Students pose for their official group photograph at the University of Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

What is the value of university?

With students paying more than ever, richer data is needed for them to accurately know how much their course will enhance their prospects. 

Gulp. Results day. Thousands of young people will find out for certain, on the back of their A-level grades, which university – if any - they should be spending the best days of their lives at.

Today’s school leavers are luckier in that they have more choice about where they can study, with more higher education institutions and places than ever before. This is in part because this government is allowing universities to expand: 30,000 extra places have been granted for 2014/15, and universities can recruit as many students as they want with grades ABB or above. Clearing – where extra places are available in late August – is no longer for those who don’t get the grades for their first choice; top universities now offer additional places, sometimes eagerly hunted by those with the results to upgrade.

In fact, next autumn, there will be no limit on the number of students universities can admit. Universities are having to do much more to compete with other institutions to attract students. Vice-chancellors are offering scholarships and rent rebates. Free ipads, even. When I was a student, the only free deal we were offered was from banks offering young person's rail cards - mine now lapsed too many years ago.

With fees now usually triple what they used to be, students should be asking: is this really worth it? Well, if you look at the return on investment in general, then yes it is. The latest evidence shows, on average, the premium from a person attending university compared to their peer who didn’t attend but had similar prior attainment is nearly £200,000 over a lifetime. This far exceeds the amount of student loans you need to repay during your lifetime.

But this is an average. More important is whether your particular course is worth it. Now, future salaries are not the only indicator of quality, and the value of education is not just instrumental, but typical salaries are increasingly and understandably a prime consideration for students.

Universities now have to publish Key Information Sets (KISs), which includes data on the salaries of graduates from particular courses. Problem is, this data is very limited. It derives from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) Survey, where the data is collected at six months and just over three years since graduation. Not only are both points of time too early to measure career success - considering further degrees, traveling and career swapping – but the response rate is very low and unrepresentative, especially for the later time point.

New, better data will be available soon, which uses information from HMRC’s PAYE system and the Student Loans Company, matching the majority of students’ salaries at any point in time with their university course and institution. Universities  - in their KISs - should use this richer data on salaries instead.

Nonetheless, even with this more comprehensive information, students will not be able to see what universities are genuinely adding to their future salary prospects. Much of the reported salaries may be to do with factors that are nothing to do with the quality of the student experience offered by an institution. Universities have different entry requirements, so the typical prior attainment of their students varies. Equally, some universities have student cohorts with better job-enhancing networks, or have reputations – possibly dated - that affect employers decision-making. In other words, Oxford University could do very little for their students, but their graduates could still earn a lot in the labour market because they are high ability anyway, are exposed to strong networks, and come from an institution with a tradition of a strong reputation.

That is why the future reporting of average salaries for university courses should be as a premium, measuring against people with similar prior attainment and career destination who did not attend that institution. It would still not show perfectly how institutions are adding to students’ salaries, but it would certainly be a fairer indication than now.

This contextualising of outcomes is also needed for the reporting of degree classifications, usually in league tables, that students obtain. Raw, these results are misleading. The higher proportion of top degrees may be more of a reflection of higher ability students, rather than the quality of teaching at an institution. So, a score is needed which measures how well students progress from A-level to the end of a degree, as the Guardian University guide does. A robust Value-Add score to show how teacher quality affects attainment in different degrees should be in KISs too.

With students paying more than ever, richer data is needed for them to accurately know by just how much their course will enhance their prospects. Then they will be able to assess whether their particular university course really is worth it.

Ryan Shorthouse is the Director of Bright Blue, a think tank for liberal conservativism 

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.