Should Tony Blair have encouraged half of young people to attend university?
Isabelle Osborne questions Blair’s ambition to see half of all young people get a university degree, finally realised this year.
As Prime Minister, Tony Blair envisioned a society where anything was possible. After his election in 1997, Blair negotiated signing of the Good Friday Agreement, attempted to reinvent Britain’s image through his ‘Cool Britannia’ slogan and executed the controversial interventionism of the US-UK invasion of Iraq. However, even 12 years after his resignation, Blair remains politically present. His vision that half of young people would attend university has finally been realised. Whilst only 4% of young people attended university in the 1960s and 33% in 2000, 50.2% of young adults now attend university.
I am a firm believer that everybody should have an equal opportunity to gain access to the university experience if this is what they desire. However, whilst Blair’s policy encouraged all young people to see university as a possibility, the question must be asked: were all young people meant to go to university?
Having a degree used to make you stand out from the crowd, yet in his attempt to encourage so many to attend university, Blair arguably undermined the worth of the degree. There has been a shift in its value, as they have metamorphosed from something prestigious to something almost conventional. As the graduate market becomes increasingly saturated, the employability of a degree is surely weakened when Blair advocated for 50% of the population to go on to achieve one.
Furthermore, Blair undermined the value of non-degree pathways, such as apprenticeships. His vision suggests the alternative is unfavourable. Schools funnel students into rigidly academic pathways, promoting Russell Group universities as the best option in light of the employment value of having a degree. In turn, individuals who don’t see higher education as something they wish to pursue are forced to fight a system which is constantly channelling them towards it, and this can be partially blamed on Blair’s policy.
Due to the established presumption that higher education is the sole indicator of intellectual triumph, people attend university to conform to what has become normality. In making university the logical next step from school, Blair was blind to how higher education is not an experience that suits every young adult across the country. Whilst some thrive in an intense, rigidly academic environment, others boast skills that require a more hands-on, practical approach and are therefore more suited to a working environment. In addition, some would rather start earning money as soon as they leave school, as the debt may outweigh the value of a degree.
What’s more, it’s not necessary for all young people to earn a degree. A study has shown that 28% of graduates have jobs which do not require a degree. This extensive over-qualification highlights how directing every young person into university may not be appropriate and is certainly not necessary. There is much to be gained from practical and vocational qualifications that can lead young people into very successful careers.
The financial implications of Blair’s hope for half of young people to go to university must also be considered. Blair’s vision was based on an illusion that having a generation where the majority were degree holders would result in unparalleled economic growth within Britain. In reality, it was unrealistic to suggest the government would be able to financially fund the university journey for so many young people. Whilst many graduates will go on to contribute to the UK economy in gaining degrees that take them into affluent careers, it has transpired that ‘70 per cent of all graduates – the highest out of any country - fail to repay their loan in full after 30 years’. Even though Blair was Prime Minister in a time when tuition fees were not as high as they are today, the fact remains that his target was ignorant of the possibility that the government would eventually introduce fees. Arguably, Blair failed to anticipate the negative impact on our future economy; in failing to reach above the £26,575/year threshold that requires students to begin paying back their tuition fees, many students' fees will be wiped, and the UK taxpayer will be left to compensate for the government’s failure to recoup the money.
So, what is the alternative? There is a vast array of career opportunities that do not require a degree. Rather than funnelling young people into the university system, the government should be promoting the vast array of apprenticeships and other opportunities post-18 with equal force. Schools should encourage the other 50% of young people who do not attend university to open their minds to new possibilities that are not focused on rigidly academic systems, but instead allow them to access opportunities that they never knew existed. This would inspire the younger generation to see themselves as capable of achieving success regardless of whether they have a university education or not.
Half of British young people having degrees does not necessarily create an educated society. What Blair’s policy should have focused on was a society whereby all school leavers are given the opportunity to enrich their minds in a chosen discipline and nurture the skills required to take them into their career path, whether provided by a university education or something else entirely.