So, two philosophy, politics, and economics (PPE) graduates from Oxford are insisting the higher education system should be reformed to revolve around either how potentially lucrative degrees should be, or further revolve the British education system around Oxbridge. Lovely.
Allow me to delve into why, for different reasons, both policies would create so many unnecessary problems for the education system.
First, the term ‘earning potential’ alone is problematic in Sunak’s scheme. It implies a certain threshold of profitability that subjects will have to surpass in order to avoid being axed. However, Sunak has given no indication of what parameters he considers to determine how potentially lucrative a degree could be. Nor has he offered any hints as to which subjects this may result in getting the chop. This is most likely because predicting exactly how profitable a degree is almost impossible, and largely depends on how a student uses it as much as the degree they take.
Beth, a 20-year-old drama student at the University of East Anglia (UEA) commented: “The term ‘earning potential’ is vague and bordering on almost meaningless. There is no guarantee of a well-paid job no matter what degree you take.
“As a drama student, surely I have the ‘potential’ to earn a salary equivalent to that of Dwayne Johnson.”
Beyond being nebulous and bluntly categorising students studying different subjects as either improving their ‘earning potential’ or not – Sunak’s policy also seems to miss a great deal of why many students wish to go to university. Some students do enrol in vocational subjects as a direct means to an end goal of a particular career path, which may or may not offer a sizable salary. However, many students do not have their hearts set on a particular career path by the time they finish secondary education, and may wish to use their time studying at university to find this out. Many degrees offer broader skillsets which may become applicable in a variety of different jobs. Furthermore, some students will wish to further explore a particular academic field, simply because they have a burning desire to learn more on a subject. It makes little sense to deny students these opportunities because they don’t fit into Sunak’s vision of degrees which may prove lucrative later in life.
"It seems limiting and unnecessary to get rid of things people are passionate about just because they won’t automatically earn the biggest salary in the world.”
Fin Brown, a 20-year-old journalism student, also studying at UEA, added: “A lot of industries like the prestige of a degree in general. It seems limiting and unnecessary to get rid of things people are passionate about just because they won’t automatically earn the biggest salary in the world.”
Truss’ option, for different reasons, seems hardly more appealing. On a logistical basis alone, to shift the entire academic year for all UK universities to January, so as to be out of sync with the rest of the world, appears to be incredibly harmful. All of this would most likely only allow for a few extra interviews, and seems so needless given the damage it would do for the academic community nationally and globally as a result.
Moreover, it would further embed the mentality in British education that attending Oxbridge is the only blueprint for success. Not only does this put more pressure on students applying for these two universities, which between them only have around 7,000 incredibly competitive undergraduate places per year, but it would also further disillusions the vast majority of UK students who are unable to, or do not wish to attend them.
Fin expressed doubts over this policy too: “Most people getting 3 A*s at A-level would already be getting interviews if they applied for them, or they may want to apply somewhere else anyway. It takes the power out of the hands of the people with the grades.”
It would also take the power out of the hands of Oxford and Cambridge Universities’ own admissions process - taking power away from the private institutions Truss appears to be putting on such a high pedestal.
"Attending Oxbridge is not the only way to success in this country."
Even the Cambridge Students’ Union has stated its criticism of Truss’ policy. Speaking to Varsity, the SU’s Undergraduate Access, Education and Participation Officer, Neve Atkinson, insisted: “Attending Oxbridge is not the only way to success in this country. The policy suggests that anyone who achieves three A*s would not only want to come to Oxbridge, but that they should, which absolutely is not the case.
“Most Cambridge offers are A*, A, A, not three A*s, and so making this requirement more difficult would almost certainly decrease the proportion of state-school students applying to and attending Cambridge.”
It truly is a choice between a rock and a hard place between the two candidates, but both would mean the academic world is bound to suffer. Either a whole series of departments will be given the axe because they do not fit Sunak’s vision of what increases students’ earning potential. Or, Oxbridge will be forced to give interviews which neither party may want to take place, while all universities are forced to be out of sync with the rest of the academic world. Conservative Party members must decide which option of unnecessary and unwanted damage to higher education is least harmful.