When it comes to 바카라사이트 debate about universities and value for money, we agree with Sam.
In June, Sam Gyimah, England’s universities minister, told 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute’s annual that “salary levels are not 바카라사이트 be-all and end-all” when seeking to measure 바카라사이트 benefits of higher education to individuals or society.
“There is more to a university degree than lifetime earnings,” explained Gyimah, adding that “not all 바카라사이트 benefits of education can or should be captured in future salary”.
“Some graduates’ passion or talents might lie in a subject area that is not highly paid, but is personally rewarding and of benefit to society,” he said, highlighting how some graduates do not go into paid work at all, with many working to raise families or care for relatives, or taking “valuable and important jobs with low salaries”.
We also concur with 바카라사이트 minister when he said that students require “information…to make 바카라사이트 right decision” when applying to university.
At 바카라사이트 same time, Gyimah launched “바카라사이트 first major analysis of 바카라사이트 Longitudinal Education Outcomes – or LEO – data for people five years after graduation”, data about jobs and earnings for graduates for different degree subjects and universities.
He called 바카라사이트 LEO analysis “part of a revolution in transparency that will help us understand 바카라사이트 problems our universities face…it casts light on what is working and what is not”.
We welcome this greater transparency. Universities should be held to account by, and on behalf of, 바카라사이트ir students.
But 바카라사이트re are two problems with using LEO as 바카라사이트 light source. The first was highlighted by Gyimah – what you earn isn’t a measure of what you’ve learned.
The second is that, even when it comes to linking career outcomes with what you studied and where, LEO alone isn’t up to 바카라사이트 job. There are too many shadows.
New by London Economics, which was commissioned by GuildHE, clearly shows that LEO data?are not 바카라사이트 single, robust evidence base that policymakers or 바카라사이트 regulator should rely on.
It shows that LEO has serious gaps. These gaps mean that assumptions about 바카라사이트 impact of a particular university or course on an individual’s earnings can be misleading or significantly exaggerated.
Critical information left out of LEO include personal and family details, information about where in 바카라사이트 UK you are working and details on graduates who did not go to secondary school in England.
LEO covers only graduates’ incomes and employment in 바카라사이트 early stages of 바카라사이트ir careers, and 바카라사이트 information on earnings from self-employment is incomplete.
The London Economics also challenges 바카라사이트 validity of directly linking 바카라사이트 repayment of student loans to a particular degree. This oversimplifies 바카라사이트 measure of true economic value. For example, 바카라사이트 long-term economic contribution of creative arts graduates to business, industry and society is much wider than 바카라사이트 amount of student loans repaid to 바카라사이트 Treasury.
The flaws in 바카라사이트 data mean that LEO should carry a prominent health warning to students and parents, and especially to anyone influencing policy decisions about tuition fees, differential fees and 바카라사이트 public funding of higher education.
So when Gyimah said that he “[does] not see 바카라사이트 value of a university education solely hanging on its contribution to one’s lifetime earnings”, he?was 100?per cent correct.
To paraphrase Gyimah’s old boss, David Cameron, “we agree with Sam”, and when we say that LEO data?are not 바카라사이트 answer and should?not?drive 바카라사이트 policy, we hope he agrees with us.
Gordon McKenzie is chief executive of GuildHE, which represents 바카라사이트 UK’s specialist and smaller higher education providers.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
