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 27with 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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This story about AmeriCorps jobs was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
Lily Tegner didn’t know what she wanted to do when she graduated from Oregon State University with a chemical engineering degree five years ago. She entered the workforce at a point when unemployment briefly skyrocketed and companies were freezing hiring because of the Covid pandemic. “I didn’t have a very clear direction as far as where I was going in life,” she said.
Like hundreds of thousands of other young adults, Tegner kick-started her career through AmeriCorps, a federal agency that sends its members to communities across the country to tutor students, help after disasters strike and restore wildlife habitats, among other activities. She took a position at the Alaska Afterschool Network, where her job was to help find ways to expand science, technology, engineering and math access in its programs. Four years later, she’s still there — now, as a full-time employee managing the nonprofit’s AmeriCorps program.
“This state became my home,” Tegner said, adding that her year in AmeriCorps “completely changed the trajectory of my career.”
An AmeriCorps member poses with a student in one of the Alaska Afterschool Network’s funded programs. The organization lost its AmeriCorps funding last spring. Credit: Courtesy of Alaska Afterschool Network
This spring, Alaska Afterschool Network was one of hundreds of organizations abruptly notified that its AmeriCorps funding had been terminated. Federal funding cuts forced the nonprofit to eliminate three full-time positions and cancel 19 internships scheduled for this summer. Tegner’s job is also at risk, though the organization is trying to find a way to keep her on.
In late April, the Trump administration slashed 41 percent of AmeriCorps’ funding, cutting about $400 million in grants and letting go of more than 32,000 members serving in hundreds of programs across the United States. In June and also this month, judges ordered the government to restore some funding, but the ruling does not reinstate all the money that was taken away. Shrinking AmeriCorps is among the many steps the Trump administration has taken to curb what he has called “waste, fraud and abuse” of federal funds. More action is expected in the months ahead.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
Over the years, the program former President Bill Clinton created has deployed more than a million people.On top of gutting AmeriCorps, the cuts have diminished the reach of an agency that has been a critical path to a career for recent high school and college graduates at a time when entry-level jobs can be difficult to find.
AmeriCorps was created more than three decades ago to oversee expanded federal volunteer programs, incorporating existing projects including Volunteers in Service to America and the National Civilian Community Corps. Its members take on community service positions across the country that can last for up to two years. They receive a small living stipend, and full-time members are eligible for health insurance. At the end of their terms, members are awarded a grant that can be used to pay college tuition or student loans.
“AmeriCorps dollars have a powerful ripple effect, for both the AmeriCorps members and the students that they serve,” said Leslie Cornfeld, founder and CEO of the National Education Equity Lab, a nonprofit that brings college courses to high-poverty schools. “In many instances, it helps them define their careers.”
About half of the AmeriCorps funding for the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development was cut this spring. Credit: Courtesy of PHENND
Federal surveys of AmeriCorps members from 2019, 2021 and 2023 show that 90 percent of members joined the national program in part to gain skills that would help them in school and work, and well over 80 percent said their experience in AmeriCorps helped further their “professional goals and endeavors.”
The Trump administration cited fraud as part of its reason for nearly halving the AmeriCorps budget. Audits of the agency have raised questions about its financial management.
Peter Fleckenstein, 23, joined Aspire Afterschool in Arlington, Virginia, through AmeriCorps last year after graduating from the University of Delaware with a degree in psychology. He saw AmeriCorps as a way to build out his resume; even the entry-level positions he encountered during his job search required experience in the field.
In his position at the after-school program, Fleckenstein leads daily activities for a group of about two dozen fourth grade students. The experience has helped him crystallize his career aspirations: Before AmeriCorps, he was considering clinical social work or teaching. Now, he wants to become a counselor.
“Working with the kids here is a lot of behavior management: problem solving, helping them regulate themselves,” Fleckenstein said. “Doing one-on-one work with them, building habits and routines with them — that is something that I could focus on more if I was in a counseling job.”
Fleckenstein’s position was cut in April before he could complete his one-year term set to end in August, but Aspire Afterschool was able to raise money through donations to hire him and some of the nonprofit’s other AmeriCorps members part-time to finish out their grant year.
The Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development lost half of its AmeriCorps funding this past spring when the federal agency was slashed. Credit: Courtesy of PHENND
While some members have joined Americorps after graduating, student Deja Johnson, 24, joined as a way to help pay for college. Her term at The Scholarship Academy — a nonprofit in Atlanta helping low-income high school students navigate financial aid applications — was supposed to end with a $7,400 education grant. Because the terms were cut short, members have been told they’ll get only a prorated portion of the money.
“It’s a little bit of a shame,” said Johnson, who is using the education grant to pursue a bachelor’s degree in nonprofit leadership.
“That’s what a lot of us look forward to with this work that we’re doing, because we know how much of a sacrifice it can be at times. It’s that ‘pouring into our community’ — and that’s how our community pours into us,” Johnson said.
The AmeriCorps termination letters told grantees that their programs no longer met agency priorities, but the nonprofits were not told what those priorities are. Programs with different missions, in both Democratic- and Republican-led communities, were cut.
Sira Coulibaly, a member with the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development’s Next Steps AmeriCorps program, packs bags of food for the Metropolitan Area Neighborhood Nutrition Alliance. Credit: Courtesy of PHENND
The Hindman Settlement School, a nonprofit in rural Kentucky, was one victim of the cuts. The organization receives about $1 million a year from AmeriCorps for its program tutoring students with math and reading learning disabilities in more than two dozen schools. Losing that funding means drastically scaling back services, said Josh Mullins, senior director of operations at the Hindman Settlement School. He said he does not know why Hindman’s grants were terminated: The nonprofit regularly passes its audits, and its last annual report showed an average gain of seven months in reading levels among students in its dyslexia intervention program.
A statement published in January on an AmeriCorps webpage says the agency is in the process of “conducting a full review” to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order banning diversity, equity and inclusion in federal programs. But Mullins and other AmeriCorps grantees said diversity, equity and inclusion efforts were not listed anywhere as part of their operations.
“That’s what’s devastating,” Mullins said. “It was completely out of our control. There was nothing you could do.”
The administration also gutted 85 percent of the agency’s federal staff, which has caused problems even for programs that are still receiving AmeriCorps funding.
The federal government terminated about half of the AmeriCorps grants for the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development. The group uses the funding to place members in local nonprofits and to help develop community partnerships in high-poverty schools. Director Hillary Kane said she’s been experiencing delays from the national AmeriCorps office in getting members approved for the programs that are still operating.
“We need the humans in D.C. to do the stuff that they do, so we can do the stuff that we do,” Kane said. “The person we communicate with isn’t there.”
About half of the AmeriCorps funding for the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development was cut this spring. Credit: Courtesy of PHENND
On June 5, a federal judge granted a temporary injunction ordering the Trump administration to restore AmeriCorps funding in states that had sued over the budget cuts. The lawsuit, which was filed by two dozen Democratic-led states in May, challenges the administration’s authority to cancel the funding without Congressional approval. But the judge’s injunction does not require the Trump administration to reinstate AmeriCorps’ federal employees, and funding is not being restored to programs in states that did not sign on to the lawsuit, including Alaska, home of the Alaska Afterschool Network, or Virginia, where Aspire Afterschool is based.
The Hindman Settlement School in Kentucky was one organization whose funding was restored this summer because of the lawsuit. Mullins said he’s hopeful the nonprofit will continue to receive AmeriCorps funding for the upcoming grant cycle in the fall.
For Kane, the injunction does not undo the chaos caused by the abrupt cancellation of half of her Philadelphia organization’s funding. Many terminated members that were with Kane’s organization have already moved on.
Programs whose grants were cut can apply again in the next grant cycle, but the president’s 2026 budget calls for shutting down AmeriCorps entirely.
While the debate in Washington rages, current and former volunteers mourn the potential loss of a program they said gave their lives meaning and led to employment. The avenue AmeriCorps provided for Tegner to start a career at the Alaska Afterschool Network gave her purpose in life, she said. She’s worried if the program ends, there won’t be another pathway on the same scale for young idealists who aren’t sure what they want to do with their lives.
“It helps young people of all ages grow and try new things,” Tegner said. “That’s very much what it was for me.”
Contact staff writer Ariel Gilreath on Signal at arielgilreath.46 or at [email protected].
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.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
As today’s college graduates struggle to start a steady career, 1 in 2 Americans say their college major didn’t prepare them for the job market, according to a June 18 report from Preply.
Beyond that, 1 in 6 Americans who went to college said they regret it. When thinking about their college experience, college graduates said their top regrets included taking out student loans, not networking more and not doing internships.
“One of the main concepts of seeking higher education after high school is that college will prepare you for the rest of your life. While some graduates leave their alma mater feeling prepared to enter the workforce and begin their career, others feel underprepared,” according to the report.
In a survey of more than 1,700 Americans with an undergraduate degree, 29% said they wished they picked a different major, and 18% said they regretted the institution they attended.
College graduates said they felt unprepared in numerous ways, especially finding a job after graduation and navigating student debt and personal finances.
Americans also said they don’t feel college gave them real-world work experience, practical or technical skills or a professional network. In fact, only 5% reported feeling “adequately prepared” for life and the workplace.
On the other side of the hiring table, more than half of hiring managers say recent graduates appear to be unprepared for the workforce, and 1 in 6 say they’re reluctant to hire them, according to a report from Resume.org. Their top complaints included excessive phone use, a lack of professionalism and poor time management skills.
Within the workplace, executives and workers alike say entry-level workers seem unprepared for their jobs, particularly compared to five years ago, according to a General Assembly report. Although leaders said workers don’t have enough training to be hired, employers also don’t offer adequate training, the report found.
As global economies come under increasing strain from technological disruption, demographic change and tightening labour markets, one long-held assumption is starting to fray: that an overseas degree guarantees stronger employment outcomes for international graduates returning home. For many years, particularly across Asia, this belief underpinned the value proposition of international education. But new data suggests that this premium is beginning to erode – not because domestic education is closing the gap, but because international graduates are being left to navigate the final step of their journey alone.
Recent analysis from the Asia Careers Group (ACG), drawing on the outcomes of over 20,000 international graduates from UK and Australian universities who returned to China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore since 2015, offers critical insights. The headline message is that while international graduates continue to outperform their domestically educated peers in many cases, the margin is narrowing. The problem is not the quality of education delivered overseas, but the lack of structured support that enables these students to transition into meaningful employment in their home markets. For families across Asia making significant financial sacrifices to send their children abroad, the return on investment increasingly hinges not just on the degree earned, but on the job secured afterwards. For universities in the UK and other major host countries, international graduate outcomes are no longer just a reputational concern – they are becoming central to the long-term sustainability of international recruitment strategies.
China’s story illustrates the shifting terrain. For decades, foreign-educated Chinese graduates enjoyed a clear employment advantage in China’s urban job markets. Overseas qualifications, English fluency and global experience were seen as major assets. But just before the pandemic, as outbound numbers surged and China’s youth unemployment crisis deepened, that edge started to dull. The term ‘Sea Turtles’ (or haigui) came to represent the growing number of returnees entering an already saturated labour market, combined with employer preference for local experience, meant that the haigui label no longer guaranteed success.
By 2020, full-time employment among returnees had dropped below 30% – lower than the domestic graduate average for the first time. And yet, recovery has followed. In 2023-24, nearly 50% of internationally educated Chinese graduates secured full-time employment within six months of graduation, while only 30% of their domestically educated peers did the same. Despite mounting geopolitical pressure and a sluggish economy, UK and Australian degrees remain a lever of upward mobility, so long as students are able to connect their education to employment.
India reveals the outsized influence of immigration policy on international graduate outcomes. Following the withdrawal of post-study work rights by the UK government in 2012, Indian students returning home with UK degrees struggled to compete in the domestic job market. The lack of international work experience meant they were often indistinguishable from their peers who had remained in India. When post-study work rights were reinstated in 2019, a marked improvement followed. By 2022, nearly 65% of Indian returnees were in full-time employment within six months, well ahead of the national average. However, this improvement has not held.
Since 2023, the data shows another downward trend. While the Graduate Route remains technically available, it has not been accompanied by sufficient careers guidance, reintegration support, or India-facing employer engagement. As a result, many students—even those who stay on to work in the UK for a period—struggle to reconnect with Indian employers when they return. Without a deliberate, structured transition, the employability premium fades.
Malaysia presents a more complex picture. ACG data from 2010 to 2021 show that full-time employment for returnees dropped from nearly 80% to just over 30%. By contrast, Ministry of Education and Khazanah Research Institute data suggest that domestic graduate outcomes have remained relatively flat, hovering around 45–50%. On the surface, this looks like a convergence, but not for the right reasons. Employment outcomes for returnees have worsened, rather than improved, for domestic graduates. And yet when salary data is introduced, the story changes. International graduates continue to command significantly higher incomes, particularly those with UK and Australian degrees. ACG’s analysis and national labour statistics both show a clear premium: returnees are more likely to earn over RM6,000, while 65% of domestic graduates earn under RM2,000. This suggests that international education still opens doors to higher-level and better-paid roles—but only once graduates overcome the initial hurdle of securing employment. Without local support networks and targeted CIAG, many returnees remain stranded at the starting line.
Singapore’s system is notable for its transparency, with robust graduate employment data published annually. Even so, ACG’s data shows that internationally educated Singaporean returnees are now significantly less likely to secure full-time roles than their locally educated peers. Between 2013 and 2023, employment for returnees fell from over 80% to just above 40%, while domestic graduate outcomes stayed consistently above 75%. But this is less a judgement on the quality of international education than a reflection of systems misalignment. Many Singaporeans now study abroad at the postgraduate level in destinations or fields that don’t map neatly onto Singapore’s structured graduate pathways, especially in the public sector. Some never return. Others miss out on local graduate schemes or lack the mentoring and guidance necessary to re-enter the domestic market. These are not less capable graduates – they are structurally unsupported.
The implications for UK higher education institutions and policymakers are profound. Graduate outcomes for international students returning home have long been neglected in favour of compliance metrics, application numbers, and league table performance. But if we are to retain our position as a leading destination for international students, we must confront a simple truth: it is no longer enough to bring students in, deliver a quality education, and send them on their way. We must know what happens next. That means tracking international graduate outcomes systematically, forging deep partnerships with employers in key source countries, and embedding culturally tailored careers support into the student journey – not as an add-on, but as core infrastructure. This also means preparing students for re-entry from the moment they arrive, rather than reacting after they leave.
Governments in destination countries must play their part too. That includes aligning visa and migration policy with long-term employability outcomes, ensuring post-study work routes remain stable and transparent, and avoiding knee-jerk compliance changes that disrupt student confidence. The UK, in particular, must make good on the promise of the Graduate Route by working with universities to ensure that work experience gained in the UK translates into lasting employability abroad. We should also consider incentivising institutions to track and support international graduate success, just as we are increasingly focused on domestic outcomes.
And finally, for students and families, the message is clear: an international degree can still unlock opportunity, but it is not a guarantee. The most successful graduates are those who receive support tailored to their return journey—those with access to informed advice, strong alumni networks, and employer connections in their home country. Without these, the international education premium – once considered automatic – is slipping.
References
Asia Careers Group (ACG). Proprietary international graduate outcomes tracking data, 2015–2024.
India Skills Report (ISR). Confederation of Indian Industry, Wheebox, and Taggd, various years.
Ministry of Education, Malaysia & Khazanah Research Institute (KRI). Graduate Tracer Study and labour market reports, 2010–2021.
Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM). Monthly and graduate salary distribution reports.
Ministry of Education, Singapore. Graduate Employment Survey (GES), 2013–2023.
UK Home Office & Migration Advisory Committee. Graduate Route Policy Review, 2024.
Chinese Ministry of Education (MoE) and independent think tank analysis of returnee graduate outcomes (Haigui commentary), various sources.
