A degree is worth extra £12,000 a year

John Fitzsimons
by Lovemoney Staff John Fitzsimons on 07 April 2011  |  Comments 14 comments

If you have gone through University, chances are you'll enjoy a significantly better wage.

A degree is worth extra £12,000 a year

Over the past decade, people with a degree have enjoyed salaries of £12,000 a year on average more than non-graduates, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The median salary for graduates aged between 22 and 64 stood at £29,900, compared to just £17,800 for those who did not go to University. But it’s not just the headline figures that are interesting...

Earning with age

The ONS used the Labour Force Survey to work out the average weekly earnings over the past decade. And one interesting result was that, early on in our working lives, a degree is pretty irrelevant.

The median earnings for those aged 22 stand at around £15,000, irrespective of whether the worker has a degree or not. Clearly, having a degree in your back pocket doesn’t allow you to leapfrog other workers straight off the bat.

However, that level-playing field swiftly disappears – median earnings increase at a faster rate each year for those with degrees than without, levelling off a little by the age of 35 before peaking at the age of 51. The ONS believes a significant factor in median earnings falling from this point is that they are in a position to retire early.

By comparison, those without a degree see their earnings level off at 30, peaking at the age of 34.

The gender gap

There has always been a gap between the wages earned by men and women. However, the figures from the ONS demonstrate where and why there is such a difference.

For starters, there is less of a gender difference between graduates than between non-graduates. The table below looks at median hourly earnings:

 

Men

Women

Gap

Degree

£19.50

£15.50

20.4%

No degree

£12.00

£9.20

23.1%

However, whether the employee has a degree or not, earnings will level off earlier for women than men, a fact that the ONS attributes to many women taking time out from work to start a family. Women without a degree see their wages begin to level off at 31, compared to 34 for men, while female graduates see their wages level off at 33 compared to men at 39.

Choosing the right subject

It will come as no surprise that your choice of course plays a pretty big part in determining the salary you can expect. When I went to University I studied Politics and Philosophy. Sadly, the jobs market for philosophers these days is pretty bare, while there are more than enough politicians around, so you could argue I didn’t pick my course particularly well.

According to the ONS’s figures, almost half of all men (47%) select a course in business, finance, sciences or engineering, compared to just one in five women. In contrast, one in three female graduates have a degree in a health-related subject of education, compared to just 9% of men.

Related blog post

And the salaries on offer in such different marketplaces are distinctly different. The banking and finance industries pay an average of £37,300, compared to an average of £27,600 in public administration, education and health. With the former industries dominated by men, and the latter sectors dominated by women, it goes some way towards explaining the disparity in pay between men and women.

For more on the influence of your degree course on your resulting earnings, be sure to have a read of The best and worst-paying university degrees.

Getting what you pay for

These findings will no doubt be welcomed by those that support the increases to tuition fees proposed by the Government, which sparked such fury from the nation’s students last year.

The argument in favour of higher tuition fees has long been based on the fact that graduates earn more than non-graduates over their working life, and so should pay more towards the cost of that degree. Why should non-graduates have to subsidise the studying of graduates, when those students will go on to earn far more in the long run?

That’s all fine, but with the cost of a degree now hitting a whopping £84,000, it stands to reason that more students will be motivated by their likely final salary when picking a degree course.

That could see financial and business courses seeing greater demand, while those without an obvious vocation to follow – such as my own choice, of politics and philosophy – may see fewer students willing to condemn themselves to such a level of debt when the salary they get afterwards means it will take them an awful long time to clear that debt, if at all.

And I think that’s a shame. There should still be room for education for education’s sake. How many of us knew at 18 what we wanted to spend the rest of our lives doing for a living?

No guarantee

What’s more, having a degree is no longer a guarantee of even getting a job. Back in January, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that one in five new graduates are out of work. That’s the highest level of graduate unemployment since 1995.

Indeed, graduate unemployment has risen at a rate of 3.5 times the national figure. Graduates have enjoyed a profitable decade, but it may be that the next ten years will not see such a pronounced difference between those with degrees and those without.

More: Lenders flocking back to buy-to-let | Give your child £95,000 tax-free with a Junior ISA

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (14)

  • Chuckwallah
    Love rating 23
    Chuckwallah said

    I think these "average" figures hide the truth of the matter, as a science graduate in my fifties I can tell you I would be better off (financially) driving a bus. The high averages are probably down to the minority of graduates who end up in investment banking or some other vastly overpaid job. As for graduates progressing up the wage scale faster, could this possibly be because graduates tend to be more able in the first place and nothing to do with them having a degree?

    Report on 11 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Trixielooloobell
    Love rating 7
    Trixielooloobell said

    One thing people tend to forget when talking about university students and fees is that, yes, graduates over time will generally earn substantially more but this will also mean that they will pay more income tax, which goes back into the public purse to pay for a whole host of other services delivered by the government. Education should be available to all those with the enthusiasm and ability regardless of whether you can afford it and I think there should be a difference made between those subjects that have excellent vocational outcomes and/ or intense academic backgrounds with the more "airy fairy" subjects, I've never met any one who did Travel and Tourism that wasn't a bit dull and dim.

    Someone once commented to a colleague who was moaning about not having any children of their own why they should have to fork out to pay for someone else's "snivelling brats". This very wise woman turned round and pointed out that "that snivelling brat may one day be the doctor who saves your life" I think that's worth putting money into. If we don't ensure good quality education provision for all children and young people then it's no wonder a new generation are growing up disenfranchised and the possible negative effects on society far outweigh the costs of a decent education for all.

    After graduating, my first job bought in minimum wage and I was the only graduate in the company. People thought I was mad but it paid my bills and gave me experience and I have always made the best of a bad situation. It's only been in the last year (I'm 33 and graduated English in 2000) that I am actually starting to get paid what my skills, experience, knowledge and learning are worth (I am a data analyst, trust me English is a highly analytical discipline and if you can analyse something as slippery as words numbers are a doddle) but it's never about the money it's about being part of a bigger picture and what you lose on the swings you hope to gain on the roundabouts.

    Report on 11 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • pje
    Love rating 0
    pje said

    Interesting article, however a couple of points which are not mentioned....

    1) Does the analysis control for pre-degree qualifications, ie only drawing comparisons between people who had the same A Level results with one set choosing to go to Uni and the other set not. Obviously we would expect someone who failed all their school exams not to do so well in terms of earnings compared to someone who was academically motivated and went on to complete a degree.

    2) One other thing is that this article reads such that the returns from a degree have been constant over time and its the peoples working experience that dictates the returns. Now those aged in their 50s can only have been through University when the proportion of the population that went was small (c.10%-20%), whereas over more recent years the rate has gone up, and some research has shown that the returns have fallen. Eg when comparing 1970's graduates 10 years into their careers vs those in the 1990's. It would be interesting to know if this was controlled for in this research.

    Report on 11 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Chuckwallah
    Love rating 23
    Chuckwallah said

    Actually, PJE, the situation in the late sixties and early seventies was quite complex. The University intake was only 5% but there were colleges of various types, polytechnics and a huge number of science and engineering apprenticeships. All of these provided a different mix of academic and vocational training for first time jobseekers. It's difficult to see how the comparisons between then and now could have reasonably been made.

    Report on 11 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    I know graduates that are struggling to get jobs. The problems are complex but some studying humanities are taught such bovine excrement that the only profession they may be allowed into is teaching 5 year old. I talked to an undergraduate today who is already getting some experience and earning much more than she would otherwise do. She goes to university in China where the day starts at 7 and end at 7 in the evening and then homework starts. She went to meet a teacher at the airport on Sunday arriving from England and didn't have time to finish her assignment for the weekend - which would take most students in this country a month. I was asked to help and I struggled to answer one question. She was offered work as a waitress last summer for 3 Yuan an hour (30p) and now earns 50 Yuan for 2 hours teaching English on a Sunday afternoon. Interpreters in major cities earn up to 1,000 yuan an hour and in this country up to £67 an hour. She hopes to do her MBA here. Lecturers and students here need to change their culture to compete. the assignment I looked at on Sunday was set by a UK university and I needed to use a sigma for the maths. A letter of the Greek alphabet in a technological age? It took a few hours to figure that out before I got on to the maths. thank God for Excel!

    I also write my thrifty and frugal blogs for students in the West; Chinese students are used to noodles and rice for dinner - http://wp.me/P194MF-2D

    Report on 11 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • theBigM
    Love rating 6
    theBigM said

    These types of surveys should be taken with a pinch of salt. Much like the property market, there is a now a nice little cartel in the "education business" (because that's what it is now) keen to propogate the myth that a degree is a golden ticket to a better job and higher earnings in order to get bums on seats. Sure, if you do a degree in medicine, engineering, dentistry or happen to get a job for an investment bank or city law firm you'll be fine, but a lot of degrees, especially now that 45% of the population hold them, don't give you much advantage at all on the jobs market.

    Of course, many graduates are going to earn more than the majority of people who leave school at 16 with few qualifications, but do they earn much more than those with just A levels or with other higher qualifications? Certainly, amongst my friends, the ones with the degrees are not necessarily the higher earners. A more interesting comparison would be between degree holders and those with A levels/higher qualifications

    Report on 11 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Basia02a
    Love rating 43
    Basia02a said

    I am rather sceptical about all the money Students supposedly make. Back in 1977 I was told by a careers advisor at University that a student is 31 before he earnt as much in total as someone who left school at 16. I cannot believe that this has improved now that degrees are so common and must have been de-valued. Does the survey average include 0 for all the students who are unemployed? We have 2 nephews with degrees. One has been on the dole for 2 years. The other has had two 3-month jobs before being made redundant - in 3 years. The only job I got because of my degree was the worst paid one I ever had. On top of that there is all the debt they acquire.

    Report on 13 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Squiggle
    Love rating 0
    Squiggle said

    You really shouldn't repeat this nonsense uncritically.

    These stats are worse than useless and are only good for politicians' use in trying to promote their predetermined agendas. As others have pointed out, more bright kids will go to University and get degrees than their less able compatriots. Without examination of pre-university abilities, the results are meaningless.

    There is a willful refusal to acknowledge genetics anywhere in any Government thinking. The offspring of two parents who have been through University , given that they have already academically achieved, are likely to have more innate academic abilities– and that is before factoring in the other benefits (nutrition, encouragement, opportunities for learning, more parental time etc) which are likely in such a family.

    No-one in Government (this or previous) seems to understand the laws of supply and demand. By definition, a target of 50% attendance at University implies that everyone of average intelligence and above will gain degrees and that must reduce differential earning potential, just at the time when there is a determination to make University more expensive by increasing tuition fees.

    I have heard some absolute garbage talked by politicians that the “debt is not an unreasonable burden because you don’t have to repay it until you are over the earnings threshold”. Well, if the debt is not repaid as per expectations (and it won’t be because of the lowering of differentials), who picks up the tab for the deficit? – it can only be the general taxpayer! It also encourages a ‘debt acceptance’ mentality which got us into the current financial mess. I am sure that PWC, KMPG etc are already working on remuneration schemes which will reward individuals without breaching any such threshold for those rich enough to pay for their advice – youir average ‘Joe’ will pick up the tab.

    The (very predictable and logical) decision for most Universities to charge the maximum amount has already led to threats to either cap numbers or insist on more bursaries (which is just another mechanism by which middle class students will be taxed to subsidise the poor). There is nothing wrong with wealth re-distribution, but it should be honest and up-front and done through general taxation.

    I share the stated belief that we need more scientists, technologists etc, but we cannot usefully provide degree education at this level if we do not adequately teach advanced physics and maths in state schools – so where is that investment?

    It’s also easy for politicians to rail against ‘soft’ degrees. For most, a University education should be about producing a rounded, philosophically mature individual who can critically examine, test arguments, experiment, debate and reach sound conclusions on a wide variety of issues – not just in their chosen subject. The issue here is the rigour of the course rather than the actual subject matter - for all but a very few who continue to work in very specific fields, the knowledge gained as an undergraduate will soon be outdated.

    It appears that all the fancy firsts in PPE from Oxford and Cambridge have equipped our politicians to understand neither basic science nor economics, other than in the field of self enrichment - but perhaps that is what they went for anyway?

    Report on 14 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • killick_becki
    Love rating 58
    killick_becki said

    I would like to point out that the unemployment data the article refers to counts those still in education as unemployed. Thus high unemployment is not straight forward. Those continuing on to gain post-graduate degrees will be in the unemployed category for the duration of their course. They are only classed as employed if they take on part time work with their course, even then their earnings are low and skew the employed statistics.

    When the government talks about "youth unemployment" they have noted that it is rising. This is not necessarily because they are not employed, it might be because more people are staying in education! I'm not saying that youth unemployment hasn't risen, i'm just saying that we are using the wrong statistics to be able to tell either way.

    Report on 18 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rowlando
    Love rating 0
    rowlando said

    My sister, who's 32 and a single-mum of 2 boys, is planning to start a degree in September. She hasn't had a full-time job before and I think she wrongly thinks a degree will help her get a job, a well-paid one at that.

    I believe the numbers in this article are boosted by the few high earners, who happen to be graduates. I think, looking forward 10 years time, university will become less important in the eyes of those young people who want a successful future. More and more smart young people will quit uni or won't even bother with it. I think Seth Godin made a good point recently on the fact that in the USA student debt is fast reaching a trillion dollars.

    "The question is whether a trillion dollars is the right amount for individuals to spend marketing themselves. What would happen if people spent it building up a work history instead? On becoming smarter, more flexible, more self-sufficient and yes, able to take more risk because they owe less money..."

    Source: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/04/buying-an-education-or-buying-a-brand.html

    And I definitely think Peter Thiel is on to something when he says the bubble we're in now is Higher Education: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/10/peter-thiel-were-in-a-bubble-and-its-not-the-internet-its-higher-education/

    So, given this, how do I convince my sister that going out, getting a job, earning money and getting valuable work experience is the better option, especially when she'd be competing against younger graduates when (or if) she gets her degree? I did a degree and it's served me well, so advising her not to do one doesn't come across well.

    Report on 18 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • sodit
    Love rating 127
    sodit said

    A degree is worth extra income only if you can get a job.

    Report on 19 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • dmhzx
    Love rating 26
    dmhzx said

    And if this £12K is true, then assuming a 40 year working life, a graduate will pay about £140,000 more in Tax and NI than (s)he would have done if they didn;t get a degree.

    £140,000 mosr in tax,

    And STILL the government wants even more in tuition fees.

    Once upon a time, the government realised that the countries future was dependent on how well it educated it's children.

    But Blaie put a stop to that. Blair decided that exam result were more important than education, and brought in Style over content. This moved on to Procedure over performance.

    And now we have taxation, stealth taxation, and taxation even before you have anything to tax.

    Oh but of course, you only have to pay back once you get more than £21K . -- That's not even £12K above the minimum wage.

    Never trust a government with your money or your future.

    Report on 25 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Pitt
    Love rating 0
    Pitt said

    Dear John,

    Now that the government have introduced USA style fees for degrees I wonder when it will introduce USA style salaries, housing prices and tax. Never I feel. The degree "Rip-off", like the housing prices ,"Rip-off" must end. The plain fact is that unless one attends an, " Older University" the blue-chip employers, with some notable exceptions, will not recruit one.

    At one time attending a, "New University", which often specialised in such as Teacher Training , Social work and other Government orientated vocational courses meant that one was at least guaranteed some form of income. However with the recent cuts these positions are diminishing. Even when times were good given the house price inflation, that this and the previous government refused to manage, given a more realistic average graduate wage of £21,000.00 and little chance of earning a great deal more resulted in "things being tight." The £21,000.00 meant paying back student loans, after tax and NI etc., one "took home" approx. £14,000. With rent, mobile phone, broadband, utilities and so forth and an on average rent of about £750.00 per month for a house, London considerably more; one had £3,800.00 to live on minus the loans. With about £76.00 a week to “live on” and all these expenses many graduates go back into education as they are “better –off", due to the concessions given students. However this often resulted in yet more debt.

    The problem our present government fails to understand, once again due to fundamental lack of understanding of the real world, is that "pre –decimalisation "(1999) economics and tax breaks are of no use in the "post –decimalisation" (2000) world. How on earth can the present housing inflation, on average 500%, be sustainable when a graduate will never, it seems, unless a loved one helps or dies or both, be able to even raise a deposit? When will our governments’ wake up to the, “ Real World?”

    My best advice is, depending on circumstances, for the chap enquiring about his sister would be to look at local colleges and vocational courses, all the benefits that may be available and get apart-time job, that will hopefully be beneficial and congruent to the degree taken. Fortunately most University courses allow this as contact hours are actually below 16 hours. Sadly with this "USA style" fees for degrees the "Older Universities" will be out of reach for the majority of us and destruction , begun by the previous government, of 50 years of social mobility, a reward of the nations sacrifice in 2 world wars?, will finally be reduced to a state resembling that of pre -second world war Britain.

    Report on 25 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gardener
    Love rating 25
    gardener said

    Of course, if like me, you are doing a degree as a mature student, there is not much chance of an increase in wages and I doubt I will recoup the money I have had to loan to complete it. However I went to university for academic reasons, not to party, get drunk or get laid (which is what most of my fellow students were there to do). Very few students on my course (a science course) were actually interested in the subjects or were polite enough to listen to lecturers without using other multi media to let the world know how drunk they were the night before. Now doing post grad where thankfully people are actually interested. Most people on post grad are self-funded and are there for two reasons: help them acquire new/additional skills to seek new employment & study for academic pleasure. Needless to say everyone totally motivated and the course is a joy. I have told my children that if they want to go to uni because everyoen else is, not to bother, get a job and save the money. You can always do it later on when you are more motivated and actually get something out of it apart from permanent liver damage & STDs.

    Report on 25 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2