Charlie Ball
@lmicharlie.bsky.social
Jisc's Head of Labour Market Intelligence, based in Manchester. Specialist on the labour market for post-18 learners in the UK, posts about work, study, regional labour markets, county cricket. Find my work (mostly) at https://luminate.prospects.ac.uk/
when people see a polar bear standing nobly atop a freshly-hewn mint, they forget the dark side of the industry.
November 21, 2025 at 1:25 PM
when people see a polar bear standing nobly atop a freshly-hewn mint, they forget the dark side of the industry.
Glacier mints are mined there, it's still primary industry.
November 21, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Glacier mints are mined there, it's still primary industry.
If neither side plays their home games at Chelmsford, it isn't really that important.
November 21, 2025 at 9:42 AM
If neither side plays their home games at Chelmsford, it isn't really that important.
I want this yesterday.
November 20, 2025 at 7:10 PM
I want this yesterday.
Ah, yes, that tracks.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
November 20, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Ah, yes, that tracks.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
Alternatively, the fae run on Python.
I'd have thought the queen would care *a lot* about THEN. THEN is very much the point of all the fae IFs
November 20, 2025 at 9:55 AM
I'd have thought the queen would care *a lot* about THEN. THEN is very much the point of all the fae IFs
Also an entirely correct and appropriate attitude towards Congleton
November 18, 2025 at 12:35 PM
Also an entirely correct and appropriate attitude towards Congleton
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
September 16, 2025 at 8:42 AM
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
No lifetime earnings figures are reliable.
I'm of the view, tbh, that they're essentially unknowable. I don't think it's possible to calculate returns to a qualification in any way other than with hindsight and you have to trust your judgement.
If the answers to any of those questions are 'lifetime earnings peak earlier than we thought' or 'they leave the labour market some time before state pension age', then almost all of that wage advantage disappears (if you're lucky).
September 16, 2025 at 8:39 AM
If the answers to any of those questions are 'lifetime earnings peak earlier than we thought' or 'they leave the labour market some time before state pension age', then almost all of that wage advantage disappears (if you're lucky).
One of the biggest is this: yes, skilled trades workers can earn a lot (although it's in part by working longer hours), but for how long? When do their lifetime earnings peak? When do they leave the labour market? Can you continue laying bricks or plastering when you're 67?
We don't know.
We don't know.
September 16, 2025 at 8:37 AM
One of the biggest is this: yes, skilled trades workers can earn a lot (although it's in part by working longer hours), but for how long? When do their lifetime earnings peak? When do they leave the labour market? Can you continue laying bricks or plastering when you're 67?
We don't know.
We don't know.
(and there are even more problems estimating earnings where self-employment and freelancing are common, eg some trades, the arts, IT, some finance etc)
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
September 16, 2025 at 8:35 AM
(and there are even more problems estimating earnings where self-employment and freelancing are common, eg some trades, the arts, IT, some finance etc)
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
If you find that some of the basic assumptions of the model used to impute earnings don't hold, all the data becomes unreliable.
That's for a bunch of reasons but the simplest is: we have no real idea about mid to late career paths in the modern labour market, especially post-COVID (you're citing pre-COVID work), when a lot of over 50s left the labour market on health grounds.
September 16, 2025 at 8:31 AM
That's for a bunch of reasons but the simplest is: we have no real idea about mid to late career paths in the modern labour market, especially post-COVID (you're citing pre-COVID work), when a lot of over 50s left the labour market on health grounds.
The second, more serious mistake, and the more difficult one to explain, is the way you've hung so much of your thesis on lifetime graduate returns.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
September 16, 2025 at 8:29 AM
The second, more serious mistake, and the more difficult one to explain, is the way you've hung so much of your thesis on lifetime graduate returns.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
We don't really have lifetime earnings data for anyone in the labour market. The IFS did their best but had to impute most of it.
Ultimately this part of your thesis fails by simply asking the question
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
September 16, 2025 at 8:28 AM
Ultimately this part of your thesis fails by simply asking the question
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
"If employers don't need graduates, why do we have a NEET epidemic amongst non-graduates?"
The answer is, employers do need and value graduates.
Secondly: that basically means declaring all associate professionals in SOC 3 and most managers in SOC 1 as non-graduate jobs.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
September 16, 2025 at 8:27 AM
Secondly: that basically means declaring all associate professionals in SOC 3 and most managers in SOC 1 as non-graduate jobs.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
This is the pre-Robbins view which was roundly countered in the 60s.
Sorry, 16.6 and 17.3, there have been some revisions.
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
September 16, 2025 at 8:23 AM
Sorry, 16.6 and 17.3, there have been some revisions.
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
Your argument is that 7 million - 40 per cent - of those graduates (many of whom don't have first degrees anyway as they're HND and the like) didn't need to go to university.
Firstly, employers disagree.
Secondly, in practical terms
"So the figure of 20% can be considered to be a lower bound of the over-supply of university places, with a figure of 30% - 40% being a more likely estimate"
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.
September 16, 2025 at 8:17 AM
"So the figure of 20% can be considered to be a lower bound of the over-supply of university places, with a figure of 30% - 40% being a more likely estimate"
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.
The last APS shows that 16.8 million people (ish) in the UK workforce have RQF4+. 17.5 million people (ish) are in SOCs 1 to 3.
I work a lot with engineering where we don't have enough graduates. The response of firms when faced with not enough graduates is not to recruit non-graduates for roles where they think they need graduates. It's not to recruit at all.
You may have written a thesis to massively increase NEETs.
You may have written a thesis to massively increase NEETs.
September 16, 2025 at 8:11 AM
I work a lot with engineering where we don't have enough graduates. The response of firms when faced with not enough graduates is not to recruit non-graduates for roles where they think they need graduates. It's not to recruit at all.
You may have written a thesis to massively increase NEETs.
You may have written a thesis to massively increase NEETs.
"This is rational for the employers, and rational for those individuals to go to university, but overall the system is worse than one where fewer people go"
The explanation only works if you assume that if employers no longer have graduate available, they'll recruit other people. Not sure.
The explanation only works if you assume that if employers no longer have graduate available, they'll recruit other people. Not sure.
September 16, 2025 at 8:09 AM
"This is rational for the employers, and rational for those individuals to go to university, but overall the system is worse than one where fewer people go"
The explanation only works if you assume that if employers no longer have graduate available, they'll recruit other people. Not sure.
The explanation only works if you assume that if employers no longer have graduate available, they'll recruit other people. Not sure.
"We can see this happening in the way many jobs that used to not require degrees now do"
They do that because the jobs change over time.
They do that because the jobs change over time.
September 16, 2025 at 8:07 AM
"We can see this happening in the way many jobs that used to not require degrees now do"
They do that because the jobs change over time.
They do that because the jobs change over time.
"The ‘signalling’ effect means that even if a degree isn’t needed for a job - in fact, even if it imparted no skills at all - an employer can use it as a selection tool"
Graduates are more expensive than non-grads to recruit and retain. Employers recruit them because they think they need them.
Graduates are more expensive than non-grads to recruit and retain. Employers recruit them because they think they need them.
September 16, 2025 at 8:06 AM
"The ‘signalling’ effect means that even if a degree isn’t needed for a job - in fact, even if it imparted no skills at all - an employer can use it as a selection tool"
Graduates are more expensive than non-grads to recruit and retain. Employers recruit them because they think they need them.
Graduates are more expensive than non-grads to recruit and retain. Employers recruit them because they think they need them.
The second is to do the researcher trick of redefining a 'graduate job' but leaving a whole load of occupations, usually in SOC 3, as 'non-graduate'. The last time I saw this, it declared everyone in the marketing and PR industry as in non-graduate jobs. This is because of the next fallacy
September 16, 2025 at 8:03 AM
The second is to do the researcher trick of redefining a 'graduate job' but leaving a whole load of occupations, usually in SOC 3, as 'non-graduate'. The last time I saw this, it declared everyone in the marketing and PR industry as in non-graduate jobs. This is because of the next fallacy
The first is to make the OECD mistake of counting all post-18 qualifications as HE, and so declaring that people with RQF4+ qualifications are 'graduates' and that therefore someone who went to FE and did an HND in hairdressing and became a hairdresser is in a non-graduate job.
September 16, 2025 at 8:02 AM
The first is to make the OECD mistake of counting all post-18 qualifications as HE, and so declaring that people with RQF4+ qualifications are 'graduates' and that therefore someone who went to FE and did an HND in hairdressing and became a hairdresser is in a non-graduate job.
Some interesting points in this piece, but unfortunately there are too many basic errors in it.
Let's start with the easiest and most basic.
"a third of graduates are in non-graduate jobs"
We don't have a definition of a non-graduate job, firstly. There are only two ways to get at this figure
Let's start with the easiest and most basic.
"a third of graduates are in non-graduate jobs"
We don't have a definition of a non-graduate job, firstly. There are only two ways to get at this figure
September 16, 2025 at 8:00 AM
Some interesting points in this piece, but unfortunately there are too many basic errors in it.
Let's start with the easiest and most basic.
"a third of graduates are in non-graduate jobs"
We don't have a definition of a non-graduate job, firstly. There are only two ways to get at this figure
Let's start with the easiest and most basic.
"a third of graduates are in non-graduate jobs"
We don't have a definition of a non-graduate job, firstly. There are only two ways to get at this figure