According to the universities minister, Sam Gyimah, the most important thing about higher education is that it represents good value for money. The formula for this is clear: a research-intensive university, plus a degree in a science or business subject, equals cash for life. Of course, if you come from a background underrepresented in higher education, that formula works slightly less profitably, but that’s a minor detail.
What a grim way to talk about education. What a picture to show to young people about their future. Trying to use a hard base of evidence for informing choices and shaping parental attitudes ignores what many young people feel and think. It lacks any spark of excitement or affinity.
Anyone who’s spent time in a university will understand how they provide so much more than earnings potential. And employers agree: businesses say they want new energy, ideas and perspectives from their graduates. They don’t want to be the end of the conveyor belt for graduates from a monoculture.
The government’s focus on Stem subjects as drivers of economic growth and graduate success is also unhelpful. Stem industries are increasingly looking for collaboration and input from the worlds of creative arts, media and design, because they know they need a diversity of perspectives, and a balance of different kinds of talent.
Research backs up growing doubts about the value of traditional graduate profiles to employers. A study among business leaders and managers at Google – where you would assume Stem skills would be at a premium – found that “soft skills” are more important, in particular communication, generosity, empathy and emotional intelligence. Stem skills in general were ranked eighth in terms of importance, and were seen as being relatively easy to acquire.
What 21st-century employers need, but are are finding it hard to come across, is singular, creative talent nurtured by a higher education system that offers opportunities for everyone. Yet the university system works against neurodiversity (dyslexia, dyspraxia, ADHD, among others), and penalises talented students who may have high levels of creative and artistic abilities – and a keen sense of motivation – but who struggle with formal qualifications, and the university entrance and study system.
Taking a talent-first approach means opening up higher education to diversity and to more students from non-traditional backgrounds, rather than shoehorning students into a course they’re not suited to in order to meet a narrow definition of success. It allows for more of an emphasis on the whole person and their development, giving them a greater sense of purpose, and teaching them to be more creative, open-minded, flexible and resilient – the qualities that are in real demand.
No doubt the principle of value for money is here to stay for higher education, so as a sector we need to be assertive in arguing for a broader, non-financial definition. Higher education doesn’t offer a set of hard skills and knowledge that are sold as a ticket to better salaries. Being open to and nurturing different talents is where the real value is for students, society and taxpayers.
- Professor Linda Drew is vice-chancellor of Ravensbourne University London
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at highereducationnetwork@theguardian.com
Looking for a higher education job? Or perhaps you need to recruit university staff? Take a look at Guardian Jobs, the higher education specialist