Merit beyond metrics: Redefining the value of higher education

Abstract

In this provocative opinion piece, I challenge entrenched norms and encourage re-evaluating higher education’s true purpose and impact in today’s complex, volatile, and uncertain world. I argue for a paradigm shift to consider alternative ways to define the value of higher education beyond existing metrics. I propose (i) abandoning degree classifications, (ii) acknowledging that earnings alone fail to capture the full value of a degree, and (iii) ditching league table rankings to boost collaboration. By reconceptualising the value of higher education, we can foster a more inclusive environment and promote a sustainable career ecosystem to benefit all actors.

Setting the scene

In today’s complex, volatile, and uncertain landscape, the purpose of higher education continues to evolve. Universities play a crucial role in fostering a talent pipeline to fulfil industry requirements and contribute to a sustainable career ecosystem (Baruch et al., 2023; Donald, 2023). Such a view moves beyond cultivating various forms of employability capital in students, urging universities to enrich students’ capabilities to thrive and tackle society’s global challenges (Jakubik et al., 2023). However, conventional methods of assessing the value of higher education often fail to capture merit beyond a limited set of quantifiable metrics.

In this provocative opinion piece, I challenge conventional norms and advocate for a paradigm shift towards redefining the value of higher education beyond traditional metrics. To accomplish this goal, I scrutinise three prevalent metrics and propose alternative approaches to cultivate a more inclusive environment and foster a sustainable career ecosystem for all actors. Initially, I question the appropriateness of the current degree classification system and propose its replacement with a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ binary outcome. Next, I critique the disproportionate emphasis placed on earnings as a measure of the value of a university degree, advocating instead for a more comprehensive evaluation. Lastly, I examine the shortcomings of league table rankings and argue that they often yield detrimental effects. Instead, I propose a collaborative approach to advancing sustainable outcomes for all actors within the career ecosystem.

Time to abandon degree classifications

According to the Office for Students (2022), the percentage of UK graduates awarded a 1^st class degree classification surged from 7.3% in 1994-1995 (a figure broadly consistent since the 1960s) to 37.7% in 2020-2021. Even after adjusting for the pandemic-related impacts and temporary grade inflation, 28.9% of degrees conferred in 2018-2019 (the final academic year before the pandemic) were at the 1^st class level. The Office for Students also observed an 11% point decrease in the number of graduates not attaining a 1^st class or 2:1 degree classification between the academic years 1994-1995 and 2020-2021.

Furthermore, the disparity in achieving either a 1^st class or 2:1 degree classification between White and Black students in the UK was 27.0% in 2010-2011 and 17.4% in 2020-2021 (the latest academic year for recent figures). Therefore, the current degree classification system still disadvantages Black students. In essence, degree classifications fall short of providing a sufficiently inclusive and comprehensive portrayal of an individual’s true capability and potential. The issue is further compounded by intersectionality between and within various groups and subsequent bias within society and the labour market (Donald et al., 2024).

Employers increasingly recognise that restricting their search to graduates holding a 1^st class or 2:1 degree classification narrows the diversity of the available talent pool. Consequently, “employers requiring [at least] a 2:1 degree classification have dropped from 48% last year to 44% this year” (Institute of Student Employers, 2023: 11). This trend raises a pertinent question: With a growing number of students attaining top degree classifications, indications of bias against Black students, and reduced reliance on degree classifications by employers, is the current system fit-for-purpose? The prevailing sentiment suggests not, so what alternative approaches could be pursued instead?

Irani (2023) proposes adopting the new GCSE scale, which utilises grades ranging from 1 to 9, with nine being the highest. However, I fear that introducing additional grade boundaries may have unintended consequences, particularly regarding the pre-existing mental health challenges students and graduates face (see Donald and Jackson, 2022). Instead, I advocate for eliminating 1^st, 2:1, 2:2, and 3^rd class degree classifications, a practice already implemented in fields such as Medicine. However, unlike in Medicine, I recommend transitioning to a binary ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ system without the inclusion of ‘Merit’ or ‘Distinction’ classifications. This approach mitigates the risk of Merit and Distinction grades serving as substitutes for the current classification system.

Moreover, such an approach can potentially reduce mental health impacts on students and graduates while fostering intrinsic motivations for learning. For instance, in group assignments, the focus can remain on the project itself, reducing concerns of unfairness if students with significantly varying grade predictions are grouped together and receive the same module mark. Furthermore, the approach encourages the integration of authentic assessment methods into the curriculum, enhancing students’ employability (Manville et al., 2022) and overcoming specific challenges posed by Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT when adopting traditional assessment formats.

Having made the case for abandoning degree classifications, our attention now turns to critique the overemphasis on earnings when determining the value of a university degree.

Earnings alone fail to capture the full value of a degree

The latest UK data from the academic year 2020-2021 reveals that full-time earners aged between 25 and 64 experience a 51% wage premium for graduates compared to individuals with only upper-secondary education (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2024). However, this premium varies significantly based on several factors, including the field of study, the balance between graduate supply and labour market demand, and geographical considerations.

In response to concerns over the value of university degrees, the UK Government initiated measures in 2023 targeting what they labelled as ‘rip-off university degrees’ whereby “university courses that fail to deliver good outcomes, with high drop-out rates and poor employment prospects will be subject to strict controls” (Department for Education, 2023: 1). However, it is important to note that while these measures address employment outcomes, they overlook the broader concept of employability, which encompasses an individual’s capability to perform a job, rather than solely focusing on whether they currently have a job.

Relying solely on earnings to gauge employment prospects reveals a critical deficiency, as underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic’s social distancing measures, which characterised individuals in the UK as ‘key workers’ or ‘non-key workers’. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (2020), the median hourly pay for key workers was £12.26, 8% lower than the £13.26 per hour for non-key workers. Furthermore, in April 2020, 16% of key workers earned below the Living Wage, set at £9.60 per hour across the UK, except for an uplift to £10.75 in London (Living Wage Foundation, 2021). Consequently, only focusing on earnings risks overlooking key worker roles that are essential but often lower paid.

Additionally, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and The Sutton Trust (2021) found that disadvantaged young people are four times more likely to become socially mobile if they attend university. These findings suggest that the UK Government’s recent use of inflammatory language such as ‘Micky Mouse’ degrees is ill-informed. Instead, degrees and apprenticeships should be seen as complementary post-secondary pathways to foster a sustainable career ecosystem. Thus, the question arises: how can we assess the value of a degree more comprehensively?

At the individual student level, universities present invaluable opportunities for cultivating diverse forms of employability capital. Donald et al. (2024) delineate nine such dimensions encompassing (i) social capital, (ii) cultural capital, (iii) psychological capital, (iv) personal identity capital, (v) health capital, (vi) scholastic capital, (vii) market-value capital, (viii) career identity capital, and (ix) economic capital. Cole and Coulson (2022) also acknowledge universities as environments conducive to ‘life wide’ learning, where students glean insights from various contexts (e.g., classrooms, student societies, work experiences, etc.). This multifaceted learning approach enriches students’ employability and fosters the expansion of their professional networks, enhancing their prospects of securing meaningful employment opportunities across their careers (Clarke, 2018).

Therefore, assessing whether students achieve their desired outcomes after university may be more relevant instead of solely emphasising post-graduation income. This perspective acknowledges that not all graduates aspire to secure high-paying positions or pursue careers in lucrative sectors. Such an approach also presents an opportunity to reframe a university education as a journey toward becoming authentic and responsible global community citizens (Jakubik, 2022) rather than a narrow focus on learning to pass exams or assignments. By adopting this perspective, individuals can pursue their passions and contribute meaningfully at local, regional, or national levels, fostering a more sustainable career ecosystem. Moreover, it empowers students to make informed decisions about their post-secondary educational path based on their unique circumstances, potentially addressing the issue of high dropout rates in particular courses (as highlighted earlier via the Department for Education, 2023).

Having critiqued the overemphasis on earnings when determining the value of a university degree, our focus now shifts to making the case for ditching league table rankings.

Ditch league table rankings to boost collaboration

I have previously advocated for embracing strategic opportunities to bridge the university-employer divide since the competitive dynamic among universities, driven by league table rankings, hinders collaboration efforts between institutions (Donald, 2024a). Consequently, individual universities often lack the resources to offer their students comprehensive career guidance support. Rather than pooling resources through collaboration, universities frequently restrict student support services to avoid providing any perceived advantage to rival institutions, especially those nearby.

Moreover, like any ranking system, universities frequently resort to tactics aimed at manipulating metrics to inflate their standings rather than adopting strategic initiatives that would yield broader benefits for all actors in the career ecosystem. Recognising this concern, the University of Zurich made headlines in March 2024 by declaring its decision to withdraw from providing data for the Times Higher Education rankings (University of Zurich Communications, 2024). Their rationale is grounded in the observation that such rankings disproportionally prioritise quantifiable outputs, thereby failing to accurately capture universities’ diverse spectrum of teaching and research activities.

Clearly, discontinuing league table rankings would undoubtedly encounter substantial opposition, particularly from ranking providers and universities that excel under the current metrics since they leverage their ranking to attract students and secure tuition fees. To counter such concerns, we need to shift the narrative to consider the viability of universities within the sector if we continue to compete with each other instead of acknowledging threats to student numbers from alternative pathways such as apprenticeships. With that in mind, I advocate for enhanced collaboration among actors within and between universities and employers to bolster the sustainability of the career ecosystem.

Within the university setting, I advocate for providing accessible, timely, and personalised career support to students, alongside efforts to foster collaboration and facilitate connections between various student support services (Donald, 2024a). Such initiatives demonstrate institutional commitment to student success and contribute to enhanced well-being and social mobility. Embedding employability and career guidance into the curriculum presents opportunities for domestic and international students to cultivate intercultural citizenship, which is essential for succeeding in global labour markets (Baker and Fang, 2021).

Additionally, Padgett and Donald (2023) underscore the efficacy of incorporating compulsory employability modules into the curriculum, revealing a significant increase in students’ self-perceived employability from 37.5% to 92.5% over 10 weeks. Benefits included “increased confidence, interactive classes, skills development, knowledge of the recruitment process, CV development, proactive career ownership, interview guidance and networking (Padgett and Donald, 2023: 1).

Furthermore, enhanced collaboration among diverse university settings and deeper engagement with industry are imperative. A shared goal of universities is to improve student perceptions of graduate employability (Donald, 2024a). Yet, the challenge of resource constraints hinders adequate student support. Collaboration between universities in the same geographical area holds significant promise, pooling resources to achieve outcomes surpassing those attainable in isolation. By mitigating inefficiencies and minimising duplication of efforts, such partnerships capitalise on each institution’s extensive networks and resources.

Lackéus (2024) also contends that cultivating a ‘work-learn balance’ enhances individual motivation, fosters a sense of purpose, and fuels personal growth. They define the concept as “when people on a weekly basis combine new value creation for the others (“work”) and own personal development (“learn”)” (Lackéus, 2024: 177). Furthermore, collaboration between universities and industry when designing the curriculum can help to align the needs of all actors (Alaali, 2024). Notably, initiatives like industry advisory councils can help map ‘curriculum-based knowledge’ and ‘the skills employers seek’ to deconstruct and subsequently reconstruct individual modules within a degree programme (Kelly et al., 2024). Enriching students’ placement experiences by empowering lecturers to play a more proactive role can facilitate mutually beneficial exchanges between universities and industry, fostering symbiotic benefits for all actors (Donald and Hughes, 2024; Hughes et al., 2023).

Moreover, removing league table rankings could significantly boost research collaboration. Currently, regions, universities, and departments rely on various journal ranking lists as proxies for research quality and impact. These lists often lack alignment, favour quantitative and theoretical research, and leave some fields, like higher education, underrepresented. This gives high-ranking, often Western-centric journals undue influence over research topics deemed ‘worthy’ of investigation. Shifting away from this ranking obsession would promote multi-disciplinary research and stronger links between university and industry, combining the insights of scholars and practitioners to deliver research with truly ‘meaningful’ impact. It would also allow individuals to publish their work in outlets most likely to reach their target audience. This would help overcome the exclusionary nature of the current setup by offering an alternative to handing over copyright to journals when unable to pay high article process charges for open-access publishing (Donald, 2024b).

Consequently, I advocate reorienting priorities and avoiding relying on league table rankings. Instead, emphasis must shift to the cultivation and sustenance of collaborations within individual university contexts as well as across diverse academic institutions and industry actors. This strategic shift can support universities in enriching students’ capabilities to thrive and tackle society’s global challenges (Jakubik et al., 2023).

Final thoughts

The opinions expressed in this essay are solely my own and may not align with the perspectives of other institutions that I am associated with. Additionally, my emphasis has been on advocating for a paradigm shift towards exploring alternative methods of defining the value of UK higher education rather than seeking to defend the status quo.

I hope that the provocative nature of this opinion piece catalyses discourse regarding the reform of degree classifications, the comprehensive evaluation of a degree’s true worth, and the continued relevance of league table rankings within a sustainable career ecosystem. Let us collectively take steps to ensure that universities remain adaptive and pertinent in today’s complex, volatile, and uncertain landscape.