That would be true if it were the case that going to any uni at all provided the ticket to higher/earnings/a better life than parents etc, which unfortunately it no longer automatically does when over 50% are attending. I think there was a report a few years ago that found that from a pure financial point of view, on average only those who do Medicine, Dentistry or go to Oxbridge earn a salary premium over their entire career to justify going under the current system. Not everything is about money of course, and if people go and have a great time socially then nobody could possibly say whether or not it has been worth it for them.The problem then is you're going to cause even more inequality and reduce the scope for social mobility. University would be exclusively for those that go to independent schools and grammar schools, with some affluent/middle class state school kids and even less kids from the deprived area. And then that has a knock on effect on careers, etc and lower the glass ceiling. What's the point then of any kid in a deprived area having any type of aspiration if you stack the deck even more against them. Not sure what the answer is Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
So if instead we limited the number going to uni but used the money to help support getting young people, especially in disadvantage areas, to get into these high quality, rigorous courses at uni, and also technical qualifications/apprenticeships, we'd have a fine balance of people being supported to go into careers that they are suited to.
Last edited: