeze in the Plan 2 repayment threshold – it is to be frozen at its April 2026 level (£29,385) for three years.

There’s been a dribble of political press coverage ever since, focussed mainly on the plight of young graduates and the rise in the minimum wage eroding the graduate premium.

But (as the IFS point out in their annual report), something else was hiding. As well as the repayment threshold, Plan 2 interest-rate thresholds (the lower and higher thresholds that determine whether interest is charged at RPI, RPI plus 3 per cent, or a sliding rate between) are also to be frozen for three years for Plan 2 grads, at their April 2026 levels (£29,385 and £52,885).

This was not mentioned at all in the Budget document or speech, but did appear deep in OBR costings – and was subsequently confirmed to the IFS.

For that 2022 cohort, it means many more borrowers can expect to make repayments for longer, and an increase in the interest accrued. And the IFS says that the latter will have nearly as substantial an impact on lifetime loan repayments as the repayment threshold freeze, and will affect a different set of borrowers.

Here’s how the IFS calculate the distributional impacts of the changes for that 2022 cohort:

I’m not sure I could have invented a stealthier, or more regressive change if I tried.

One thing I note in passing is that the changes to both Plan 2 and Plan 5 are usually accompanied by an equality impact assessment – that hasn’t appeared at all – and the changes to Plan 2 are actually in theory joint changes that require both Welsh and English ministers to lay them jointly.

Not only has the secondary legislation not appeared, there’s no word yet on whether Welsh ministers are accepting them. And if and when we do get that EIA, let’s not expect much light – given that DfE doesn’t even bother to break down estimates of loan borrower numbers by the rate of interest paid.

It couldn’t be, could it, that a Treasury desperate to make its excel sheets add up having ruled out income tax increases just decided at the last minute to raid the budgets of Plan 2 graduates in the hope that nobody would notice? Could it?

The student interest (rate)

Of course being less “stealthy” does require someone to peel back the onion layers – never the Treasury’s strong suit – and pretty much the only opinion in the Gordian knot on making changes that are less regressive involves higher interest rates. It’s only by asking both Plan 2 and Plan 5 high-earning graduates to pay back more (by paying their “graduate tax” for longer) that you can do it.

But the political problem of increasing interest rates is significant – because everyone hates interest, especially when it adds to that (often irrelevant) balance figure. And because the system is still labelled as a loan and sold as a loan, and because therefore people assume (hope?) they’ll pay it back some day, more interest sounds bad.

For that Plan 2 mob, if government had just whacked interest up to a gazillion per cent, all of them would be paying graduate tax for 30 years – with only the most successful graduates paying more. But in that “it’s a bit like a loan and it’s a bit like a tax” dance, tilting the see-saw towards loan will always mean it ends up more regressive.

In a debate just before Christmas on student loans, Treasury minister Torsten Bell said that there had been a “cross-party consensus” that a fairer system of university funding will require a “lower net contribution to universities from the taxpayer”.

In 2025, 34 per cent of loan debt for full-time plan 2 graduates was forecast not to be repaid, so what we are talking about is still substantive.

The Department for Education’s calculation of the RAB charge differs a little from the way the Treasury calculates the subsidy in the accounts every year, and both differ a little from the way the IFS calculates things.

But Bell was actually referring to the tiny number of students left getting a new Plan 2 loan this year. And at what point has there been a “cross-party consensus” that the subsidy for 2022 entrants should be minus 4 per cent?

More importantly, why on earth should students who are paying more but getting less be expected to fund the raft of public “goods” expected from their private debt, when the only contribution the state will make for that cohort is running the loan scheme?

That’s livin’ all wrong

Elsewhere in the report, there’s analysis on the international levy and the proposed maintenance grants, and a pretty shocking graph on the decline in maintenance loan entitlements per year by household income:

The upshot there is that despite the government trumpeting that maintenance would be index-increased along with fees, by 2029–30 IFS expects that some students – those with household residual incomes of between £23,400 and £61,400 – may be able to borrow less in real terms than they would be entitled to this academic year, with the largest falls of over £1,100 (around a sixth) for those with household incomes of around £53,000.

That’s the refusal to uprate the household income threshold since its announcement in 2007 – which will see fewer and fewer students getting the maximum loan as the Parliament continues.

(Astonishingly, the government’s guidance for the 2025-26 iteration of the Turing scheme now defines “students from disadvantaged backgrounds” as someone with an annual household income of £35,000 or less, up from £25,000 last year. They’d have to be able to afford to participate HE in the first place, mind)

I’ve not rehearsed here the stealthy abolition of the protection you currently get on the parental contribution when more than one child is in higher education, the miserable state of PG loans (both in repayment and value terms), the shocking state of the level of support for student parents, the slow shift of DSA onto universities’ budgets, the shameful way we treat those on universal credit that are in full-time education, or the ways in which this reduction in the spending envelope will impact the “equivalence” envelope for the loans systems in devolved nations.

But I will rehearse how far Labour has fallen on student financial support.

Those were the days

In January 2004, partly to sweeten the pill over proposals to raise fees to £3,000, then Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Charles Clarke) announced a new package of student finance to ensure that “disadvantaged students will get financial support to study what they want, where they want”.

From September 2006 there were to be new higher education grants – and maintenance loans were to be raised to the median level of students’ basic living costs as reported by the student income and expenditure survey – to ensure that students have “enough money to meet their basic living costs while studying”.

The aspiration was to move to a position where the maintenance loan was “no longer means-tested” and available in full to all full-time undergraduates, so students would be treated “as financially independent from the age of 18”. Graduates were to get the optyion of a repayment holiday to ease the burden as they moved into the labour market. And the new Office for Fair Access was to be required to issue additional bursaries to students.

By July 2007, the then new Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, John Denham, went further with new reforms to support for (undergraduate) students in higher education (from England) – to recognise that hard-working families on modest incomes had “concerns about the affordability of university study”.

The rhetorical flourishes are all pretty similar to those we hear today – but we should, for the sake of argument, look at what has happened since. Even though by the time the changes were implemented the SIES data was a few years old, at least the “we’ll fund basic living costs” principle was there.

In 2007 DIUS ministers had not been able to persuade the Treasury to abandon means testing – but full grants were to be made available to new students from families with incomes of up to £25,000, compared with £18,360 – along with minimum £310 bursaries from higher education institutions.

The announcement was accompanied by a document with some handy case studies – Student A, whose parents who had a combined household income of £50,000 and who had a brother who already studying at university; Student B, from from a single parent family with a household income of £20,000; and Student C, living with both parents who had a residual household income of £25,000.

Here’s what they were entitled to at the time (away from home, outside of London):

Student A Student B Student C

Household income 50000 20000 25000

Grant 560 2825 2825

Loan 4070 3370 3370

Guaranteed bursary 310 310

Total 4630 6505 6505

That £25,000 household income threshold hasn’t moved since, there’s now no grants (and the ones that are coming derisory), nobody’s guaranteed a bursary (and most universities are reducing their spend on bursaries) and both prices and incomes have risen since.

So to see how far things have fallen, let’s see what those three students were entitled to last year. Student A’s parents now earn around £83,500; Student B’s single parent family now earns around £33,400; and Student C’s parents earn around £41,750.

Student A Student B Student C

Household income 83500 33400 41750

Maintenance loan 4767 9497 8035

Now let’s adjust those totals to 2008 prices (RPI) to look what what they’re worth:

Student A Student B Student C

Maintenance loan 2569 5117 4330

And let’s do the comparison in 2008 prices, which shakes down as follows:

Student A Student B Student C

2008 4630 6505 6505

2024 2569 5117 4330

Inc/Dec -2061 -1388 -2175

-45% -22% -34%

Finally, let’s take HEPI’s minimum income standard from 2024 as a way of judging the gap between state (loan) support and what students need – the implied parental/part-time work contribution – we can see the problem in another way as follows (all figures adjusted for 2024 prices via RPI):

Student A Student B Student C

2008 £10,040 short £6,561 short £6,561 short

2024 £13,865 short £10,135 short £10,598 short

Why are two-thirds of students working? Why is attendance becoming so hard to secure? Why are mental health problems rocketing? Why are more and more students choosing to live at home, restricting their subject and institution choices? Why is youth despair at record levels? Sometimes the answers are pretty obvious, really.

Levelling down

Why is all of this happening? An observation on borrowing, and two final graphs from the IFS report tell the real story.

First, borrowing. Back in 2021, when the government borrowed money on the bond markets to fund student loans, it could do so very cheaply in real terms because interest rates were low and inflation was expected to be higher – so investors were effectively accepting a loss after inflation.

In practical terms, markets were willing to pay the government about 1.4 per cent a year, after inflation, just to lend it money.

But today – mainly because Germany is now back in the borrowing game – the situation has reversed. Interest rates on long-term government borrowing are much higher, while expected inflation over the same period is lower, so borrowing now costs the government money in real terms.

Using the same measure, the government is now paying investors roughly 2.3 per cent a year, after inflation, to finance new student loan borrowing. The swing from a negative to a positive real cost is large, and it materially changes how expensive student loans are for the public finances – just not in way that is especially (or, in fact, at all) transparent.

And then there’s the IFS education spending squid:

To be fair to ministers, it’s true that the research says you can make the most difference on life chances by investing in early years. Substantially, coupled with investment in NEETs and those in further education, we are seeing ministerial priorities manifest over time:

But none of the research that underpins those priorities weighs up cutting the spend on HE to fund everything else, which will mean spend per student will soon be just 44 per cent greater than primary school spending per pupil, having been almost four times greater in the early 1990s.

More importantly, there simply hasn’t been a proper debate about the share of that blue line that should be paid by the state versus the share (eventually) paid by graduates since the grand promises of the early 2010s.

We now, by some very substantial measure, have easily the most expensive state higher education system in Europe from a student/graduate point of view – a system which see the recipients paying more and more, getting less and less, and having less money (and therefore time) to participate in what’s there – resulting in worse educational outcomes (as measured internationally), and worse mental health.

And it’s a system in which, thanks to graphs like this and the regressive nature of the loans changes described above, where distributionally, the losers are also those least likely to benefit from the great boomer wealth transfer that is coming in the next decade:

Add it all up, and it means that the role that higher education once thought it played in social mobility is pretty much dead. From here, talk like that I’ll be an angel then things can only get worse.

Source link

January 21, 2026
Emirates Aviation University graduates to feed directly into aviation industry

The graduates were conferred by His Highness Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, chairman and chief executive of Emirates Airline and Group, and chancellor of EAU. Addressing the ceremony, he highlighted the growing importance of digitally skilled professionals as the sector undergoes rapid transformation.

Held at the EAU campus in Dubai, the latest cohort brings the university’s total number of graduates to more than 26,500 – with the institution reporting a 94% employability rate, underlining its role in supporting the aviation industry’s evolving talent pipeline.

“As the industry enters a new era driven by digital transformation and innovation, the next generation of talent will play a defining role in charting its course,” said Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum.

“The graduates of EAU embody this momentum in the industry. They are equipped with the insight, resilience, and ambition needed to navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. Their achievements reflect our commitment to supporting an industry that remains vital to the world’s progress and prosperity. We extend our warmest congratulations to this exceptional cohort as they begin their journey into the future of aviation.”

The ceremony was attended by senior Emirates Group executives, EAU leadership and faculty, alongside graduates’ families and guests, as graduating students celebrated their completion of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees across aviation management, aeronautical engineering, aircraft maintenance engineering, logistics and supply chain management, aviation safety and security, and other key disciplines that support the aviation ecosystem.

The graduates of EAU embody this momentum in the industry. They are equipped with the insight, resilience, and ambition needed to navigate an increasingly complex global landscape
^{_{His Highness Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum}}, ^{_{Emirates Airline and Group}}

“This year’s graduating class reflects the depth of talent nurtured at EAU,” stated Professor Ahmad Al Ali, vice chancellor of EAU.

“Our programs are developed in close alignment with the evolving needs of the aviation and technology sectors, ensuring our students graduate with industry‑relevant expertise and a forward‑looking mindset,” he added.

In addition, as part of the Emirates Group, EAU integrates industry exposure into its academic model. In 2025 alone, the Group trained 130 EAU interns, while more than 3,000 students have completed placements at Emirates and dnata over the years, gaining practical industry experience alongside their studies.

Of the 379 graduates, 296 completed bachelor’s degrees and 83 completed postgraduate qualifications. The cohort included 121 UAE nationalists, with 28 engineering students fully sponsored by Emirates Engineering. 20 students were recognised for outstanding academic performance across disciplines.

EAU also highlighted its emphasis on experiential learning, with students presenting engineering and artificial intelligence projects through the NextGen Leaders Program and Dubai Airshow 2025, offering exposure at one of the world’s leading aerospace events.

Founded in 1991, EAU is the education arm of the Emirates Group. It has established itself as the leading university for aviation studies in the region.

The university offers a comprehensive range of undergraduate, postgraduate, and research programmes in aeronautical engineering, aviation management, logistics and supply management, AI & data science, aviation safety, and aviation security studies. EAU also provides a one-semester internship programme with the Emirates Group for undergraduate students.

Source link

January 16, 2026
Four Tips to Help Students and Families Navigate Life After High School – The 74

Many high school seniors are now focusing on what they will do once they graduate – or how they don’t at all know what is to come.

Families trying to guide and support these students at the juncture of a major life transition likely also feel nervous about the open-ended possibilities, from starting at a standard four-year college to not attending college at all.

I am a mental health counselor and psychology professor.

Here are four tips to help make deciding what comes after high school a little easier for everyone involved:

1. Shadow someone with a job you might want

I have worked with many college students who are interested in a particular career path, but are not familiar with the job’s day-to-day workings.

A parent, teacher or another adult in this student’s life could connect them with someone they shadow at work, even for a day, so the student can better understand what the job entails.

High school students may also find that interviewing someone who works in a particular field is another helpful way to narrow down career path options, or finalize their college decisions.

Research published in 2025 shows that high school students who complete an internship are better able to decide whether certain careers are a good fit for them.

2. Look at the numbers

Full-time students can pay anywhere from about US$4,000 for in-state tuition at a public state school per semester to just shy of $50,000 per semester at a private college or university. The average annual cost of tuition alone at a public college or university in 2025 is $10,340, while the average cost of a private school is $39,307.

Tuition continues to rise, though the rate of growth has slowed in the past few years.

About 56% of 2024 college graduates had taken out loans to pay for college.

Concerns about affording college often come up with clients who are deciding on whether or not to get a degree. Research has shown that financial stress and debt load are leading to an increase in students dropping out of college.

It can be helpful for some students to look at tuition costs and project what their monthly student loan payments would be like after graduation, given the expected salary range in particular careers. Financial planning could also help students consider the benefits and drawbacks of public, private, community colleges or vocational schools.

Even with planning, there is no guarantee that students will be able to get a job in their desired field, or quickly earn what they hope to make. No matter how prepared students might be, they should recognize that there are still factors outside their control.

3. Normalize other kinds of schools

I have found that some students feel they should go to a four-year college right after they graduate because it is what their families expect. Some students and parents see a four-year college as more prestigious than a two-year program, and believe it is more valuable in terms of long-term career growth.

That isn’t the right fit for everyone, though.

Enrollment at trade-focused schools increased almost 20% from the spring of 2020 through 2025, and now comprises 19.4% of public two-year college enrollment.

Going to a trade school or seeking a two-year associate’s degree can put students on a direct path to get a job in a technical area, such as becoming a registered nurse or electrician.

But there are also reasons for students to think carefully about trade schools.

In some cases, trade schools are for-profit institutions and have been subjected to federal investigation for wrongdoing. Some of these schools have been fined and forced to close.

Still, it is important for students to consider which path is personally best for them.

Research has shown that job satisfaction has a positive impact on mental health, and having a longer history with a career field leads to higher levels of job satisfaction.

4. Consider a gap year before shutting down the idea

One strategy that high school graduates have used in recent years is taking a year off between high school and college in order to better determine what is the right fit for a student. Approximately 2% to 3% of high school graduates take a gap year – typically before going on to enroll in college.

Some young people may travel during a gap year, volunteer, or get a job in their hometown.

Whatever the reason students take gap years, I have seen that the time off can be beneficial in certain situations. Taking a year off before starting college has also been shown to lead to better academic performance in college.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Source link

December 6, 2025
Are young college graduates losing an edge in the job market?
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Young college graduates are now spending more time unemployed than job hunters with only a high school diploma, according to an analysis published Monday.
- Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that, from June 2024 to June 2025, 37.1% of unemployed workers between the ages of 22 and 27 with at least a bachelor’s degree either found work or stopped looking for work each month. That’s compared to 41.5% of their peers who only completed high school.
- Their report comes amid other signs of a tough job market for recent graduates. The most recent unemployment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, released Thursday, shows 9.7% of bachelor’s degree holders ages 20 to 24 were unemployed in September — up from 6.8% a year prior.
Dive Insight:

A college degree still provides young workers with economic and professional advantages, the Cleveland Fed analysis found. Once employed, college graduates earn more than their degreeless counterparts and experience increased job stability, it said.

However, researchers pointed to signs that some of the job market advantages of a college degree are eroding.

For decades, workers with a high school degree typically saw unemployment rates about 5 percentage points higher than college graduates did, according to the analysis.

That gap temporarily widened during the 2008 financial crisis, when high school graduates had a particularly difficult time finding work.

But the Great Recession obscured that the gap in job-finding rates between high school graduates and those with four-year college degrees had been slowly closing since the turn of the century, according to the Cleveland Fed researchers.

With brief exception during the pandemic, the unemployment rate gap between the two groups has slowly shrunk since 2008.

In July, the 12-month average unemployment rate for young college graduates stood only 2.5 percentage points lower than that of their peers without a postsecondary degree. That’s the smallest gap since the record low of 2.4 percentage points in March 2024.

That slim difference, combined with the delay in degree-holders getting hired, indicates “that a long period of relatively easier job-finding prospects for college grads has ended,” researchers said Monday.

“The labor market advantages conferred by a college degree have historically justified individual investment in higher education and expanding support for college access,” they said. “If the job-finding rate of college graduates continues to decline relative to the rate for high school graduates, we may see a reversal of these trends.”

The pandemic resulted in a tight labor market, but the Cleveland Fed researchers said their findings can’t solely be attributed to the long-lasting disruptions of COVID-19.

“If historically tight labor markets drove narrowing, the high school job-finding rate should have risen to match college rates rather than a decline in the college job-finding rate,” they said.

The decades-long trend also predates the influence of artificial intelligence on the job market.

Instead, the researchers noted that the timing correlates with a broader market shift from “college-biased to education-neutral growth in labor demand.”

“Declining job prospects among young college graduates may reflect the continued growth in college attainment, adding ever larger cohorts of college graduates to the ranks of job seekers, even though technology no longer favors college-educated workers,” they said.

However, older degree-holders are not seeing the same stark unemployment numbers.

In September, 3.6% of bachelor’s degree-holders ages 25 to 34 were unemployed, according to BLS data. That’s well under the overall unemployment rate of 4.4%, which is the highest it’s been in four years.
Source link
November 26, 2025
London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

As the UK prepares for the Graduate Route to be shortened from two years to 18 months, London’s business leaders have had their say on international graduates in the workforce, with 90% showing support.

The results of London Higher‘s recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that international talent is highly valued across London businesses – 62% of respondents view international talent as essential and a further 28% say it is important. Only 10% say foreign talent is not very important or not at all important.

“Global graduates give London its competitive edge. Every sector of our economy benefits from the talent and energy they bring. This research shows that they don’t take opportunities away – they help create them,” said Liz Hutchinson, chief executive of London Higher – the membership organisation that promotes and acts as an advocate for higher education in the city.

The majority of those surveyed believe that international talent plugs skills gaps (93%), drives innovation (89%) and supports London’s global competitiveness, while only a small minority of business leaders felt it reduced scope for domestic talent and innovation.

Some 93% of respondents say that international talent helps address skills gaps in their industry, with only 4% saying that international workers reduce opportunities for UK talent.

“By helping businesses expand, [global graduates] generate more jobs and opportunities for everyone. As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors,” added Hutchinson.

As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors
_{^{Liz Hutchinson, London Higher}}

Elsewhere, 91% of those surveyed view international workers as essential or helpful for the city’s competitiveness against global cities such as New York, Singapore or Paris, with only 7% saying that their relevance is limited or non-existent.

The survey shows that support for international talent is strongest in larger, growth sector companies – and in those that think they are outperforming their competitors.

The survey comes as anti-immigration rhetoric in the UK intensifies and the government pushes ahead with stricter immigration rules.

As domestic politics play out in headlines overseas and concerns grow around the UK’s stance as a welcoming destination for international talent, Harry Coath, head of the talent and skills programme at London’s growth agency, London & Partners, said he sees an opportunity for London to position itself as a city that truly embraces diversity – a factor he noted is central to why so many businesses choose to be here.

Speaking at London Higher’s conference this week, alongside Coath, Ruth Arnold, executive director of external affairs at Study Group, said the latest research is arguably the most important report London Higher has ever produced, taking into consideration this political context and the importance of employability and post-study work to today’s international students.

The UK government’s decision to cut the Graduate Route visa from two years to 18 months was first announced in May in the UK government’s white paper on immigration, and the change is set to to take effect from January 2027.

The survey showed that business leaders think international students should be able to access work visas – 59% want to see easier access for international students to stay in the country 28% feel the current system works, while only 10% are vying for tighter controls.

John Dickie, CEO of BusinessLDN, commented on the report’s findings, highlighting the importance that the UK “does all it can to remain attractive to highly skilled individuals from across the globe, particularly at a time when some of our rivals are closing their doors to international students”.

Dickie noted the government’s proposed levy on international student fees, and urged ministers to scrap these “misguided plans” that he said would “hit growth, exacerbate the sector’s financial challenges and undermine [the UK’s] soft power”.

Source link

November 21, 2025
Why Even Harvard’s Smartest Graduates Can’t Get a Job Now (Economy Media)

Generation Z faces a challenging labor market as unemployment among recent graduates reached 8.6% in June 2025. Entry-level jobs often demand two to three years of experience, creating a catch-22 for young workers. Stagnant starting salaries, rising living costs, and student debt averaging $33,500 per borrower add economic pressure. Companies prioritize retaining staff, while tariffs, inflation, and hiring freezes limit new opportunities. Gig work and delayed financial independence are common, with only 29% of Gen Z workers feeling engaged. Long application processes, reduced internships, and intense competition further hinder career entry, creating widespread professional anxiety and underemployment.

Source link

November 3, 2025
Cosmetology schools and other certificate programs got exemption from rules on graduates’ earning levels

Remiah Ward’s shift at the SmartStyle salon inside Walmart was almost over, and she’d barely made $30 in tips from the haircuts she’d done that day. It wasn’t unusual — a year after her graduation from beauty school, tips plus minimum wage weren’t enough to cover her rent.

She scarcely had time to eat and sleep before she had to drive back to the same Walmart in central Florida to stock shelves on the night shift. That job paid $14 an hour, but it meant she sometimes spent 18 hours a day in the same building. She worked six days a week but still struggled to catch up on bills and sleep.

The admissions officer at the American Institute of Beauty, where she enrolled straight out of high school, had sold her on a different dream. She would easily earn enough to pay back the $10,000 she borrowed to attend, she said she was told. Ward had no way of knowing that stylists from her school earn $20,200 a year, on average, four years after graduating. Seven years later, her debt, plus interest, is still unpaid.

In July, Republicans in Congress pushed through policies aimed at ensuring that what happened to Ward wouldn’t happen to other Americans on the government’s dime; colleges whose graduates don’t earn at least as much as someone with a high school diploma will now risk losing access to federal student loans. But one group managed to slip through the cracks — thousands of schools like the American Institute of Beauty were exempt.

Remiah Ward worked two jobs while trying to make it as a hair stylist but never made enough to pay her all her bills and has had to put her dream career on hold. Credit: Courtesy Remiah Ward

Certificate schools succeeded in getting a carve-out. The industry breathed a collective sigh of relief, and with good reason. At least 1,280 certificate-granting programs, which enrolled more than 220,000 students, would have been at risk of losing federal student loan funding if they had been included in the bill, according to a Hechinger Report analysis of federal data. [See table.] About 80% of those are for-profit programs, and 45 percent are cosmetology schools.

“There is this very strange donut hole in accountability where workforce programs are held accountable, two-year degree programs are held accountable, but everything in between gets off without any accountability,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.

The schools spared are known as certificate programs and, with their promise of an affordable and relatively quick path to economic security, are the fastest growing part of higher education. They usually take about a year to complete and train people to be hair-stylists, welders, medical assistants and cooks, among other jobs.

As with traditional colleges, there are big differences in quality among certificate programs. Some hair stylists can make a middle-class living if they work in a busy salon. But for people who have to pay back hefty student loans, the low wages for stylists in the early years can be an insurmountable obstacle.

Ward found herself facing that dilemma. When she could no longer sustain the lack of sleep from her double shifts at Walmart, she pressed pause on her styling career and took a job with Amazon, loading and unloading planes. She wasn’t ready to give up her dream career, though, so in addition to her 10-hour days moving boxes, she took part-time gigs at local hair salons. She didn’t have family to help pay rent, not to mention loan payments, so she couldn’t afford to work fulltime at a salon, which is essential to build up a regular clientele — and bigger tips. Without that, she couldn’t get much beyond minimum wage.

A representative from the American Institute of Beauty denied that Ward was told she would easily repay her loan.

“No admissions representative, not at AIB or elsewhere, would ever make such a statement,” Denise Herman, general counsel and assistant vice president of AIB, said in an email.

The high cost of many for-profit cosmetology schools — tuition can be upward of $20,000, usually for a one-year program — can leave former students mired in debt. In May, the government released data showing 850 colleges where at least a third of borrowers haven’t made a loan payment for 90 days or more, putting them on track to default. About 42 percent of those were for-profit cosmetology and barbering schools (including AIB).

Brittany Mcnew says she loves working as a stylist but that her income takes a hit when traffic is slow in her salon in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Credit: Meredith Kolodner/The Hechinger Report

Herman blamed the Biden administration policy that after the pandemic let borrowers forgo payments without any penalty.

“Debtors became ‘comfortable’ not making payments,” said Herman. “AIB provides the graduate with the information graduates need to make their payments. What that graduate decides to pay, or not pay, is not influenced by AIB.”

Under the “big beautiful bill” passed in July, two- and four-year colleges must ensure that, after four years, graduates on average make at least as much as someone in their state who has only a high school diploma. The colleges must inform students if they fail that test, and if it happens for two out of three years, the college will be ineligible to receive federal loan funds.

Some for-profit certificate schools lobbied hard for an exemption. The American Association of Career Schools, which represents proprietary cosmetology schools, spent $120,000 lobbying the Education Department and Congress, including on the “big beautiful bill,” in the first six months of this year. At the group’s major lobbying event in April, Sen. Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was the keynote speaker.

Cassidy declined to answer questions about why certificate programs were excluded, but a fact sheet from his committee noted that they are already covered by something else, the gainful employment rule, which is also being challenged by the for-profit cosmetology industry.

That federal gainful employment regulation, updated in 2023, requires in essence that graduates from career-oriented schools earn enough to be able to pay back their loans and earn more than a high school graduate. It also requires that consumers, like Ward, be given more information about how graduates from all colleges fare in the workplace.

The rule posed an existential threat to a huge swath of cosmetology schools.

In 2023, the American Association of Career Schools sued to block the gainful employment rule.

“AACS supports fair and reasonable accountability measures,” Cecil Kidd, the AACS’s executive director, said in an email. “However, we strongly object to arbitrary or discriminatory policies such as the US Department of Education’s Gainful Employment rule, which unfairly targets career schools while exempting many public and private non-profit institutions that fail to meet comparable outcomes.”

He pointed to public comments in which AACS has argued that the rule imposes an unfair burden on cosmetology schools since stylists are predominantly women, who are more likely to have “personal commitments” that affect their earnings, and who rely on tips that are often pocketed as unreported income.

Cameron Vandenboom is a successful hair stylist but says the high cost of her private beauty school wasn’t worth thousands of dollars in student debt: “I absolutely should have gone to community college.” Credit: Courtesy Shanna Kaye Photo

In a twist that surprised advocates on both sides, the Education Department in May asked the court to effectively dismiss AACS’ lawsuit.

If the court rules in favor of the cosmetology schools, certificate programs will be free of all accountability requirements on their graduates’ earning levels, because they got the carveout in July.

Even if the court rules against cosmetology schools, advocates are pessimistic that the Trump administration will implement the gainful rules. The first Trump administration got rid of the original rules back in 2019 and Nicholas Kent, now the U.S. undersecretary of education, was previously the chief policy officer for Career Education Colleges and Universities, or CECU, the trade group that represents for-profit colleges, including certificate programs. He is a well-known critic of the rule.

“I would be very surprised, if the unlikely scenario plays out that the Biden rule is upheld, that this Department of Education would just say, OK, the court has spoken,” said Jason Altmire, CECU’s executive director. “We are not opposed to accountability for certificate programs, so long as it’s fair to everybody and we have a voice in how you’re measuring programs.”

Altmire said CECU didn’t lobby for certificate programs to be carved out of Congress’ bill, but did argue against the earnings formula that Congress landed on. Altmire said it doesn’t take into account part-time work and the gender gap in wages.

One objection from AACS, raised by CECU as well, is that the earnings measured don’t include tips, which are crucial to hair stylists’ income. Analyzed without including tips, 576 of 724 cosmetology schools in the Hechinger Report analysis would fail Congress’ earnings test. But even if tips were included and raised stylists’ income by 20 percent, 526 cosmetology schools would still fail.

Earlier this year, Remiah Ward made the difficult decision to leave Florida and move to Kentucky, where the cost of living was more forgiving. She’s working from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. at an aluminum factory for $19.50 an hour.

One day, she might go back to styling after her debt is paid off. Like many former beauty school students, she wishes she’d had more information when she decided to enroll.

“They really sugar-coated it. I was 18 years old, and I needed a trade that I was already pretty good at,” said Ward, who is now 26. “Everybody thinks they’re going to make a high return, and it’s just not the reality.”

Marina Villeneuve contributed data analysis to this story.

This story about cosmetology schools produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger higher-education newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Source link

September 26, 2025
Explore the earnings for graduates of beauty schools, other certificate programs

Schools that train hairstylists, dental assistants and health aides will be able to keep getting federal student loan dollars even if the professionals they turn out don’t end up earning any more than a high school graduate.

That’s because programs like those, which don’t end in a college degree, were granted an exemption from new accountability measures under President Donald Trump’s ”big, beautiful bill.”

A Hechinger Report analysis of federal data found at least 1,280 such certificate programs could have been at risk of their students losing access to federal student loans — but a successful lobbying effort excluded them from the accountability measures.

Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.

Under the new law, most graduates of associate, bachelor’s and graduate degree programs must earn at least as much as someone who has only a high school diploma. If programs fail to hit that benchmark for two out of three years, their students will no longer be eligible for federal student loans. (And the schools must warn students of this possibility if they miss the mark for just one year). Without that borrowing power, many students could not afford to attend. And without those students, some of the schools might not survive.

Using the table below, see which certificate programs might have been flagged under the Trump law if not for the exemption. If graduates of a particular program ended up earning less than adults with only a high school diploma, that program could have faced losing eligibility for federal student loans under the Trump law.

Methodology

What exactly does the “big, beautiful bill” call for?

The legislation requires the Department of Education to compare earnings of working adults who have only a high school diploma to the earnings of adults four years after they complete a degree program or graduate certificate. If a postsecondary program’s graduates fail to outearn adults with only high school degrees for two out of three years, students can no longer obtain federal student loans to attend that program.

The law also sets up an appeals process and a way for programs to apply to regain eligibility for federal student loans.

What data was analyzed?

The law directs the education secretary to use census data to calculate median earnings for working adults with only a high school degree in the state where a program is located. The Department of Education will release regulations that spell out exactly how to do that math. For example, the law does not spell out whether it will look at census data averaged out over 12 months or a longer period of time.

For earnings data for high school graduates, The Hechinger Report relied on calculations from the Department of Education, which were derived from the 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Public Use Microdata Sample from the U.S. Census Bureau.

To calculate median earnings for graduates, the law directs the Education Department to put together earnings data for a cohort of at least 30 graduates who received federal student aid for postsecondary education — which typically includes grants, loans or work-study. Graduates are excluded if they’re currently enrolled in another higher education program. If there are fewer than 30 students in a cohort, the Education Department can lump together several years of data to get to 30 students.

To get earnings data for graduates of certificate programs, Hechinger used a federal database known as College Scorecard. We downloaded field of study data for the 2022-23 school year. From this data, The Hechinger Report extracted information about certificate programs, at their main campuses, and included only programs that had median earnings data. The federal database suppresses earnings data for small programs. That left 4,431 currently operating certificate programs.

How was a program determined to be at possible risk of failing the accountability measure?

For each program, The Hechinger Report compared median graduate earnings to the high school graduate earnings data of the state where the program was located. If the graduates earned less, the program was considered to be at risk.

Under the law, postsecondary programs that don’t meet the earnings benchmark for one year have to inform all current students that they are at risk of losing their eligibility for federal student loans.

Are there any limitations to the data?

The “big, beautiful bill” takes online programs into account by considering whether students live in the same state where their academic program is based. Under the law, student earnings are compared with national data rather than state data when fewer than half of enrolled students live in the state where the school is located, which may be the case for online programs.

The Hechinger Report’s analysis instead compares every program with state earnings. That’s because the College Scorecard field of study data set is limited and only includes information about graduates employed within the same state as the institution, not whether enrolled students live in the same state as the program. In addition, College Scorecard data provides earnings data for all graduates without a breakdown for whether they receive federal aid.

Also, the Hechinger database looks at the available median earnings of all students four years after graduation for the school year 2022-23, regardless of the number of graduates. Though College Scorecard suppresses data on smaller programs, median earnings data is available for programs with 16 or more working graduates. The “big, beautiful bill” directs the Department of Education to instead lump together years of data to create cohorts of at least 30 students.

Contact investigative reporter Marina Villeneuve at 212-678-3430 or [email protected] or on Signal at mvilleneuve.78

This story about beauty schools was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Source link

September 26, 2025
Is the UK still a destination for global students or just global graduates? How will higher education respond?

This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Joanna Hart, Products, Services, and Innovation Director at the Mauve Group.

In the last couple of months, the UK Government has unveiled a 10-year, Modern Industrial Strategy and published an Immigration whitepaper, which referenced expanding visa pathways such as the High Potential Individual and Global Talent visas. The industrial strategy aims to attract highly skilled global talent in eight priority sectors, with a strong focus on technology and innovation. Collectively, these efforts to attract global graduates are undercut by new barriers facing international undergraduate students.

Ongoing changes to the Skilled Worker visa, including steep increases to salary thresholds, and tighter restrictions on dependents, combined with proposals to shorten the Graduate Visa, and introduce a controversial 6% international student levy, create mounting financial and reputational pressure on UK universities, while also deterring international undergraduates.

In response, institutions are turning to establishing overseas campuses to offset domestic shortfalls and attract local talent who may still benefit from expanded UK visa pathways post-graduation. While attracting high-level international talent is valuable for addressing skills gaps in the UK, it must be part of a broader, symbiotic strategy. One that nurtures international students from undergraduate level through to employment to ensure UK higher education remains globally competitive.

Visa routes

An important step in the much-needed long-term strategy is the implementation of expanded visa pathways such as the High Potential Individual (HPI) visa and the visa, traditionally for internationally educated post-graduates and entrepreneurs.

High Potential Individual (HPI) visa

The High Potential Individual (HPI) visa is a UK immigration pathway designed for recent graduates from 40 top global universities, providing the opportunity to live and work in the UK for several years. At present, 47% of universities on the list are from the US, with just one institution from the entire southern hemisphere featured.

The Immigration whitepaper released in May and the UK government’s industrial strategy referenced extending the HPI visa to a wider selection of global universities. According to the UK government, it intends to roll out a ‘capped and targeted expansion of the HPI route for top graduates, doubling the number of qualifying universities.’ However, we do not yet know whether this expansion will be based on global league tables or geographic location.

Innovator Founder visa

The Innovator Founder visa offers the opportunity for founders of new, innovative, viable and scalable businesses to operate in the UK for three years. Traditionally, it facilitates incoming innovation, but the newly announced UK industrial strategy suggested the Innovator Founder Visa would be reviewed to make it easier for entrepreneurial talent currently studying at UK universities to be eligible. Details are yet to be disclosed but recent figures reveal that the average Innovator Founder Visa application success rate to the UK is almost 88%. While this is significant, it is not as high as other visa types, such as the Skilled Worker Visa, which is 99%. While the overall approval rate for Innovator Founder Visa applications sits at 88%, this figure can be misleading. The critical bottleneck is at the endorsement stage the first hurdle in the process, where the success rate drops sharply to just 36%

Skilled Worker and Graduate visa

Changes to visa pathways for domestically educated international students, including the Skilled Worker and Graduate visas, may result in applicants feeling short-changed. For example, it has been proposed that the standard length of the Graduate visa, which allows international students to remain working in the UK at the beginning of their careers, be reduced from two years to 18 months. If implemented, it may make it hard to secure a career after studying in the UK.

Meanwhile, effective from the 22nd July 2025, the minimum salary threshold for the Skilled Worker visa will rise to £41,700. Occupation-specific salary thresholds will also increase by about 10%, with the minimum skills requirements raised to Royal Qualifications Framework (RQF) level 6 for new applicants. Prior to the changes, between 30 and 70 per cent of graduate visa holders in employment may not have been working in RQF level 6 or above occupations. Although there are some discounted thresholds for PhD students, especially in STEM fields, these changes are set to exclude many current Skilled Worker visa holders.

How will higher education respond to stricter selective visa rules?

Drawbacks

One of the major drawbacks comes from the announcement that the government is considering introducing a 6% levy on higher education provider income from international students. It is likely that universities will be forced to consider passing these costs onto international students. The UK’s higher education sector generates £22 billion annually from international students and education, making it a valuable export to the UK in an increasingly competitive global market. The proposed levy risks discouraging international students and undermining this critical source of economic growth.

Many institutions will already have factored in price increases to account for rising costs going forward, making an additional 6% unfeasible.

Numerous universities are already struggling financially, with courses and entire departments being cut. With the possibility of a highly reduced international student body due to the levy and further changes to graduate visa pathways, these institutions face increased strain, meaning even more drastic cuts may be imminent.

Benefits

With an emphasis on higher visa thresholds, rising costs and the controversial 6% levy on international fees, UK universities face growing challenges to remain competitive in the global education landscape.

In response, many are rethinking their models, with institutions like the Universities of Liverpool and Southampton establishing campuses in Bengaluru and Gurugram, India, respectively. UK Universities operate 38 campuses across 18 countries, educating over 67,750 students abroad. Embracing international collaboration not only broadens the research opportunities available to UK universities but also supports financial sustainability and preserves the UK’s reputation as a global education powerhouse. By establishing overseas campuses and hubs, the UK’s academic influence extends well beyond its borders. This pivot will provide opportunities for international students to receive UK-affiliated accreditations, potentially giving them greater access to selective UK visa pathways post-graduation.

To adapt, higher education must develop a more integrated approach; one that links international recruitment, offshore campuses, and expanded visa pathways in a cohesive, long-term strategy. This means not only attracting global graduates but supporting students from undergraduate level through to employment, driving opportunity and innovation in the UK.

If UK institutions are to remain global leaders, they must work with the government to ensure that opportunity does not begin at graduation; it begins at enrolment. By nurturing this full pipeline, universities can continue to feed the skilled workforce envisioned in the new industrial strategy.

Source link

August 19, 2025
Breaking the Bar: how can university graduates enter elite professions?

This blog was authored by Charlotte Gleed, who is undertaking an internship at HEPI this summer. Charlotte is a BA History Graduate from Jesus College, Oxford and holds a Graduate Diploma in Law, supported by the Exhibition Scholarship from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. Following this internship, Charlotte will be studying an MPhil in Education: Knowledge, Power, and Politics at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

‘Barristers: they make coffee, don’t they?’

A family member said this to me recently. Not thinking much of it, I laughed and replied, ‘not quite, the ones who wear the wig and gown and bang the stick’. This conversation got me thinking: why is it that some professions seem so far removed from everyday life that not only does the possibility of entry appear distant, but what a person does in that profession is misunderstood? The English Bar falls in this category.

The Bar is the profession of barristers, a set of specialist legal advocates who represent parties usually in courts or tribunals. The Bar has historically been a profession preserved for the elite. The requirement of high grades from top-ranked universities, together with financial instability during legal studies and in practice, compound this assumption. However, there can be an alternative narrative. As social mobility schemes arise, universities develop closer ties with the profession, and the availability of scholarships widen, there is a real opportunity to change the composition of the Bar.

Fortunate to be a product of these changes, my journey to the Bar has highlighted three main obstacles for university graduates. First, the precarious financial situation. We are all aware that higher education of any form is expensive, even with government-backed student loans. However, further vocational study required for the Bar stretches student finances considerably. The cost of the Bar Vocational Course ranges from £12,640 to £20,220. Unless supported by family, scholarships and/or private bank loans, the costs can be both difficult to justify and even harder to deliver.

Second, it is increasingly clear that a law degree alone is no longer sufficient. For students who complete an LLB or BA Jurisprudence, competition is so fierce that postgraduate study – a master’s or equivalent – is beneficial. For students who study a non-law undergraduate degree, the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) is necessary. The cost of the law conversion course, ranging from £7,150 to £13,590 dependent on region and university provider, exacerbates the gap between those who can afford the additional university costs and those who cannot.

Third, the essence of the Inns of Court is strikingly akin to an Oxbridge college. Each aspiring and practising barrister across England and Wales chooses membership of one of four Inns: Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn. This is both a blessing and a curse for university graduates. A blessing because its magic and mystery is something to aspire to; a curse because its majesty can be intimating and can feel exclusionary. One barristers chambers, Essex Court Chambers, have partnered with the Social Mobility Foundation to improve accessibility to the commercial Bar. This is a welcomed step. But more needs to be done.

What is the solution? Postgraduate study needs investment. The aggregate £12,000 postgraduate loan available from the government goes some way. Yet, this amount falls short of most postgraduate course fees and does not include maintenance costs. If university is to be a true social leveller, access to more advanced levels of higher education must be supported – and funded. Furthermore, the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple and Inner Temple interview all applicants for both their GDL and Bar Course scholarships. This is a start. It is advantageous to students who have not attended prestigious schools or universities with a raft of academic prizes and extra-curriculars to be seen and heard. Interviews for all scholarship candidates is one way to level the playing field. Together with links between university careers services, student societies, and mentorship schemes, this could be an era of genuine collaboration between students, universities, and professions.

Education pays. But it cannot pay if access to elite professions, and its required higher education courses, is hindered in the first place.

Source link

August 1, 2025