This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46345527

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Women gain higher earnings from degrees Who are the winners and losers from degrees?
(about 3 hours later)
Women are much more likely than men to get an increase in earnings from going to university, says an analysis of salaries at the age of 29. Women studying maths at Oxford and men taking economics at Bristol get the biggest increase in earnings, says an analysis of salaries at the age of 29.
But a third of men go to universities which give them only a "negligible" pay advantage, despite the cost of fees.
The study, from the Department for Education and Institute for Fiscal Studies, says women with a degree earn 28% more than non-graduate women.The study, from the Department for Education and Institute for Fiscal Studies, says women with a degree earn 28% more than non-graduate women.
Men with degrees earn an average of 8% more than non-graduates.Men with degrees earn an average of 8% more than non-graduates.
But almost a third of male graduates went to a university likely to give them a "negligible" earnings advantage. How much do students get back in earnings?
The report, based on tax records of people who went to school in England and then went to university in England, Wales or Scotland, shows a woman who has a degree earns £6,700 more per year, on average, than a non-graduate woman. The report, based on tax records of people who went to school in England and then went to university in England, Wales or Scotland, looks at how going to university might affect earnings.
But a male graduate earns £2,700, on average, more than a man without a degree. Setting aside any social benefits, it's asking if it's worth the cash, when graduates are leaving with an average of £50,000 of debt.
The greater benefits of a degree for women reflect the relatively lower earnings of non-graduate women. A woman with a degree on average earns £6,700 more per year than a non-graduate woman - with women improving their earnings for almost every course at every university.
This can reflect that non-graduate women are more likely to be in low-paid work. But the difference is much narrower for men, with a male graduate on average earning £2,700 more than a non-graduate.
But another factor, says the report, is that women who do not go to university are more likely have children earlier than graduates - and on average are more likely to be working part-time in their twenties. There are tougher questions for the one-third of men who go to universities which give "negligible or negative impact" on earnings compared with those without a degree.
Women in their twenties without degrees are twice as likely to be working part-time compared with their graduate counterparts. Are they getting value for money?
So the big gains for women described in the report can be comparisons between full-time graduate earnings and those non-graduates working part-time. Why do women do so much better?
For men, the financial gains of a degree are much less certain. And 33% of male graduates went to a university in which there was a "negligible or negative impact" on earnings compared with those without a degree. The report says getting a degree is clearly an "excellent investment" for women, because their earnings are so much higher than non-graduate women.
These figures have been adjusted to take into account the background of students and previous academic achievement - making it a like-for-like comparison. Much of this is because women without degrees are particularly likely to be low earners - and so the gap between them and graduates is likely to be wider.
High-income subjects This could be because women without degrees are likely to be in particularly low-paid jobs.
The report comes as a review is examining the future of tuition fees in England - with suggestions that fees of £9,250 per year and average loans debts of £50,000 are to be reduced. But another factor is that non-graduate women in their 20s are twice as likely to be working part-time as women with degrees.
But the report shows that apart from gender, the type of university and subject have a significant influence on future income. This could be because women who do not go to university tend to have children earlier than graduate women.
Medicine, economics, maths and science are likely to deliver higher earnings. So the big gains for women described in the report could include comparisons between full-time graduate earnings and those non-graduates working part-time.
But studying art, English and philosophy, particularly for men, can leave graduates on average earning lower than those who did not go to university. Does the subject choice matter?
Going to a Russell Group university is usually linked to increased earnings - but the data suggests that this is not always the case. The report shows there is a huge difference in likely earnings depending on the subject studied.
These factors can combine to increase or decrease earnings - so that women taking medicine can earn 75% more than female non-graduates, while men taking an arts degree have likely earnings 14% below male non-graduates. At the top end of the pay scale are medicine, economics, maths, business and law.
The graduates least likely to be high earners are the men who have studied an arts degree at a modern university. Women studying medicine can expect to earn 78% more than non-graduate women.
'Excellent investment' At the lower end are subjects such as creative arts, philosophy and English.
The figures are a snapshot of the position at the age of 29 - and they do not show what might happen next, which could include women's earnings being affected by having children and male graduates pulling further ahead of non-graduates. Men taking these subjects are likely to get "negative" returns - as on average they will earn less than their male counterparts who did not go to university.
Jack Britton, co-author of the report with Chris Belfield, says the study shows "university is an excellent investment for women". For men taking creative arts, they can expect 14% less than non-graduates.
For men, the figures might look "disappointing", says the IFS researcher. But he says it is "important to bear in mind that returns are likely to grow quickly later in life since graduates tend to see faster pay growth than non-graduates". Does the type of university make a difference?
The Universities Minister, Sam Gyimah, said it was important that there was "transparency" of information for applicants to university. There are significant earnings premiums for those at the top of the table - with women getting the best returns from four London universities - the LSE, Imperial, King's College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies - and Oxford.
"This shines a light on where good quality degrees are - and what we want to do is crack down on those courses that are not delivering value," he said. Bristol and Cambridge are added to the list of high earners for male students.
"It is also clear from the analysis that there are a clutch of courses at certain universities which are not delivering the financial outcomes for students," said Mr Gyimah. At the bottom, for male graduates, are modern universities, such as Bath Spa, or colleges which also deliver further education, such as Leeds City.
"What I want to see is universities competing to offer the best quality and value for money degrees to our young people." Almost all women are at universities which will boost their pay - although Bolton is an exception and is ranked lowest.
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the Office for Students, said the research showed that for "the vast majority of students there are clear financial benefits of getting a degree". It might not seem that surprising that modern universities do less well in future earnings.
But some universities "will need to ask themselves tough questions about how well they are preparing students for life after graduation". It might also be predictable that arts-based institutions get lower earnings, such as Ravensbourne, Goldsmiths and the University of the Arts.
But there might be scrutiny of the scale of universities where there are negative outcomes - 26 institutions where male earnings are on average less than non-graduates and 39 where the returns are less than 2%.
Essex, Hull, Leicester, Sussex, Keele and Bradford all have an earnings premium below 10% for male students.
How subject and university combine for winners and losers
If you put together the subject and university choice you can see the extremes of high and low-earning courses.
For women, maths at Oxford is the highest, followed by economics at the LSE. Economics at University College London gives a big return, as does medicine at Imperial.
In fact, the highest earners are a narrow combination of maths, law, medicine, physics and economics taken at a handful of top universities.
It's very similar for male graduates, headed by economics at Bristol and physics at Oxford.
For women, the lowest paying is computing at Westminster. Psychology at Bolton is in the bottom five.
But showing how much the course can drive the outcome, creative arts at Cambridge is among the least likely to deliver high earnings.
For men, philosophy at Sussex is ranked as offering the lowest rate of return - and studying languages at Oxford is also in the bottom five for male earnings.
What difference does it make?
The Universities Minister Sam Gyimah says that more transparency is vital to make sure that young people make informed choices about university places.
This will help them to think about getting value for money from their degree.
He also wants this to "shine a light" on courses that seem to deliver such a low rate of return.
But in the background, the big political context is a review considering the future of tuition fees in England.
This latest report could raise some very awkward questions.
Is it reasonable to charge students £9,500 regardless of course or university when there are such different outcomes in earnings?
And is it sustainable to have such a high level of fee and debt, when for so many, particularly men, the returns can be marginal or non-existent?