the value of university education

• Yale University
• About Yale Insights
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility

What’s the Value of Higher Education?

Have political and fiscal debates about higher education lost sight of the value of education for individuals and society? Dr. Johnnetta Cole discusses how universities can inform and inspire.

• Dr. Johnnetta Cole President Emerita, Smithsonian National Museum of African Art; President Emerita, Spelman College and Bennett College

This interview was conducted at the Yale Higher Education Leadership Summit , hosted by Yale SOM’s Chief Executive Leadership Institute on January 30, 2018.

The value of a college degree can be measured in a number of different ways: increased lifetime earnings potential, a network of classmates and fellow alumni, subject-matter expertise, a signal of stick-to-itiveness, potentially a marker of class or the capacity to move across classes. There are also less tangible benefits, like becoming a more well-rounded individual and part of a well-informed public.

Yale Insights recently talked with Dr. Johnnetta Cole about how she measures the value of higher education. Cole is the former president of Spelman College and Bennett College, the only two historically black colleges and universities that are exclusively women’s colleges. After retiring from academia, she served as the director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African Art. In addition, she served on the boards of a number of corporations, including Home Depot, Merck, and Coca-Cola. She was the first African-American chair of the board for the United Way of America.

Q: Why does higher education matter?

I would say that we could get widespread agreement on what I’m going to call the first purpose of higher education: through this amazingly powerful process of teaching and learning, students come to better understand the world.

There might be some disagreement on the second purpose. I’d say it is to inspire students to figure out how they can contribute to helping to make the world better. Certainly, higher education is about scholarship, but it’s also about service. It’s about creativity. It’s about matters of the mind, but it’s also, or at least it should be, about matters of the heart and the soul.

Q: Has the public perception of universities changed in recent years?

Throughout the history—and herstory—of higher education, there have been doubters, those who have critiqued it. But I have a concern, and some polls tell us, in this period in which we are living, many people believe that higher education is not contributing in a positive way to American life.

That’s something that we need to work on, those of us who are deeply engaged in and care about higher education, because I think when one looks with as much objectivity as possible, the truth is, and it’s always been, that higher education contributes substantially.

Q: You’ve led two historically black colleges for women. What is the role of special mission institutions?

In my view, we still need special mission institutions. Remember Brandeis, Notre Dame, and Brigham Young are special mission institutions.

With respect to historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), not every African American wants to or does go to an HBCU. The same is true of women and women’s colleges. But for those who wish that kind of education, and if the fit is right, it’s almost magical.

I think it is as basic as having an entire community believe that you can. On these campuses, we believe that black students can do whatever they set their minds to do. On the women’s campuses, we believe that women can reach heights that have not been imagined for women.

HBCUs are not totally free of racism. Women’s colleges are not utopias where there are no expressions of gender inequality or sexism. But they come far closer than at our predominately white and co-ed institutions.

Q: One of the big issues with higher education now is cost. How do we solve the affordability problem?

The affordability question is highly complex and serious. James Baldwin said, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed that is not faced.” I believe that this is a perfect example. Colleges and universities are not just raising tuitions so they can make big profits. Pell grants are no longer at least a reasonable response to the affordability question.

We’ve got to figure this out because, in a democracy, accessibility to education is fundamental. The idea that something as precious, as powerful, as a solid education is only accessible to some and not to others, is an assault upon democracy.

Q: You came out of retirement to lead the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art. Why was the draw so strong?

I’ve managed, systematically, to get a failing grade in retirement.

I grew up in the South, in the days of legalized segregation—you could also call it state-sponsored racism. I didn’t have access to symphony halls. I didn’t have access to art museums. I still remember the library that I went to in order to travel the world through books, was the A. L. Lewis Colored Public Library.

As a young girl, I fell in love with the visual arts, especially African and African-American art. I went off to Fisk University at age 15 and began to see the real works of art for which we only had reproductions in my home. From Fisk, I went to Oberlin, where the Allen Memorial Art Gallery was a special place of solace for me

The opportunity with the Smithsonian wasn’t something I sought; I was asked to apply. My doctorate is in anthropology, not art history, so I was reluctant, but they told me they were looking for a leader, not an art historian. It was one of the most extraordinary experiences of my life. The work was an almost indescribable joy.

Generally, our museums across America do not reflect who America is, nor do they reflect how our world looks. They need to be far more diverse in terms of their boards, staff, exhibitions, educational programs, and visitorship.

What the African art museum has is a unique opportunity because it can speak to something that binds us together. If one is human, just go back far enough, I mean way back, and we have all come from a single place. It is called Africa.

Here’s a museum that says to its visitors, “No matter who you are, by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, ability or disability, or nationality, come to a place where the visual arts connect you to the very cradle of humanity.”

During those eight years when I had the joy of being the director of the National Museum of African Art, I would greet our visitors by saying “Welcome home! Welcome to a place that presents the diverse and dynamic, the exquisite arts of Africa, humanity’s original home.”

Q: Do you think that our education and cultural institutions are properly valued in our society?

I have to say no. Because if we did, we would take better care of them. If we did, we would make sure that not some but all of our educational institutions from kindergarten through post-secondary education, into graduate and professional schools, have the means to do what needs to be done.

If we really value all of our cultural expressions, whether it’s dance or music, visual arts, theater, when there is a budget shortfall, we wouldn’t say, “These are the first things to go.” We wouldn’t say, “Kids can do without music in their public school.” It’s one thing to say we love an institution; it’s another to care for and protect an institution. I think we can do far better.

• Career Paths
• Innovations

For What It’s Worth: The Value of a University Education

By amy gutmann, president, university of pennsylvania.

Editor’s Note: This article derives from an endowed lecture President Gutmann delivered on achieving the aims of higher education at the Spencer Foundation Conference at Northwestern University and subsequently developed further at the De Lange Conference at Rice University. Revised for publication October 21, 2013.

Explore Keywords

In 2010, PayPal co-founder and Facebook “angel” investor Peter Thiel announced he would annually award $100,000 each to 20 young people for them to drop out of college and spend two years starting a tech-based business. “You know, we’ve looked at the math on this, and I estimate that 70 to 80 percent of the colleges in the U.S. are not generating a positive return on investment,” Thiel told an interviewer, explaining his view that we are in the midst of a higher education bubble not dissimilar to the housing and dot-com bubbles of previous decades. “Education is a bubble in a classic sense. To call something a bubble, it must be overpriced and there must be an intense belief in it… there’s this sort of psycho-social component to people taking on these enormous debts when they go to college simply because that’s what everybody’s doing.”

Since his announcement, more than 60 Thiel Fellows have decamped from university—a significant number of them from Stanford, MIT, and Ivy League schools—to follow their dreams of entrepreneurial glory. Thiel says he hopes his program will prod more people to question if a college education is really worthwhile: “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”

Digital Vision/Photodisc/Thinkstock

This is a complex, but not impossible, question to answer. The simplest response is to tally the added income benefits a university education accrues to its graduates, subtract its added costs, and determine if in fact benefits exceed costs. Some economists have done this quite well. The overwhelming answer is that a college education has paid off for most graduates to date, has increased rather than decreased its wage premium as time has gone on, and can be expected to continue to do so moving forward. If well-paid equates to worthwhile , then the worth of a college education can be settled by the net wage premium of the average college graduate over the average high school graduate—there would be little more to discuss in the matter.

But it would be a serious mistake to equate the value of a university education to the wage premium earned by its graduates. If higher education is to be understood as something more—something much more—than a trade school in robes, before answering the question of whether a university education is worthwhile, we must first address the more fundamental—and more fundamentally complex—question of mission: What should universities aim to achieve for individuals and society?

It is reassuring to those who believe in the worth of a university education—and all the more so in a high-unemployment, low-growth economy—to show that the average person with a college education earns a lot more over her lifetime than the average high school graduate, even after subtracting the cost of college. But even if we are reassured, we should not allow ourselves to be entirely satisfied with that metric, because economic payback to university graduates is neither the only aim, nor even the primary aim, of a university education. Rather, it is best to consider the value-added proposition of higher education in light of the three fundamental aims of colleges and universities in the 21st century:

■ The first aim speaks to who is to receive an education and calls for broader access to higher education based on talent and hard work, rather than family income and inherited wealth: Opportunity , for short.

■ The second aim speaks to the core intellectual aim of a university education, which calls for advanced learning fostered by a greater integration of knowledge not only within the liberal arts and sciences but also between the liberal arts and professional education: Creative Understanding , for short.

■ The third aim is an important consequence to the successful integration of knowledge, not only by enabling and encouraging university graduates to meaningfully contribute to society, but also in the creation of new knowledge through research and the application of creative understanding: Contribution , for short.

Although the challenges of increasing opportunity, advancing creative understanding, and promoting useful social contribution are not new, they take on a renewed urgency in today’s climate. Jobs are scarce. The United States is perceived to be declining in global competitiveness. Gridlock besets our political discourse and increasingly seems to define our national sense of purpose as well. In this environment, it behooves us to remind those who would propose to reform higher education by simply removing some or all of it of the apt observation of the Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken: “There is an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”

Many external obstacles to educational and economic opportunity exist in the United States—including poverty, broken families, and cutbacks in public support—which warrant our national attention and, in some instances, urgent action. No one credibly claims that greater access to college education will solve all or even most of these issues. But there is good reason to believe that greater access to high-quality higher education is a vitally important tool in building a more just, prosperous, and successful society. We can, and we must , do a better job in meeting the three fundamental goals of opportunity, creative understanding, and contribution to afford the utmost benefits of higher education for both personal and societal progress. Taking to heart the ethical injunction, “physician heal thyself,” I focus here on what universities themselves can do to better realize their primary aims.

Starting with the first: What can universities do to help increase educational opportunity? For low- and middle-income students, gainful employment itself is likely to be the most basic economic advantage of a college degree. A recent Brookings Institution study found college is “expensive, but a smart choice,” noting that almost 90 percent of young college graduates were employed in 2010, compared with only 64 percent of their peers who did not attend college. Moreover, college graduates are making on average almost double the annual earnings of those with only a high school diploma. And this advantage is likely to stick with them over a lifetime of work. Perhaps most relevant is that even in the depths of the Great Recession, the unemployment rate of college graduates was less than half that of high school graduates, and never exceeded 5.1 percent. Clearly, the more affordable universities make their education to qualified young people from low- and middle-income families, the more we will contribute to both educational and economic opportunity. Other things being equal, universities provide even greater value-added opportunity to low- and middle-income students than to their wealthier peers.

It is especially important to note that opening the door to higher education can have profound effects both on an individual’s lifetime earnings and lifelong satisfaction, regardless of whether or not that door is framed by ivy. Less selective two-year, four-year, and community colleges have an especially important role to play here, as selective universities cannot do everything: their focus on cutting-edge study and discovery limits their ability to engage in compensatory education. (The ability to work with a broad range of student readiness is one of the great advantages of community colleges and some less selective institutions, an advantage we risk forfeiting as an ever-higher percentage of the cost of an education is shifted from state and government support to individual responsibility.) Nonetheless, the available data show that selective universities can provide greater access to qualified students from low- and middle-income families than they have in the past.

My concern for increasing access began with a focus on recruiting qualified students from the lowest income groups. Learning more led to the conclusion that increasing access for middle-income students should also be a high priority. At Penn, we began by asking: What proportion of students on a set of selective university campuses (that included Penn) come from the top 20 percent of American families as measured by income? The answer (as of 2003) was 57 percent.

Since all colleges and universities should admit only students who can succeed once admitted, selective colleges and universities also need to ask: What percent of all students who are well-qualified come from the wealthiest 20 percent? Thirty-six percent of all highly qualified seniors (with high grades and combined SATs over 1,200) come from the top 20 percent, while 57 percent of selective university students come from this group. Thus, the wealthiest 20 percent of American families are overrepresented on our campuses by a margin of 21 percent. All of the other income groups are underrepresented . Students from the lowest 40 percent of income distribution, whose families earn under about $41,000, are underrepresented by 4.3 percent. The middle 20 percent, who come from families earning $41,000 to $61,000, are underrepresented by 8.4 percent. Students from the second highest income group, whose families earn between $62,000 and $94,000, are also underrepresented by 8.4 percent.

Increasing access to our universities for middle- and low-income students is both an especially worthy, and an increasingly daunting, challenge in the wake of the Great Recession.

Increasing access to our universities for middle- and low-income students is both an especially worthy, and an increasingly daunting, challenge in the wake of the Great Recession. Before the Recession, taking financial aid into account, middle- and low-income families were spending between 25 percent and 55 percent of their annual income to cover the expense of a public four-year college education. That burden has skyrocketed in the past five years, especially for middle-income students who are ineligible for Pell grants and who attend public universities whose public funding (in many cases) has been decimated. This has led to a situation where a student from a typical middle-income family today may pay less to attend Penn than many flagship public universities!

Yet private universities too have experienced a painful financial squeeze. Only by making student aid one of their highest priorities and successfully raising many millions of dollars from generous donors can most private institutions afford to admit students on a need-blind basis and provide financial aid that meets full need. This may be the reason why only about one percent of America’s 4,000 colleges and universities are committed to need-blind admissions and to meeting the full financial need of their undergraduate students. An even smaller group—just a tiny fraction—of universities are committed not only to meeting the full financial need of all students who are admitted on a need-blind basis, but also to providing financial aid exclusively on the basis of need . Those of us in this group thereby maximize the use of scarce aid dollars for students with demonstrated financial need.

At Penn, a focus on need-only aid has enabled us to actually lower our costs to all students from families with demonstrated financial need. Since I became president, we have increased Penn’s financial aid budget by more than 125 percent. And the net annual cost to all aided undergraduates is actually ten percent lower today than it was a decade ago when controlled for inflation. Penn also instituted an all-grant/no-loan policy, substituting cash grants for loans for all undergraduates eligible for financial aid. This policy enables middle- and low-income students to graduate debt-free, and opens up a world of career possibilities to graduates who otherwise would feel far greater pressure to pick the highest paying rather than the most satisfying and promising careers.

Although much more work remains, Penn has significantly increased the proportion of first-generation, low- and middle-income, and underrepresented minority students on our campus. In 2013, one out of eight members of Penn’s freshman class will be—like I was—the first in their family to graduate from college. The percentage of underrepresented minorities at Penn has increased from 15 percent to 22 percent over the past eight years. All minorities account for almost half of Penn’s student body. After they arrive, many campus-wide initiatives enable these students to feel more at home and to succeed. Graduation rates for all groups are above 90 percent.

It is also important to note that the benefit of increasing opportunity extends far beyond the economic advancement of low- and middle-income students who are admitted. Increased socio-economic and racial diversity enriches the educational experience for everyone on a campus. By promoting greater understanding of different life experiences and introducing perspectives that differ profoundly from the prevailing attitudes among the most privileged, a truly diverse educational environment prods all of us to think harder, more deeply, and oftentimes, more daringly.

Goodluz/iStock/Thinkstock

So what does this need to cultivate global understanding in the 21st century require of our universities? Among other things, I suggest it demands that we foster intensive learning across academic disciplines within the liberal arts and integrate that knowledge with a much stronger understanding of the role and responsibilities of the professions. Whether the issue is health care or human rights, unemployment or immigration, educational attainment or economic inequality, the big questions cannot be comprehended—let alone effectively addressed—by the tools of only one academic discipline, no matter how masterful its methods or powerful its paradigms.

Consider, for example, the issue of climate change in a world that is both more interconnected and more populous than ever before. To be prepared to make a positive difference in this world, students must understand not only the science of sustainable design and development, but also the economic, political, and other issues in play. In this immensely complex challenge, a good foundation in chemical engineering—which is not a traditional liberal arts discipline nor even conventionally considered part of the liberal arts (engineering is typically classified as “professional or pre-professional education”)—is just as important as an understanding of economics or political science. The key to solving every complex problem—climate change being one among many—will require connecting knowledge across multiple areas of expertise to both broaden and deepen global comprehension and in so doing unleash truly creative and innovative responses.

A liberal arts education is the broadest kind of undergraduate education the modern world has known, and its breadth is an integral part of its power to foster creative understanding. But it is a mistake to accept the conventional boundaries of a liberal arts education as fixed, rather than as a humanly alterable product of particular historical conditions.

In my own field of political philosophy, for example, a scholarly approach centered on intellectual history ceded significant ground in the 1970s to critical analysis of contemporary public affairs, which was a paradigm common to many earlier generations of political philosophers. Were the liberal arts motivated solely by the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and not any concern for worldly relevance, then it would be hard to make sense of such shifts. In the case of this important shift in political philosophy, scholars thought it valuable, in the face of ongoing injustice, to revive a tradition of ethical understanding and criticism of society.

A liberal arts degree is a prerequisite to professional education, and most liberal arts universities and their faculties stand firmly on the proposition that the liberal arts should inform the professions. Why then are liberal arts curricula not replete with courses that teach students to think carefully, critically, and creatively about the roles and responsibilities of professionals and the professions? Perhaps we are assuming that students will make these connections for themselves or that it will suffice if professional schools do so later. Neither of these assumptions can be sustained.

For example, we must not assume that students themselves will translate ethics as typically taught in a philosophy curriculum into the roles and responsibilities of the medical, business, and legal professions. The ethical considerations are too complex and profoundly affected by the institutional roles and responsibilities of professionals. Many lawyers, for example, are part of an adversarial system of justice; many doctors are part of a system where they financially benefit from procedures the costs of which are not paid directly by their patients; and many businesspeople operate in what is commonly called a free market, where external interferences are (rightly or wrongly) presumed, prima facie , to be suspect. These and many other contextual considerations profoundly complicate the practical ethics of law, medicine, and business.

My primary point is this: Although the separation of the liberal arts from the subject of professional roles and responsibilities may be taken for granted because it is so conventional, it really should strike us as strange, on both intellectual and educational grounds, that so few courses in the undergraduate curriculum explicitly relate the liberal arts to professional life. This is a puzzle worthy of both intellectual and practical solution.

I propose that we proudly proclaim a liberal arts education, including its focus on basic research, as broadly pre-professional and optimally instrumental in pursuit of real world goals.

This stark separation of the practical and theoretical was neither an inevitable outgrowth of earlier educational efforts, nor has it ever been universally accepted. In fact, it flew in the face of at least one early American effort to integrate the liberal arts and professional education. In his educational blueprint (“Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania”), which later led to the founding of the University of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin called for students to be taught “every Thing that is useful, and every Thing that is ornamental.” Being a principled pragmatist, Franklin immediately ad dressed an obvious rejoinder, that no educational institution can teach everything. And so he continued: “But Art is long, and their Time is short. It is therefore propos’d that they learn those Things that are likely to be most useful and most ornamental.”

As Franklin’s intellectual heirs, we recognize that something educationally significant is lost if students choose their majors for either purely scholastic or purely professional reasons, rather than because they want to be both well-educated and well-prepared for a likely future career. The introduction of distribution requirements for all majors is one way of responding to this potential problem. The glory and strength of American liberal arts education is its enabling undergraduates to keep their intellectual sights and their career options open, while cultivating intellectual curiosity and creativity that will enhance any of the career paths they later choose to follow. These are among the most eminently defensible aims of a liberal arts education: to broaden rather than narrow the sights of undergraduates, and to strengthen rather than stifle their creative potential.

I propose that we proudly proclaim a liberal arts education, including its focus on basic research, as broadly pre-professional and optimally instrumental in pursuit of real world goals. At its best, a liberal arts education prepares undergraduates for success in whatever profession they choose to pursue, and it does so by virtue of teaching them to think creatively and critically about themselves, their society (including the roles and responsibilities of the professions in their society), and the world.

So what can we do to bolster this optimal educational system, as envisioned by Franklin? As 21st century colleges and universities, we can build more productive intellectual bridges between liberal arts and professional education. We can show how insights of history, philosophy, literature, politics, economics, sociology, and science enrich understandings of law, business, medicine, nursing, engineering, architecture, and education—and how professional understandings in turn can enrich the insights of liberal arts disciplines. We can demonstrate that understanding the roles and responsibilities of professionals in society is an important part of the higher education of democratic citizens.

©michaeljung/iStock/thinkstock

These are discoveries such as those made by Dr. Carl June and his team at Penn’s Abramson Cancer Center, with contributions from colleagues at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Their pioneering research with individualized cancer treatments produced a reengineered T-cell therapy. Just in time, too, for young Emma Whitehead, who was stricken with advanced leukemia when she was just five years old. Under Dr. June’s care, Emma, now seven, has beaten her cancer into remission. She’s back at school, laughing and learning and playing with her friends. Her miraculous recovery not only means a renewed chance at a long, fulfilling life for her and her parents— it promises renewed hope for so many who are ravaged by cancer.

In university classrooms and laboratories across the country, the brightest minds are leveraging research and discovery to contribute to the social good. Most of these stories are not as dramatic as Emma’s, but each in its own way has changed and will continue to change how we live and work and understand our world. The full tale of the benefits that universities bring extends far beyond technological and medical advances. We help governments build good public policy based on robust empirical data, garnered from university research. We build better international cooperation through the study of languages and cultures, economic markets, and political relations. We strengthen economies by fostering scores of newly discovered products, markets, and industries. We safeguard our collective health and well-being with insight into global phenomena and systems such as climate change, shifting sea levels, and food supply and agricultural production. All the vital basic and applied research being conducted by universities cannot be accounted for in any one list—the sum is too vast. What I can sum up here is this: If we do not do this research, no one will. Colleges and universities also contribute to society at the local level by modeling ethical responsibility and social service in their institutional practices and initiatives. Their capital investments in educational facilities contribute to the economic progress of their local communities. Colleges and universities at every level can be institutional models of environmental sustainability in the way they build and maintain their campuses.

While the core social contribution of universities lies in both increasing opportunity for students and cultivating their creative understanding, the analogous core social contributions of universities in the realms of faculty research and clinical service are similarly crucial. And both are only strengthened by better integrating insights across the liberal arts and the professions. An education that cultivates creative understanding enables diverse, talented, hardworking graduates to pursue productive careers, to enjoy the pleasures of lifelong learning, and to reap the satisfactions of creatively contributing to society. The corresponding institutional mission of colleges and universities at all levels is to increase opportunity, to cultivate creative understanding, and— by these and other important means such as innovative research and clinical service—to contribute to society.

At their best, universities recruit hardworking, talented, and diverse student bodies and help them develop the understandings—including the roles and responsibilities of the professions in society—that are needed to address complex social challenges in the 21st century. To the extent that universities do this and do it well, we can confidently say to our students and our society that a university education is a wise investment indeed.

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• © Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2014

The following navigation utilizes arrow, enter, escape, and space bar key commands. Left and right arrows move through main tier links and expand / close menus in sub tiers. Up and Down arrows will open main tier menus and toggle through sub tier links. Enter and space open menus and escape closes them as well. Tab will move on to the next part of the site rather than go through menu items.

Due to system maintenance, users will be unable to log into airweb.org December 12–14, 2022. If you need assistance, please email [email protected].

• Making Dollars and Sense of the Value of Higher Education
• by Shannon Lee, Jocelyn Milner, David Troutman, Karen Vance

Abundant evidence documents that a college degree confers significant economic and non-economic value for individuals and society. Even so, there is a need to continue to improve methods and data sources to deepen analysis, especially related to equity in outcomes. Stakeholders—students, families, and policy makers—want to know about the post-graduate outcomes for each of our institutions and even individual programs. As Institutional Research (IR) professionals, we need to reach beyond our institutional data sources into public data sources on post-graduation outcomes to tell the story of value evident in data on employment, earnings, geographic movement, career progression, and quality of life (selected data sources are described in another article here ).

A state-level and national interest in accountability has encouraged a range of questions about outcomes:

• Do students graduate and do so on-time?
• Do graduates get jobs? What kinds of jobs? How much do they earn?
• Where do they live? Do they stay in-state (for public IHEs)?
• Do they spend? Do they save?
• Do they pay off their loans? Buy homes? Start and grow businesses?
• Do they vote?

The national conversation is driven in part by the cost of higher education to individuals and the nation. Policymakers point to the $1.7 trillion in federal student loan debt carried by 44.7 million Americans, numbers that are staggering in the aggregate. Many analysts emphasize a more representative picture—the average debt load is $28,950 for the 62% of college graduates who carry debt—levels of debt that influence life decisions. Investigators and scholars who delve deeper explore the investment in and payoff of a college education and equity in college outcomes. In this article, we discuss recent events that advance ways of making sense of the value of higher education.

Recent Events that Advance the “Value” Conversation

• The 2021 release by the Postsecondary Value Commission  of Equitable value: Promoting equitable economic mobility and social justice through postsecondary education ( Equitable Value ).
• The March 2021 reintroduction of the College Transparency Act  (CTA)
• Collaborative work of RTI International and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) to plan for eventual passage of CTA and implementation of a federal student-level data network  (SLDN).
• The December 2020 expansion of earnings data  in the College Scorecard.
• Expansion of participation in the U.S. Census Bureau Post-Secondary Education Outcomes  (PSEO) project.

The Postsecondary Value Commission Report

In May 2021, the  Postsecondary Value Commission , a collaboration of the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), released a landmark report titled  Equitable Value .  This report examines the economic and non-economic value of a college degree and calls on the higher education community to adopt a quantitative framework for advancing equity in educational outcomes. The report’s endnotes are themselves an invaluable compilation of relevant research.

The report describes the Postsecondary Value Framework (the framework), a set of six economic value thresholds and two indices that measure progress to equitable experience related to access, affordability, progress, and outcomes. The framework considers measures of value to students and to society. The thresholds and indices measure the economic returns for all students, and how students of color, women, and low-income students compare to their peers. Examples of the economic value thresholds are the “ earnings premium ,” which is met for students who make at least the median earnings in their field of study, and “ earnings parity ,” which is met for systematically marginalized students who reach the median earnings of their advantaged peers. Some of the thresholds can be measured with available public data, though the measurement of others will require the development of new data sources.

The framework’s two indices—the Economic Value Index (EVI) and the Economic Value Contribution (EVC)—combine measures of systematically marginalized students’ access to an institution and their economic outcomes. The report describes two approaches to calculate these indices—an institutional, student-level record approach conducted by David Troutman at the University of Texas (UT) System and an approach using publicly available data through the College Scorecard by Jordan Matsudairaat Columbia University’s Teachers College. The UT System is especially well-positioned to lead on this analysis, having built one of the country’s most complete post-secondary outcomes data systems. It includes student-level data for each institution and program that is linked to employment outcomes at the state-level, as well as data from the U.S. Census Bureau Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes (PSEO) project (more below). One important finding is that the value of attending college comes from completing the degree—college attendance without a degree doesn’t confer the same value. The College Scorecard analysis differed in allowing for application of these indices to all institutions, but with less complete earnings data. The report includes results summarized by sector (two-year, four-year, public, private not-for-profit, private for-profit) and selected groups (Pell, Black, Latinx, American Indian or Alaskan Native). BMGF and IHEP plan to release a national interactive tool using the College Scorecard data and UT System tool. The primary audiences for both tools are decision-makers at institutions and in federal and state governments. Both tools are built for analysis and comparison, NOT for rankings.

Equitable Value  offers extraordinary insight, providing a framework to support institutional work on achieving greater equity in student outcomes and actions for higher education leaders in institutions and at the state and federal levels. IR professionals can use these approaches to evaluate equitable outcomes. This report shows that more robust sources of outcomes data available to institutions will better enable reliable and transparent analysis of equity in college outcomes.

The College Transparency Act (CTA) and Preparing for Changes in Data Policy

The CTA ( H.R.2030 ,  S.839 ) was reintroduced with bipartisan and bicameral support,  widespread support in higher education , and with momentum developed since the act was first introduced in 2017. The CTA, when enacted, will require the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to establish a secure and privacy-protected student-level data network (SLDN). Student-level data systems are currently prohibited by the Higher Education Opportunity Act. The CTA will create conditions that allow for comprehensive and disaggregated analysis of the student experience across U.S. higher education. We can envision a future under CTA in which IR professionals can access better data sources for studying post-graduation outcomes and, by extension, can better address issues of equity in higher education.

Anticipating passage of CTA, RTI International and IHEP initiated a collaborative planning process. RTI International and IHEP representatives met with data and data policy experts from a range of agencies, organizations, and institutions to develop specifications for a SLDN ( Report I, August 2020 ;  Report II, December 2020 ). NCES is not permitted to directly undertake this planning while CTA is still a bill, so this advanced planning will better position the community for eventual implementation. This partnership was described in an  April 2021 eAIR interview . The two 2020 reports are useful reference documents on the data elements, how the legislated requirements could be met at a minimum standard and by a better standard, a crosswalk to IPEDS data element(s), the data source (institution or other source), and key outstanding questions.

Selected Federal Data Sources Related to Graduate Outcomes and Value

In December 2020, the U.S. Department of Education expanded earnings data in the College Scorecard to include median income for students two years after graduation, disaggregated to the field of study (four-digit CIP code), thus expanding this federally provided public source on graduate earnings for all institutions. Earnings are based on matches to W-2 wages and deferred compensation. Data are limited to students who received federal aid and exclude those enrolled in additional schooling and those not in the workforce. In spring 2021, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) integrated these data points into  VSA Analytics , providing easy access for institutions who use that tool.

The other expanded federal data source on postsecondary outcomes is the U.S. Census Bureau  PSEO project , which covers more than 400 institutions in 11 states as of July 2021, with more states and institutions to be added soon. The PSEO team makes regular updates to the data releases and to the powerful visualizations developed to explore the data. In March 2018, UT System became the first participant in this experimental release of earnings, which is reported by institution, degree field, degree level, and graduation cohort for one, five, and ten years after graduation. University of Wisconsin-Madison (April 2019) and Pennsylvania State University (October 2020) followed ( 2021 AIR Forum presentation ). PSEO matches records of all college graduates from participating institutions with unemployment insurance wage records. For now,  earnings and employment data  are limited to what’s covered by state unemployment insurance systems, which includes 96% of employment. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) plans to link student records with IRS W-2 data, the best data source for earnings. Federally mandated standards for privacy limit disaggregation, and currently data are not disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, Pell recipient status, or other socio-demographic variables. Despite limits, PSEO is building the capacity to systematically match all college graduates with available employment and earnings data and to make summary data public.

Summary Implications for IR Professionals

As IR professionals, we celebrate every advance in the availability of public data sources on earnings and outcomes and methods for assessing value. Ideally, public data sources are as readily accessed by one-person IR offices as they are by large IR teams. We advocate for improving public data sources so they can be used for nuanced and disaggregated outcomes analysis, allow for calculation of the monetary return on the investment in a college degree, build financial literacy for student loan borrowers, assess the effectiveness of programs and services, and explore the role of universities in supporting diversity and equity in the workforce.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How the Value of Educational Credentials Is and Isn’t Changing

• Sean Gallagher

Degrees still matter, but online programs are playing a complementary role.

In the last decade, a popular narrative has emerged that the value of a college degree is rapidly declining. As a new wave of well-capitalized educational technology companies arrived on the scene — including massive open online courses (MOOCs) — it became popular in recent years to prognosticate about the “disruption” of American higher education. Yet by many measures, the value of a traditional degree today is as strong as ever in the job market. Innovation in degree delivery is occurring, but it is often being led by traditional, incumbent institutions, often in partnership with technology firms. Rather than sweeping away degrees, new types of online credentials — various certificates, MicroMasters, badges, and the like — are instead playing a complementary role, creating the building blocks for newer, more affordable degree programs. It is still early in the development of this ecosystem, but the receptivity of business leaders to new educational credential offerings and delivery approaches will be key in defining the future shape of the market.

The first year after the Great Recession, 2010, marked the historical peak of college and university enrollment in the United States. In the decade since, a popular narrative has emerged that the value of a college degree is rapidly declining. As a new wave of well-capitalized educational technology companies arrived on the scene — including massive open online courses (MOOCs) — it became popular to prognosticate about the disruption of American higher education. Badges earned online would challenge and replace traditional diplomas . Renowned business theorist Clayton Christensen forecasted that half of all colleges may be in bankruptcy  within 15 years . Others said the degree was “ doomed .”

• SG Sean Gallagher is executive director of Northeastern University’s Center for the Future of Higher Education & Talent Strategy . He is the author of The Future of University Credentials: New Developments at the Intersection of Higher Education and Hiring , published by Harvard Education Press. Follow him on Twitter @HiEdStrat .

Partner Center

Unsupported browser detected

Your browser appears to be unsupported. Because of this, portions of the site may not function as intended.

Please install a current version of Chrome , Firefox , Edge , or Safari for a better experience.

Talking about Value of Higher Education to the Individual and Society: Five Questions for the Arkansas State University System

Related content, postsecondary transformation in action, catch the gates foundation at the asu+gsv summit, request for information: ai-powered innovations in mathematics teaching and learning, sign up for our newsletter.

By submitting your email to subscribe, you agree to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Privacy and Cookies Notice

The Value of Higher Education: Individual and Societal Benefits

Kent Hill, Ph.D. Principal Research Economist, L. William Seidman Research Institute

Dennis Hoffman, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University Economist, and Director, L. William Seidman Research Institute

Tom Rex, M.B.A. Associate Director, Center for Competitiveness and Prosperity Research, and Manager of Research Initiatives, Office of the University Economist

Provides an in-depth look at the benefits to individuals, the economies where educated individuals work and live, and society in general of enhanced educational attainment. Economies that have experienced substantial investment in either private or public institutions of higher learning have realized considerable growth and prosperity.

Have questions about this report? Ask the author(s).

After completing his undergraduate degree in economics at Wake Forest University, Kent received his Ph.D. in economics from Rice University in 1979. He was an assistant professor at ASU from 1978 to 1983. After leaving the university for seven years, during which he worked in the research department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, he returned to ASU to teach in 1991. He joined ASU’s L. William Seidman Research Institute in 1999.

Dennis received a B.A. in economics and mathematics from Grand Valley State University, a M.S. in economics from Michigan State University, and a Ph.D. in economics from Michigan State University in 1978. He has served on the faculty of the Department of Economics at ASU since 1979, as director of ASU’s L. William Seidman Research Institute since 2004, and as the director of the Office of the University Economist since 2005.

After receiving his Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of Toledo, Tom earned his Master of Business Administration from Arizona State University in 1976. After working in the private sector, he joined ASU in 1980, working for the predecessor of the L. William Seidman Research Institute. Since 2005, he has served as manager of research initiatives in the Office of the University Economist.

Related reports

Healthcare in Arizona: Worker Shortages, Economic Impact and Socioeconomic Benefits

Examines the extent of healthcare worker shortages in Arizona, calculates the economic impact of eliminating worker shortages, and estimates the direct medical costs and productivity losses of ill health.

The Financing of Public Higher Education in Arizona

2020 Census Results for Arizona: Part 2

Stay up-to-date.

• My Favorites

You have successfully logged in but...

... your login credentials do not authorize you to access this content in the selected format. Access to this content in this format requires a current subscription or a prior purchase. Please select the WEB or READ option instead (if available). Or consider purchasing the publication.

OECD Podcasts

What is the true value of higher education.

How can we all help shape better policies for better lives? In just 15 minutes, we bring you insightful interviews with OECD and guest experts on such pressing challenges as inequality and inclusive growth, the digital transformation, social change, the environment, international co-operation, and more.

English Also available in: French

• https://doi.org/10.1787/105832a8-en-fr
• Subscribe to the RSS feed Subscribe to the RSS feed

Some of the most striking findings from Education at a Glance, our annual report on the global state of education, focused on the value of higher education today. Has the value of a university degree changed over time? And what impact does this have on the job market? OECD Director for Education and Skills Andreas Schleicher sat down with us to discuss these and other key issues from the report.

• Education at a Glance
• Click to access:
• Click to download MP3 file  - 16.23MB MP3
• Click to download PDF - 208.05KB PDF

All podcasts express the opinions of the interview subjects and do not necessarily represent the official views of the OECD and/or OECD Member countries.

Cite this content as:

Author(s) OECD

Host Henri Pearson

Speaker(s) Andreas Schleicher

18 Oct 2018

Duration 11:49

What Is the Purpose and Future of Higher Education?

A sociologist explores the history and future of higher education..

Posted February 18, 2019 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

A recent story asked, “ Can small liberal arts colleges survive the next decade? ” This question is important as we see the closure of some small schools, mostly in areas away from big cities. Yet, as University of California Riverside sociology and public policy distinguished professor Steven G. Brint notes based on his new book Two Cheers for Higher Education , “There’s always been a small number of colleges that close every year—usually fewer than a dozen—and more are opened for the first time than closed.” This illustrates, among other things, why it is important to consider a historical perspective on higher education to place recent individual news stories in context. That’s exactly what his latest book does: It explores the rich history of higher education, leading him to argue that overall higher education appears to be doing quite well, but also that there remain important concerns for higher education on the horizon.

I asked Steven questions about the purpose of higher education, why he argues higher education is doing quite well, and what his concerns are for its future. Anyone interested in the rich history of higher education and how that informs the future of higher education should read this book. Going to college or university is increasingly a fixture and perhaps even an obsession for parents and students, and understanding the history of that industry is useful to help us think about why we encourage students to go to college in the first place.

What, in your view, is the purpose of higher education?

The aims of higher education change over time. In the United States, the original purposes were to prepare students for a few “learned professions,” especially the clergy, and to provide a strong, religiously tinged moral education. Many of the activities that we now associate with higher education—extra-curricular clubs, majoring in a defined specialization, faculty research, access for socioeconomically disadvantaged students—came later.

Today, we would have to start by recognizing the fundamental fact that the purposes of higher education are highly differentiated by the stratum in the system institutions occupy. The aims of community colleges are very different from those of research universities. I do not talk about community colleges in the book, though I did write a book on community colleges early in my career . The great majority of the 3,000 or so four-year colleges and universities are primarily devoted to teaching students, mainly in occupational fields that in theory equip graduates to obtain jobs. Students will receive a smattering of general education in lower-division and will have opportunities to participate in extra-curricular activities. The latter are more important for many students than classroom studies. Students hone interpersonal skills on campus, make contacts that can be useful for instrumental purposes as well as ends in themselves. For those who finish, their diplomas do provide a boost in the labor market, more for quantitative fields than for other fields.

Research universities are of course the most complex environments and the range of their activities is difficult to catalog in a short answer. In addition to providing instruction in hundreds of programs, they run hundreds of student clubs and organizations, contribute to the selection of high achieving students for graduate degrees, train and mentor graduate and professional students, produce thousands or tens of thousands of research papers annually, reach out to industrial partners, field semi-professional athletic teams, solve community problems, run tertiary care hospitals, patent new discoveries and attempt to create environments conducive to learning for a very wide variety of students. One could say that these activities, taken together, constitute the enacted purposes of research universities.

However, when you look at their activities from the perspective of public policy, the focus will tend to be on three main purposes: (1) human capital development (in other words, improving the cognitive and non-cognitive skills of students), (2) basic research and research in the national interest, and (3) the provision of access for students from lower-income and under-represented minority backgrounds. Implicitly, Two Cheers for Higher Education focuses more on these primary aims of public policy than on some of the ancillary activities of universities. Of course, some of the activities that could be considered ancillary—such as student clubs and the patenting of new discoveries—are clearly related to these public policy aims. For that reason, I do also discuss them at some length in the book.

At a time when we see stories of colleges closing, why is it that you argue that higher education is doing quite well?

We do see some colleges closing and more colleges merging. There’s always been a small number of colleges that close every year—usually fewer than a dozen—and more are opened for the first time than closed. We do hear a lot of talk about mergers in recent years, and some of the regional public universities in rural areas are definitely struggling. Where population is declining steadily, it becomes harder to make the case for the local college. But population is not declining in urban areas or in suburban areas around big cities. Here we see new colleges rising or existing colleges growing larger. Higher education is doing quite well in the parts of the country that are seeing growth in population and wealth. Sometimes higher education has been an important influence in attracting employers, new jobs, and new wealth. The state of Georgia is an interesting example. It now has the 10th largest economy of the 50 states, and the investments that state leaders and donors have made in Georgia Tech, Emory, the University of Georgia, and Georgia State University have played an important role in the state’s impressive development.

Though your book is largely positive about higher education, you note some concerns about the future of higher education. What are those?

According to public opinion surveys, the major concerns of Americans have to do with cost, the quality of undergraduate education, and liberal bias in the classroom. I address each of these issues in the book. One hopes that criminal justice reform may allow most of the 50 states to invest more heavily in higher education, reducing family’s burdens. I also advocate a universal, income-contingent loan repayment policy similar to the ones that already exist in England, Australia and several other countries. My research has led me to agree with the critics that the quality of undergraduate education is too low for too many. I show in the book how the lessons of the sciences of learning can be embedded without much more than forethought in even large lecture classes. The evidence on liberal bias is mixed. Clearly, minorities remain subject to many discriminatory and wounding acts on college campuses. At the same time, where we find a liberal orthodoxy there’s a risk that assumptions and commitments will substitute for evidence and reasoning. We do need more spaces on campus where contemporary social and political issues can be discussed and debated.

I also discuss what academic and political leaders can do about the threat to the physical campus represented by online competition , by the tremendous growth of campus administrative staff (compared to the slow growth of faculty), and the deplorable increase in poorly-paid and sometimes poorly-prepared adjunct instructors.

I hope that the evidence and recommendations that I provide will stimulate new thinking and action in each of these areas of concern. The U.S. is fortunate to have the strongest system of higher education in the world, but many problems arose during the period I cover. It will be important to address these problems before they undermine public support for institutions that are now central to the country’s future well-being.

Brint, S. G. (2018). Two cheers for higher education: Why American universities are stronger than ever--and how to meet the challenges they face . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jonathan Wai, Ph.D. , is Assistant Professor of Education Policy and Psychology and the 21st Century Endowed Chair in Education Policy at the University of Arkansas.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Achala Gupta

January 21st, 2021, what’s the purpose of university your answer may depend on how much it costs you.

3 comments | 70 shares

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Achala Gupta discusses findings from the Eurostudents project in this repost , detailing how student perceptions of the value and purpose of higher education reflect levels of marketisation in different European higher education systems.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the university sector under greater scrutiny. In some cases, this has prompted new conversations about the purpose of higher education. These have included the extent to which universities are upholding their commitment to public service , and whether the current institutional adjustments in universities will change the way higher education is delivered .

But what do students themselves think about what university is for? In 2017-18, my colleagues and I asked 295 students across six European countries – Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, Poland and Spain – about what they believed to be the purpose of university study. Their responses shed light on the possible future of higher education in Europe.

This research , which forms part of the Eurostudents project , investigates how undergraduate students understand the purpose of higher education. We found that for many students, it serves three particular functions: to gain decent employment, to achieve personal growth, and to contribute to improvement in society.

But there were interesting variations in students’ views, which often corresponded to how much they had to pay for their studies.

The career ladder

The most common purpose of higher education that students spoke about was to prepare themselves for the labour market. Some students stated that a degree was essential to avoid having to take up a low-skilled job. However, many students believed that an undergraduate degree was insufficient for highly skilled or professional employment.

Here, we see a shift from a conception of higher education as an investment to help move up a social class to viewing it as insurance against downward social mobility .

As a student in England said:

“I don’t really think there’s much of an option. If you want to get a decent job these days, you’ve got to go to university because people won’t look at you if you haven’t been.”

There were some differences across countries. Emphasis on the purpose of university education being preparation for the job market was strongest in the three countries in our sample where students had to make greater personal financial contributions : England, Ireland and Spain.

Personal growth

The students in our study also discussed ideas of personal growth and enrichment. This was the case in all six countries, including in England where the higher education sector is highly marketised . This means it is set up as a competitive market, where students pay tuition fees and are protected by consumer rights legislation, while metrics such as league tables encourage competition among institutions.

Some students emphasised how they were “growing” through the knowledge they were gaining. Others placed more emphasis on aspects of wider learning that they had experienced since embarking upon their degree. This included interacting with a more diverse group of people than they had previously, and having to be more independent.

Students in Denmark, Germany and Poland talked about this kind of growth – which happened outside formal classes – more frequently than students in the other three nations. Notably, in these countries, students make less of a personal financial contribution to the cost of their university study. When this purpose was mentioned by English students, it was associated particularly with learning how to live independently.

Societal development

Students in all six countries talked about how higher education could improve society. This was brought up most frequently in Denmark, Germany and Poland – where students receive greater support from the government and make less of a personal financial investment to their university education than in the other countries in our sample.

Students tended to talk about their contribution to society by attending university in one of three ways: by contributing to a more enlightened society, by creating a more critical and reflective society, and by helping their country to be viewed more competitively worldwide.

A Polish student said:

“[University education is critical to] shaping a responsible and wise society …  one which is not blind, which will do as it is told.”

Meanwhile, a Danish student commented:

“We’re such a small country, we have to do well  … we have to do better because there are so many people around the world … we have to work even harder to compete with them.”

Only Danish and Irish students spoke about national competitiveness in this way. This is likely to be linked to specific geo-political and economic factors, particularly the relatively small size of both nations when compared to some of their European neighbours and the structure of their labour markets.

It is unsurprising to find that many students across Europe believe that a key purpose of university study is to equip them for the job market, as this is often the common message given by governments .

Nevertheless, as shown here, many students have broader views. They see the value of higher education in promoting democratic and critical engagement, while also furthering collective, rather than solely individual, ends.

The national variation we found also suggests that the enduring differences in funding across the continent may affect on how higher education is understood by students.

This post draws on the author’s co-authored article, Students’ views about the purpose of higher education: a comparative analysis of six European countries, published in Higher Education Research and Development . 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

We are grateful to all students who gave up their time to participate in our focus groups. We would also like to thank the European Research Council for awarding Professor Rachel Brooks a Consolidator Grant, which funded this study (EUROSTUDENTS_681018).

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Impact of Social Science blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  Comments Policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

In text image, published with permission of the author. Featured Image Credit: Brooke Cagle via Unsplash.

About the author

Achala Gupta is a Research Fellow in Sociology at the University of Surrey

• Pingback: Topic 2: Open Learning – Sharing and Openness – ONL211 Sipponen
• Pingback: University Is Enough For The Revolutionary New Business World – Women Business

Very interesting read. I find it facinating how in this study and from anecdotal evidence most study are looking to enter the labour force in markets rather than continuing on the doctorate level studies. In this way, it seems as though there should be more focus on funding institutions which help students prepare for life outside of academia rather than providing them which narrowly focused theoretical knowledge.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

A degree of studying –  Students who treat education as a commodity perform worse than their intrinsically motivated peers

January 15th, 2020.

What we talk about when we talk about universities, a review essay

January 12th, 2020.

What do universities want to be? A content analysis of mission and vision statements worldwide

December 20th, 2017.

Retaining the Human Touch When Supporting Students in Transitioning to Asynchronous Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

August 12th, 2020.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

What you need to know about higher education

UNESCO, as the only United Nations agency with a mandate in higher education, works with countries to ensure all students have equal opportunities to access and complete good quality higher education with internationally recognized qualifications. It places special focus on developing countries, notably Africa. 

Why does higher education matter?  

Higher education is a rich cultural and scientific asset which enables personal development and promotes economic, technological and social change. It promotes the exchange of knowledge, research and innovation and equips students with the skills needed to meet ever changing labour markets. For students in vulnerable circumstances, it is a passport to economic security and a stable future. 

What is the current situation? 

Higher education has changed dramatically over the past decades with increasing enrolment, student mobility, diversity of provision, research dynamics and technology. Some 254 million students are enrolled in universities around the world – a number that has more than doubled in the last 20 years and is set to expand. Yet despite the boom in demand, the overall enrolment ratio is 42% with large differences between countries and regions. More than 6.4 million students are pursuing their further education abroad. And among the world’s more than 82 million refugees, only 7% of eligible youth are enrolled in higher education, whereas comparative figures for primary and secondary education are 68% and 34%, respectively ( UNHCR) . The COVID-19 pandemic further disrupted the way higher education was provided.

What does UNESCO do to ensure access for everyone to higher education? 

UNESCO's work is aligned with Target 4.3 of SDG 4 which aims, by 2030, “to ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university”. To achieve this, UNESCO supports countries by providing knowledge, evidence-based information and technical assistance in the development of higher education systems and policies based on the equal distribution of opportunities for all students. 

UNESCO supports countries to enhance recognition, mobility and inter-university cooperation through the ratification and implementation of the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education and regional recognition conventions . To tackle the low rate of refugee youth in higher education UNESCO has developed the UNESCO Qualifications Passport for Refugees and Vulnerable Migrants , a tool which makes it easier for those groups with qualifications to move between countries. The passport brings together information on educational and other qualifications, language, work history. UNESCO places a special focus on Africa with projects such as the Higher Technical Education in Africa for a technical and innovative workforce supported by China Funds-in-Trust.  

​​​​​​​How does UNESCO ensure the quality of higher education? 

The explosion in demand for higher education and increasing internationalization means UNESCO is expanding its work on quality assurance, helping Member States countries to establish their own agencies and mechanisms to enhance quality and develop policies particularly in developing countries and based on the Conventions. Such bodies are absent in many countries, making learners more vulnerable to exploitative providers.  

It also facilitates the sharing of good practices and innovative approaches to widen inclusion in higher education. As part of this work, it collaborates with the International Association of Universities to produce the World Higher Education Database which provides information on higher education systems, credentials and institutions worldwide. 

​​​​​​​How does UNESCO keep pace with digital change?  

The expansion of connectivity worldwide has boosted the growth of online and blended learning, and revealed the importance of digital services, such as Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Higher Education Management Information Systems in helping higher education institutions utilize data for better planning, financing and quality. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this transformation and increased the number of providers and the range of degree offerings from cross-border to offshore education.  The Organization provides technical support and policy advice on innovative approaches to widening access and inclusion including through the use of ICTs and by developing new types of learning opportunities both on-campus and online. 

How does UNESCO address the needs of a changing job market?

Labour markets are experiencing rapid changes, with increased digitization and greening of economies, but also the rising internationalization of higher education. UNESCO places a strong emphasis on developing science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, indispensable to sustainable development and innovation. It aims to strengthen skills development for youth and adults, particularly literacy, TVET, STEM and higher education to meet individual, labour market and societal demands.  

Related items

• Higher education

3 vital ways to measure how much a university education is worth

President, University of Michigan

President, University of Oregon

President, The Ohio State University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Michigan and The Ohio State University provide funding as founding partners of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Editor’s note: Today we begin a new series in which we ask the leaders of our country’s colleges and universities to address some of the most pressing issues in higher education .

The past several years have seen increased calls for colleges and universities to demonstrate their value to students, families and taxpayers. And the pressure has come from both sides of the political spectrum. Barack Obama, for example, didn’t mince his words when he spoke a few years ago on the University of Michigan campus: “We are putting colleges on notice…you can’t assume that you’ll just jack up tuition every single year. If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down. We should push colleges to do better.”

So how is a would-be student or a tax-paying citizen to decide the value of a given university or degree? There is certainly no shortage of tools that have been developed to help in this regard.

The federal College Scorecard, for example, is meant to “help students choose a school that is well-suited to meet their needs, priced affordably, and is consistent with their educational and career goals.”

Various magazines put together college rankings. There have been efforts at the state level to show what graduates of a given institution or program can expect to earn. And some colleges and universities are working to provide those data themselves.

So we asked our panel of presidents – from the University of Michigan, University of Oregon and The Ohio State University: If you had to devise just one tool or metric to help the general public assess the value of a particular college or degree, what would it be and why?

Greater life expectancy

Michael Drake, president of The Ohio State University

When I ask individuals if they want their own children to attend college, the answer is, overwhelmingly, yes. The evidence is clear . College graduates are more likely to be employed and more likely to earn more than those without degrees. Studies also indicate that people with college degrees have higher levels of happiness and engagement, better health and longer lives.

If living a longer, healthier and happier life is a good thing, then, yes, college is worth it.

A four-year degree is not necessarily the best path for everyone, of course. Many people find their lives are enhanced by earning a two-year or technical degree. For others, none of these options is the perfect choice. But if there is one data point I want to highlight, it is the correlation between a college education and greater life expectancy. In fact, one study suggests that those who attend college live, on average, seven years longer.

Last year was the second year in a row that average life expectancy in the U.S. went down. But greater mortality didn’t affect all Americans equally. Studies point to a growing gap in life expectancy between rich and poor. Higher education may, in other words, be part of the solution to this problem.

This is just one of the reasons that so many of our country’s institutions of higher learning are focused on the question of how to make sure more Americans have access to a quality – and affordable – college education.

Since December 2016, the American Talent Initiative , a coalition of 100 (and counting) colleges and universities, has been working to educate 50,000 additional lower-income students by 2025. In another initiative, the 11 public universities in the University Innovation Alliance are committed to producing more U.S. graduates and have, over the past three years, increased their number of low-income graduates by 24.7 percent .

As educators, we must continue to increase pathways to the American Dream — a journey that includes health, happiness, long life and, very often, a college degree.

• Social mobility

Michael Schill, president of the University of Oregon

While it is impossible to devise only one indicator to describe the value of a university, I would suggest that a good place to begin would be the number of first-generation students it admits and the rate at which they graduate.

As a first-generation college student myself, I may be somewhat biased, but I believe that our generation will be judged by how well we enhance the opportunities for social mobility among our citizens. And despite some skepticism about the value of higher education on the part of pundits and politicians, it is well-documented that there is no better way for young people to achieve the “American Dream” than by getting a college degree.

Note that my metric is really two – first-generation enrollment numbers and graduation rates. The simple fact is that students who go to college and don’t receive a degree may well be in worse shape economically than those who don’t go at all. They will have invested time and money, yet without a diploma will not achieve the economic returns from that investment. Moreover, many are hobbled by student loans without the economic wherewithal to repay them.

It is easy for universities, colleges and community colleges to admit large numbers of students from modest backgrounds. That happened in the for-profit sector. However, the graduation rate at for-profit institutions is only 23 percent, compared to the 59 percent rate overall. The hard part is to support students so that they can succeed.

First-generation students make up a third of college undergraduates in the United States. They are more likely to be minorities and to come from low-income households, and are far less likely to graduate than their peers who had one or more parent attend college. We can do better.

Part of the solution is for more universities to provide more adequate need-based financial assistance , but even that isn’t enough. College can be a confusing experience for first-generation kids, both in terms of learning how to succeed academically and “fitting in” socially. Real value will accrue to students and American society only if we can provide them with appropriate advising and counseling so that they not only get in, but persist and flourish.

Mark Schlissel, president of the University of Michigan

To devise one metric to help the public assess our value, we need to challenge ourselves the same way we challenge students in our classrooms and labs. Let’s first determine the right question to ask. What are our students looking for in life and how can a college degree change the quality and trajectory of their lives?

Higher education gives graduates the best opportunity to pursue their ambitions, change careers, define and solve complex problems, and persuade and lead others. College graduates enjoy higher salaries, qualify for further levels of education and are at a lower risk of ending up in jobs that become obsolete. Moreover, they lead richer and fuller lives – happier , healthier, wealthier and longer .

Each of these outcomes is a component of the value of a college education, yet none of them alone fairly captures its full value. In considering these metrics together, in the context of our question, I believe that one very important concept emerges.

That concept is freedom.

Freedom’s link to education has long been a quintessential American value. As the educator and philosopher John Dewey wrote at the beginning of the 20th century, “We naturally associate democracy, to be sure, with freedom of action, but freedom of action without freed capacity of thought behind it is only chaos.”

At its best, higher education gives us the freedom to make decisions based on our values, desires, human talents and willingness to work hard. We are free to choose our own path.

Education takes freedom beyond its status as a legal right and elevates it into a lifetime of choices. It’s the trajectory of those lives, changed by the opportunities available through a college education, that I am most interested in measuring.

The American public rightfully expects higher education to serve as an enabler of prosperity and equality. I would devise a metric that captures higher education’s greatest potential: to enhance the freedom of an individual graduate in a nation founded on constitutionally guaranteed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Editor’s note: The Ohio State University is a member of the University Innovation Alliance. The University of Michigan and The Ohio State University are members of the American Talent Initiative.

• Higher education
• Life expectancy
• Back to school
• College degree
• Value of college degree

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Is College Worth It? Consider These Factors Before Enrolling

Expert Reviewed

Updated: Jun 4, 2024, 8:30am

For decades in the U.S., a four-year degree was seen as a ticket to a better life, associated with higher wages, better health and access to homeownership, to name a few benefits. But rising costs, mounting student debt, changing job requirements in some industries and new higher education alternatives have altered the equation, leaving many high schoolers and their parents wondering: Is college worth it?

College graduates still earn higher wages and have lower unemployment rates than workers with only a high school diploma. However, industries that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, like manufacturing, construction and hospitality, often pay well and see steady economic demand. Plus, many companies and even government organizations no longer require job candidates to hold college degrees.

Though some researchers claim the economic benefits of a college degree are diminishing, higher education is still undeniably valuable. But is college right for you? That depends on your financial priorities and professional goals. Read on to learn more about the pros and cons of going to college.

Why You Can Trust Forbes Advisor Education

Forbes Advisor’s education editors are committed to producing unbiased rankings and informative articles covering online colleges, tech bootcamps and career paths. Our ranking methodologies use data from the National Center for Education Statistics , education providers, and reputable educational and professional organizations. An advisory board of educators and other subject matter experts reviews and verifies our content to bring you trustworthy, up-to-date information. Advertisers do not influence our rankings or editorial content.

• 6,290 accredited, nonprofit colleges and universities analyzed nationwide
• 52 reputable tech bootcamp providers evaluated for our rankings
• All content is fact-checked and updated on an annual basis
• Rankings undergo five rounds of fact-checking
• Only 7.12% of all colleges, universities and bootcamp providers we consider are awarded

How To Determine Whether College Is Worth It

College is a great way to discover yourself: what you’re good at, what drives you, what you want to spend your life doing. Higher learning can provide opportunities to travel, research, build a professional network and connect with peers and mentors. But the cost is immense—often more than $100,000 for a four-year degree, depending on the institution.

If you’re on the fence about college, take the considerations discussed below into account. Also, compare the potential benefits and drawbacks of a four-year degree to alternative higher ed options, such as bootcamps , professional certificate programs and trade schools .

Factors To Consider

When determining whether you should go to college, ask yourself the following questions:

• What are your career goals?
• Does the school you’re eying offer a strong program in your area of interest?
• How much would you pay for tuition and other expenses?

Next, assess what student loans and scholarships are available to you, and consider the level of debt you’ll face after graduation. If you’re not sure where to start, check out our rankings of the best private student loans , the best low-interest student loans and the best personal loans for students . We also list some of the best scholarship websites and search engines .

Finally, think about the salary you’ll likely earn in your desired profession and how quickly you’ll be able to repay your loans.

It might be wise to consider this decision as if you were your own life coach or mentor. How would you talk through this problem with someone in your shoes? College admission professionals, high school guidance counselors and mentors can also provide input to help you make an informed decision.

College Income and Wealth Premiums

Two key economic indicators to think about are income and wealth. “Income” here relates to your earnings from a job, while “wealth” refers to your net worth.

For decades, college graduates enjoyed higher earnings and greater wealth than individuals who did not graduate from college, creating so-called “college premiums” on both income and wealth. Though these premiums still exist, they’ve declined for recent graduates, according to economic research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .

The college wealth premium is trending downward faster than the income premium due in part to the high and rising cost of college.

The Cost of College

To examine the cost of college, we look at the average net price as collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Net price is the total cost of college—including tuition, supplies, housing and other expenses—minus grant and scholarship aid.

In the 2020–21 academic year, the average net price of attending a four-year college for first-time undergraduates was $14,700 at public institutions, $28,400 at private nonprofit schools and $24,600 at private, for-profit institutions, according to NCES.

Tuition and Fees

Tuition and fees have risen over the past decade across public and private nonprofit colleges and universities. The increase was highest for private nonprofits, where annual tuition and fees increased by 14% between the 2010–11 and 2021–22 school years—from $34,000 to $38,000, respectively. The increase at public institutions in that time frame was smaller at 6%, from $9,100 to $9,700.

Total Cost of Attendance

The total cost of attendance combines the cost of tuition, fees, books, supplies, room, board and other expenses. It also accounts for federal student aid awards, including grants, work-study programs and loans.

In 2021–22, the average total cost of attending a public, four-year institution was $26,000 for students living on campus. Attending a private, for-profit school cost $32,900, or $55,800 for a private, nonprofit college.

So for a four-year bachelor’s degree, the average total cost of attendance for students residing on campus was approximately:

• $104,000 at public schools
• $131,600 at private, for-profit schools
• $223,200 at private, nonprofit schools

In other words, the cost of college is steep even with financial aid taken into account.

Student Loans

The percentage of first-year undergraduates who take out student loans has decreased since 2010, according to NCES. Thirty-eight percent of first-time, full-time college students were awarded loans in 2020–21, compared with 50% in 2010–11. NCES noted a decrease across all controls for both two-year and four-year higher education institutions.

The average loan amount awarded has also decreased over the past decade. First-time, degree-seeking students received an average $8,400 in 2020–21, compared to $7,700 in 2010–11, a decrease of 8%.

Education debt is the fastest-growing form of debt in the U.S. with total student debt now around $1.76 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve . In the 2021–22 academic year, 49% of students earning bachelor’s degrees from public, four-year institutions graduated with federal student loan debt, according to research from College Board . The average amount of debt per student was $20,700. Another 9% graduated with private loan debt averaging $34,600 per borrower.

To understand how effective students are at paying back their loans, NCES examined the class of 2015-16 four years after graduation, finding that the average federal student borrower still owed 78% of their original loan amount. The average percentage owed was particularly high among Pell Grant recipients: 85% of the original borrowed amount.

The Potential College Payoff

We’ve determined that college is expensive (and only getting costlier), student debt is on the rise and financial aid awards are dwindling. So what’s the return on an investment in higher education? Let’s take a look at potential payoffs for college grads.

Higher Earnings

College graduates still enjoy higher earnings than the average U.S. worker. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that in 2022, bachelor’s degree holders took home a median wage of $1,432 per week, while workers with just a high school diploma earned only $853. That’s a difference of 68%.

But how much you earn depends on several factors, including the industry you work in and your age, gender and location. A 2021 report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and Workforce found that 16% of high school graduates and 28% of associate degree holders earn higher wages than half of bachelor’s degree graduates.

On average, bachelor’s degree holders don’t start to see returns on their college investment until they’ve worked full time for 15 years. It’s the lowest return on investment (ROI) of all postsecondary degrees, according to the Education Data Initiative .

However, ROI for bachelor’s degrees can differ significantly depending on the major. The most cost-effective majors are in the computer and information sciences. Other areas with high returns include business finance, business accounting and electrical engineering. Majors with low ROI include fine art, liberal arts, general studies and education.

Lower Unemployment Rates

In 2022, bachelor’s degree grads faced an unemployment rate of 2.2%, while the rate for all workers was 3%, according to the BLS. By comparison, 4% of workers with only a high school diploma were unemployed.

Despite national conversation questioning the value of a college degree, a recent survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that many employers still see higher ed as valuable, with three-quarters of respondents viewing college credentials as high-quality.

Recession Resiliency

Having a college degree may help you stay afloat during the next economic downturn. According to a report by the Public Policy Institute of California , less-educated workers suffered higher unemployment losses during the past few recessions. For example, at the height of the Covid-19 recession, workers with no college education experienced an unemployment rate of 18%, compared to 10% for workers with bachelor’s degrees.

The Pros and Cons of Going to College

Whether going to college is worth it really depends on your situation. Some career aspirations require a four-year degree, while plenty of others don’t. Certain academic interests make more sense to pursue in a formal campus environment. Others lend themselves to self-study.

Your financial situation is an important factor in determining the value of college. You’ll want to ask yourself if higher wages and more career options in the long run are worth years of student loan payments.

• Higher wages on average
• More career options
• Opportunities to gain further credentials and earn more money
• Alumni networks
• Recession resilience
• Personal growth
• Better health
• Higher likelihood of homeownership and being partnered (married or cohabiting)
• Lower risk of becoming delinquent on debt obligations
• Years of student loan debt
• Not necessary for some jobs
• Many alternatives to college, like apprenticeships and associate degrees, may provide similar benefits
• “Opportunity loss” due to time in college spent not working in profession

If you’re unsure about whether college would pay off for you, check out the below resources to learn about alternative options for higher education and professional credentials:

• Best Coding Bootcamps
• Best Online Trade Schools
• Can You Get a Bachelor’s Degree at a Community College? Here’s What To Know
• How Much Do Coding Bootcamps Cost? What To Know
• How To Get an Apprenticeship: Tips and Resources
• Tech Bootcamps With Job Guarantees: What To Know
• These 8 Universities Offer Business Certificates Online
• What Is a Graduate Certificate? Everything You Need To Know
• What Is a Skilled Trade? Top-Paying Trades To Conside

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Whether College Is Worth It

Should i go to college.

A college degree is a great investment for many students, but it’s not the slam dunk that it once was. A college degree is still correlated with higher earnings and greater wealth, but the cost is considerable and rising. Depending on your intended profession, you might consider an alternative education path.

Is college worth the cost?

Ultimately, whether college is worth the cost will depend on factors like your career and life goals and whether you’ll need to take out student loans. While a college degree is still associated with greater earnings and wealth over a lifetime, the upfront cost is not worth it for many students.

Why is college worth it?

There are many positives to attending college: higher wages, stronger recession resilience, lower unemployment rates, the list goes on. Plus, many employers require or prefer a college degree for many professional roles. On the other hand, you may be able to earn a good living without attending college, depending on your professional aspirations.

• Ranking The Most Affordable States For College Students
• How To Apply For College
• Should You Attend Graduate School Online?
• Choosing A Major: How To Find What Major Is Right For You
• Online College Accreditation
• Do You Need The SAT For College Admission?
• Free Student Laptops
• How To Transfer Universities
• Online Checklist For Students
• What Is A Good GPA In College, And Does It Matter?

How To Learn Korean Online: Everything You Should Know

How To Learn Spanish: A Complete Guide

How To Learn Japanese: Tips And Methods

How To Learn French: A Step-By-Step Guide

What Does A Provost Do? Explaining Who’s Who On Your College Campus

How To Transfer From Community College To University: A Guide

Garrett Andrews is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Political Science at Portland Community College where he teaches State and Local Government.

Brenna Swanston is an education-focused editor and writer with a particular interest in education equity and alternative educational paths. As a newswriter in her early career, Brenna's education reporting earned national awards and state-level accolades in California and North Carolina. Since 2018, she has worked in the higher-education web content space, where she aims to help current and prospective students of all backgrounds find effective, accessible pathways to rewarding careers.

Government Relations Office

Is university education worth it evidence says yes..

As certain as the beginning of term and the tens of thousands of first-year students arriving on campuses across the country, September brings questions about the value of education and anxiety about how to maintain that value as the world of work changes.

The value of the University of Toronto is globally recognized. In this year’s prestigious Times Higher Education ranking of the world’s universities, U of T was ranked 18th globally, placing it firmly among the world’s top 20 institutions. Jumping three spots from last year, the new ranking further cements U of T’s status as Canada’s top university. Among public institutions, U of T’s performance was even more impressive, ranking eighth in the world and third in North America. 

For students and their families, a university degree is a solid foundation on which to build a rewarding and challenging life and career. That pays off for governments with higher tax revenues, healthier populations and more competitive economies driven by resilient and resourceful lifelong learners. In technology , health care, advanced manufacturing and many other sectors, universities are supplying the talent pipeline that is driving economic growth for the province.

Here are five reasons why university is worth it:

University education is changing: Whether it’s spending a semester abroad, or doing a work-integrated co-op term, students’ learning extends far outside the classroom. A majority of U of T students have a work-integrated learning experience, and U of T has also committed to helping more students study abroad . And with federal government support for initiatives like these, more Canadian postsecondary students will find that their university campus includes their city, province and the world.

Return on Investment:  University graduates earn higher salaries than those with other postsecondary credentials. Sometimes, students’ skills are in hot demand while others may experience slower but steady increases. University grads have employment rates of 93.9 per cent overall and in many fields, almost every graduate is working. U of T students’ employability is ranked 5 th in the world among public universities. For U of T grads, an investment in their education pays off.

Affordability: U of T guarantees that deserving students will not be turned away due to lack of funds.  While U of T’s assistance is the most generous in the province, universities and governments across Canada work together to reduce the student debt burden. Half of students in Ontario graduating with a B.A. have no debt. According to Statistics Canada, another 40 per cent of bachelor’s degree graduates in Ontario pay off any debt they incurred within several years. At U of T, the combination of student assistance and healthy post-graduation earnings translate to a zero per cent debt default rate across many fields.

Better health: When governments invest in education, they are indirectly investing in the health and prosperity of their citizens for decades to come. The ways in which education affects health are myriad and complex, but researchers have established that education leads to better individual health and contributes to health-care savings. While higher tax revenues are the pay-off for governments, a healthier life has obvious benefits for individuals.

Prepared for change: Humans have always adapted to changes in work, and as more jobs will undergo shifts in the future, preparing for the certainty that a new graduate’s first few jobs are likely to have little in common with their last job is a necessity . People with a university degree are better prepared to upgrade their qualifications. As University of Toronto President Meric Gertler has said: ”the openness, creativity and agility needed to reinvent oneself seem more important than ever.”

Share this article:

• The Source (Creative Writing)
• Print Editions
• Keep Off The Grass
• John Evelyn

Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

The Knight of the White Moon review: ‘Mirth, romance,...

The two gentlemen of verona review: ‘theatrical rom-com’, mitski’s the land is inhospitable tour review: the artist..., inside the oxford wine world: the bacchus termly dinner.

Breaking down the value of a university education: Why we should stay committed to our study

We have all had this experience: you have a deadline coming towards you like a Japanese high speed freight train. Glancing at the clock, then at your open word document, then back at the clock. The cocktail of stress and apathy that leads you to a simple question – why am I even doing this?

Then you think of the fees you are paying: how expensive that stress in fact is. It can feel like we are at an elaborate fine dining restaurant where they ask the customers to do the dishes. To make matters worse, leaving university is rarely a smooth process. The straightforward ‘milk-round’ experience that earlier generations might have experienced, where graduate employers competed for graduates, seems to have passed like an overburdened bus.  

So, would we have been better off saving our money and forgoing the entire experience?

Whether university is ‘worth it’ is a surprisingly hard question to answer. You can’t just look at whether graduates earn more than everyone else, after all, since students are not a random sample of the population. Graduates do earn more than non-graduates, but university students aren’t a random subsample of the population. University selects both for academic capability as well as higher social status. Hence, taking university out of the equation, there is hardly a level professional playing field between would-be uni students and the people who do not attend. Maybe we would all be just as well off if we stuck it out and went straight into the world of work.

In favour of education, the first and classic response is to affirm that economic output aside, we can view a university level education as a consumption good, valuable at the point of practice. Granted, when you have a deadline looming or an imminent exam, it might not feel like study is all sunshine and roses. But surely some of the value of studying is that it gives us the time, space, and social environment to enjoy things that are harder to come by in working life: the capacity to flex our mental muscles and relishing the wonders of Nietzsche, string theory, Biblical hermeneutics or a Thursday night bridge with the promise of a Friday spent in quiet recuperation. The refrain learning for learning’s sake comes to mind, after the age-old Humboldtian model of education. 

This line of thought has an emotive pull, especially for those of us for whom the possibility of a lack of education and imposed ignorance because of economic or class-based barriers is a fundamental reality or, for the more privileged among us, is at least within familial memory. But the independent value of the free thought and the expansion of the mind through knowledge acquisition is notoriously difficult to justify – especially given the difficulty of disassociating the independent attraction of education from its status as a signifier of social class and how it is perceived as a tool for ascending social and material hierarchies. 

To what extent, then, are these perceptions correct? It seems obvious to say that studying is an investment. We study in the hope of improving our future labour market outcomes and time spent in education is, we tell ourselves, a way of increasing our lifetime human capital, and ensuring that we can be more productive in later life. For many, that will mean acquiring skills or qualifications that enable us to enter high power professions, many of which have a minimum graduate entry level or are requiring of particular university-level skills, and ultimately, if cynically, earn more throughout our lives. Another consideration might be that studying gives us increased time to ponder a career-choice before we commit to it. Instead of making hasty decisions, we are able to take time to develop, get a taste for what we like and make a more informed choice about our career preferences. And surely: if you enjoy your job, you are more likely to succeed in it. 

Much of this is speculative, however. Increasingly, apprenticeships offer alternative, cheaper pathways into high value professions such as law, engineering and finance for those who are unconvinced that four years of doddering aimlessly around student bars and lecture halls is a valuable use of time. And even for those of us, who have made the choice to invest in an education, the doubt often lingers that education’s promises will be fulfilled. Economists sometimes talk about ‘credence goods’ – products whose value is not possible to determine at the moment of consumption, but only over a long time. These goods require that the consumer ‘believes in them’ for a while, before they have any chance of being effective. You cannot expect to feel the benefits of going to the gym after a single session. The connection that you make between tricep extensions and massive gains is perceptually a very loose one, based on the wise words of fitness influencers and gym operating companies. You have to crush those snagging doubts that the influencers are wrong when you do not immediately see results, in order to eventually see results.  

If education is going to be an economic good, it will be a credence good. And one of the difficulties of credence goods is that their utility, their value is extremely hard to ascertain. Over a long period of time, there are so many variables that enter into the equation regarding the effects of a credence good, that those effects are potentially obscured from view. To make matters worse, it is likely that how education is consumed really matters for how economically effective it will turn out to be. For it to work, you have to commit to it, and trust not only that the overall experience will be worthwhile, but, much like those final, cumbersome tricep extension reps, that the marginal effort of handing in any given piece of work or doing an extra hour’s exam preparation will somehow translate into future benefit.

Thinking of education as a credence good, it is no longer obvious what value it drives. Fortunately, the data still speaks in its favour. A life-cycle earnings model estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies a few years ago found that almost all graduates increase their earnings through their education. Around 80%, meanwhile, increase their earnings enough that they are better off even considering the tuition fee repayments they have made. 

Those who do not make a net profit on their degree are generally clustered in a small number of very low return degree subjects and are also disproportionately at less selective universities. Interestingly, the category of subjects for which people are least likely to make a positive return through their lifetime is the creative arts. No doubt many graduates in the creative arts will know they could have earnt substantially more if they had trained as a plumber or a bricklayer, rather than having gone to university. For students of these subjects, one suspects that there is no long term expectation of profitability: it is the enjoyment of creative expression, or consumption value, that counts. 

So, on average, your degree probably is worth it. Like a long-acting medicine or steady exercise regime, it may not feel like it day-to-day, but the hours you’re spending pouring over another history essay is strongly associated with better social outcomes later in life. Interestingly, higher degree performance is also associated with higher lifetime earnings. So, when that poncy undergraduate who is too busy writing poetry to do her essays claims that ‘it doesn’t matter how well I do’, you can tell her how utterly misinformed she truly is.

What are the methods and processes by which a university level education confers (in most cases) economic value? For some degrees, of course, this is obvious. A medical student, for example, can trace a clear causal arrow between their degree and their subsequent job as a junior doctor. For others, there is no direct channel for the conference of economic benefit – especially when graduates enter into professions where they compete with ambitious and capable non-graduates.

Economists generally think of university level education as benefitting graduates via two distinct channels – signalling and human capital. The signalling channel, which is perhaps the most depressing of the two, is the less intuitive. It proposes that graduates earn more than non-graduates because degrees are really hard. They test students on attributes employers care about – willingness to work hard, personal organisation, as well as the student’s skills at writing or solving problems – and can thus be used as a ‘signal’ of worker quality. This channel, of course, suggests that even if all you have to talk about as a result of your study are the reasons for the collapse of the Umayyad empire, your potential employer is not put off. This channel, whilst no less important for us as students, suggests that education is all just a ‘costly signal’ that we use to attract an employer, like an elaborate plumage on a male peacock as it struts around in the hope of finding a mate. 

Secondly, education may well improve our skills. In the case of vocational degrees, perhaps, this is very obvious. A computer science or mathematics graduate might get a job coding probability in a company trading options. But even if you are employed outside of an industry with a clear link to your subject, you will probably use abilities you honed during your degree. As a graduate in Philosophy once told me, “every time I have to write something in a hurry, I feel those hundreds of hours of Philosophy essays come in handy.”

There are also ‘meta-skills’, which are important too. Skills which help in acquiring new skills. You have, doubtless, learnt to learn during your studies. You have probably learnt to manage deadlines. Even the most jaded graduate can surely accept that they are quicker at reading complicated material than they were prior to their studies. When you need to develop and learn in the future, these things will come in handy both for future employers, and to you as a worker, even where your intricate knowledge of British and Irish history in the years 1900-1921 may not. Many important skills of learning are not even domain-specific. If you spend years mastering fine art or music, the odds are that patience, the ability to exert undisturbed patience, and discipline were required and trained. Even if you don’t become an artist, those skills will not be wasted.

So does your degree prepare you for a job? Almost certainly. What job? Now, that is a harder question to answer.

It is difficult for two reasons. Firstly, as already discussed, most degrees do not point towards a clear vocation. Indeed, even the skills portfolio you acquire in studying is not always that indicative about what sort of job you should do.

But it is a mistake to view education as simply an entry point to a career. The idea that you only benefit from what you have learnt in your first job is nonsense. In many ways, it is least helpful when you’re applying for your first job, because employers are overwhelmed by the volume of job applications and use coarse filtering tools, like psychometric or situational judgement tests, for which your actual skills and education are virtually useless. It is in the years after you start working that your ability to progress and find new jobs will depend increasingly on your demonstrated aptitude.

Secondly, it’s hard to know what career paths will even look like in ten, twenty, or thirty years time. New industries and jobs will doubtless spring up, and even in the ones that exist the type of work will change. Who could have guessed that basic computing skills would come to be required in every job when our grandparents were starting their careers? What matters in the long-term is your ability to adapt and learn new things, and general education is a tool for preparing ourselves for that. The need for specific expertise and knowledge will always change over time, but education in a broad sense is unlikely to ever set you back.

So, resist the nihilistic urge to condemn education as nothing but a waste of time. It is a transformative opportunity; one that will benefit all of us throughout our lives. The opening up of university to more people in the UK is a huge change – for generations it was the preserve of the wealthy and the elite. It is a privilege that so many of us are now able to benefit from it.

Resist further the urge to downplay education as nothing more than a signal. Firstly, signals are good. They help to smooth the matching process between employer and employee and help guide us to jobs we are more likely to succeed in. Furthermore, better that we have education as an imperfect signal than even more primitive signals like parentage or postcode. Secondly, whilst it is a signal, for sure, it also provides the first step in building the tools to deal with an uncertain and changing world. Just as once reading and writing were seen as luxury skills that could be monopolised by a privileged few, advanced training is an increasingly vital requirement for working in a modern economy. Even where there is no obvious vocational outlet, study is important.

And finally, do not forget that part of the point of studying is to enjoy yourself. It is, in part, a consumption good. Do not believe older people when they say that university is the best time in your life – indeed your early twenties are often found to be a particularly stressful and difficult time of people’s lives. But full time study is an experience unlikely to be repeated, with many positive components. It is a generational privilege of ours to be so well educated. We might as well take advantage of it, as there aren’t very many others.

Check out our other content

The knight of the white moon review: ‘mirth, romance, and mediaevalesque larks’, mitski’s the land is inhospitable tour review: the artist by herself, ‘there’s a seat at the table for everyone’: in conversation with daisy maskell, oxford union town hall tt24: meet the candidates, most popular articles.

• Print editions
• Write for us!
• Advertising
• Newsletters
• Privacy Policy
• Editorial Login

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

• Faculty Issues
• Learning & Assessment

The Public’s Growing Doubts About College ‘Value’

By  Doug Lederman

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

After decades of almost unquestioned public support as some of America’s most valued institutions, colleges and universities are facing growing questions—not about whether higher education remains important but whether it’s available, affordable and valuable enough.

An episode of Inside Higher Ed ’s The Key podcast recently explored the public’s evolving attitudes toward higher education, part of a three-part series on the concept of “value” in higher education, made possible by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The conversation included Sophie Nguyen, senior policy analyst with New America’s education program, which publishes “ Varying Degrees ” and numerous other surveys about higher education; David Schleifer, vice president and director of research at Public Agenda, a national research organization; and Natasha Quadlin, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and co-author of Who Should Pay? Higher Education, Responsibility, and the Public ( Russell Sage Foundation ).

An edited transcript of the conversation follows.

Inside Higher Ed : Sophie, how would you characterize the current state of public opinion about higher education and how those views are trending?

Nguyen: “Varying Degrees,” our annual survey on what Americans think about higher education, has just come out this summer. The findings show that Americans generally still pretty much believe in the value or the return on investment of higher education or education after high school, including degrees and certificates. At the same time, they are just not happy with how things are going.

Listen to the Episode Here Click here to listen to the full episode of The Key. And find out more about the podcast here .

More than 80 percent of Americans say that having a certificate or an associate or bachelor’s degree will make it easier for them to find a well-paying, stable career. New questions that we asked this year were about what is the minimum level of education you recommend your child or close family member have to ensure financial security. Seventy-three percent say at least a certificate. They still believe education after high school will lead to a better economic outcome.

But at the same time, when we ask them, “Do you believe higher ed is fine how it is?” only 38 percent of American think so. When we ask if colleges and universities are having a positive or negative impact on the way things are going in the country today, only about 50 percent of people say [positive]. That is a significant decline from when we asked that question in 2020, right before the pandemic, when over 60 percent of people said positive.

Inside Higher Ed : David, how do Public Agenda’s findings equate, contrast with what we just heard from Sophie at New America?

Schleifer: The findings from our survey, which was supported by Lumina Foundation and Gates Foundation, tell a pretty similar story to the New America findings. The big picture is that we did see that by a variety of different measures, Americans do understand that higher education can help people economically, particularly when we asked about impacts in people’s home states. People do understand the economic benefits of higher education.

However, we also see a lot of questions about the value of higher education that essentially come down to whether the investment really pays off for people. I would never call this a loss of faith in higher ed. But I think that what we see is people saying that higher education is too expensive. It’s too time-consuming. We asked a question about colleges being stuck in the past and not really meeting the needs of today’s students. There’s this understanding that the potential benefits of higher education are out there, but it’s expensive. It’s not accessible to everyone. It’s really not designed for today’s students.

On the kind of fundamental question of whether the benefits are worth the risks or not, where we see this kind of 50-50 split that was the same in 2016. We didn’t see a ton of change. These questions that people have been raising about whether higher education is worth the investment are much longer-standing than just the past two or three years.

Inside Higher Ed : Natasha, initial thoughts from you based on the work you’ve done?

Quadlin: I like that this conversation is really focusing on these contradictory opinions that Americans can have. In our data, we find very consistently that Americans do see great value in higher education. It depends on how we ask these questions. When you ask about broader dimensions of higher education, Americans recognize the intellectual value of college, they see how universities enrich communities and they also talk about these personal income and other benefits that accrue to individuals. And that’s been really consistent over time in our data, too.

We asked people a couple questions about the possibility of success with and without higher education and what that looks like for people. We find that Americans really do lean into this possibility of success without higher education. They really latch on to these examples, like plumbers and electricians and other skilled trades, where they say it’s very possible to earn a good living without a college degree.

But then we ask them, “Is it easier to succeed in the world with a college degree than without one?” And overwhelmingly they say, yes, it is. So I think people recognize that, yes, it’s possible to succeed without college. And you can have a successful career without accruing this educational debt. But people also don’t see this as an easy path or perhaps even a preferable path.

Something other folks have touched on, too, that is important to keep in mind is that people aren’t necessarily forecasting their own behavior, or what they would tell their friends and family to do. People will say, yes, other people and other people’s children can not go to college and take this circuitous path to success. But when it comes to themselves and their own children and the people that they care about, they’re perhaps not as willing to take that risk.

Inside Higher Ed : Yes, there’s sure been a tendency for a lot of politicians and sometimes Silicon Valley investors to question whether going to college is right for people, but you don’t typically see them sending their kids to a welding institute or a cosmetology school, thinking about sort of our audience. What are the findings that you think are sort of most concerning to people who, who either work in higher education or who are advocates for higher education and want it to be central in our society?

Schleifer: It’s very easy [for higher education leaders] to look at our findings and other findings that have come out over the years and say that Americans are losing faith in higher education because of ideological reasons. Like that there’s some kind of anti-intellectualism or that everyone wants to be an Uber driver or something like that. I really think that is the wrong takeaway here. I think the takeaway is that the prices are too high—there’s no simpler way to say it. And people know that completion is not a guarantee, and even if they do complete, they’re left with debt. I do not think the takeaway should be some kind of hand-wringing about ideology. It has to be a conversation about costs and completion, because that’s what people are seeing as problems. And in a way, that’s a good thing for higher ed as a field, because those are, theoretically at least, problems that someone could address.

Inside Higher Ed : I assume you’d agree that there is ideological stuff happening as well. But the focus on that can tend to be a shirking of responsibility by people within higher education. Because if you can just say, “Oh, those guys don’t like us; it’s out of our control,” that’s not exactly helpful. I do want us to come back to discuss the extent to which the public attitudes are encouraging the politicians who might also have it out for higher ed, which I think is happening out there. Sophie, what findings do you consider most troubling for those who care about higher education?

Nguyen: What I’m concerned the most about is the difference in how younger generations, compared to older generations, think about certain issues in higher ed, such as affordability of funding or financing for higher ed. Younger generations, Gen Z, millennials, tend to feel more negative about the values or the return on investment of higher education. Particularly this year, when we asked questions about whether or not colleges and universities provide enough support to students to help them complete. That is concerning, because they are the ones that make up a significant part of undergraduate populations right now. And colleges and universities are faced with a significant enrollment decline, especially in the community college sector.

Inside Higher Ed : Some people out there may be uncomfortable referring to students as customers or consumers, but I think it’s apt in this context. The young adult population is higher education’s primary customer. And when your primary customer views you with more skepticism than the general public, that is probably troubling. Natasha, what signs do you see as most concerning?

Quadlin: David’s comment at the beginning that cost is the bottom line is also the conclusion that I come to. I think people in higher education should be very concerned about the public’s awareness of these cost issues. To use that “consumer” language again, we haven’t pushed our consumers to the point yet where they don’t see value in higher education. But at what point does this become a real issue? We’re seeing evidence of this and hints of this, but as a sector, I don’t think we should feel as if this game can just go on forever.

The other point I see in our data is that we’ve seen a real shift in how Americans think about responsibility for college costs, and who should bear that responsibility. Ten years ago in our data, Americans overwhelmingly said that students and parents should be the ones that pay for college. But increasingly, we’re seeing that people want government to play a much more active role in the funding of higher education. Not only because this will reduce their individual contribution, but also because this will theoretically broaden access to students who haven’t had access in the past. I think people in higher education, and also people in government more broadly, should really be aware of this pattern. We’ve historically pushed these high costs on to students and parents, but the public really does see government investment as a viable alternative to our current funding mechanisms, and as a really important step forward for reducing costs for consumers.

Nguyen: I want to second what Natasha and David said earlier about ideology differences and cost as the underlying issues here. Absolutely we see that in our survey as well. There’s no hiding that Americans don’t think they can get high-quality education after high school that is also affordable. More people think the government should be responsible for funding higher education because it’s good for society rather than the students. We do see that number trending that way—people in general agree that there’s an affordability issue here; what they don’t agree on is how to solve it. This is the question where we see there’s a deep divide between Republican and Democrat. And that is a huge issue, because that means that we cannot come to a conclusion on how to solve this affordability issue.

Schleifer: On a question of public investment, one of the things we found that that I would say is good news, potentially, for people who work in the field is that we asked about investment in different ways. We asked a general question about state investment in public higher education, and we saw modest support—61 percent of Americans supported increased funding. That was stronger among Democrats, not nearly as strong among Republicans.

But when we asked about funding specific initiatives in public higher education to help students succeed, that’s where we saw much stronger support. We asked about things like funding for short-term credential programs, partnerships with K-12 systems, hiring more faculty so students can get the classes they need. A long series of specific investments. When we asked about those, support was quite high across political affiliations. Our takeaway from that was people want to know what they’re paying for. And when they’re told what they’re paying for, we saw higher support. When people are in the field thinking about going to pursue funding, there’s a takeaway here: talk about what the money is for, who it’s meant to support, as opposed to just “Throw some more money in this pot and trust us to do the right thing with it.”

Inside Higher Ed : David said early on that you didn’t think the public was losing faith in higher education. I want to dig into that a little more deeply. I tend to think that higher ed has been knocked off the pedestal it was on for a long time. I wonder if you’re seeing growing skepticism, maybe not about whether higher education is a good thing, but about whether it is worth my money? Do we think the public questioning is starting to affect individual decisions about whether to go to college? Is it becoming a factor in enrollment questions? Natasha, do you have thoughts about that?

Quadlin: I have a lot of thoughts. Some of this questioning is necessary, right? We’ve seen so much diversification in the higher education landscape in the past several decades, not only in terms of costs, which we keep coming back to, but also in terms of predatory institutions that take people’s money and don’t offer a good return on investment. So I think some of the hesitation surrounding higher education, there are places where we’re right to be concerned. But, yes and no in terms of whether this is actually affecting people’s enrollment decisions. I think people will continue to resist programs where they don’t see return on investment, especially these for-profit predatory institutions. But in the broader historical context of enrollments, I remain pretty optimistic that enrollments are really thriving in a lot of areas, if we look at a larger time horizon.

I’ve thought a lot about enrollments over the past few years, especially with COVID, in terms of people’s optimism. Investment in higher education really requires us to be optimistic about the future, and about what we will be able to do in the labor market. And for a lot of people in this time period, optimism has been kind of hard to come by. So I’ll be really interested to wait and see how these enrollments continue to play out. But we’re seeing so many things happening in the sector that it’s hard to know what is causing what.

Schleifer: This is a very expensive investment for a lot of people, and it’s an investment that can be delayed, right? If someone isn’t enrolling this year, maybe that’s because they’re afraid of going into debt, and they want to try to save up money and enroll next year. We do a lot of research in health care, too. And I see these two analogous fields that are very expensive for people, that can kind of bankrupt people. But unlike health care, with higher ed one could actually wait a year, and in health care people don’t. How long can you just keep raising the prices and expect people to continue walking through the door unless they have the means to cover it?

Inside Higher Ed : I probably have a slightly more pessimistic take than it seems like you do about whether the public questioning of the value of credentials is starting to have an impact on individual choices about whether to go to college and on postsecondary enrollment collectively. I totally agree that there are too many things going on right now for us to know for sure. But as the impact of the pandemic begins to ease a little bit, and the job market slows down, I’m concerned that questions of cost and benefit are beginning to have an influence in individual decisions.

I want to shift in the time we have left to talking about solutions. The good news in some ways about the affordability focus is that, unlike people just not liking higher ed or thinking it isn’t a good thing, finding ways to make education more affordable and institutions more effective is at least, theoretically, something college leaders and policy makers can influence.

Are there conclusions that we can draw from any of your work that point the way toward things that might be done to address the public’s concerns?

Quadlin: The types of changes that I think Americans most want are not at the institutional level, but they’re instead requiring this great collective action. That’s part of the reason why this is so difficult. Because a lot of these changes on the margins will affect some students and will improve things but won’t have the real sea changes in higher education that Americans are really hungry for. We talked in the book about the programs some states have encouraged around free tuition for associate degrees and other community college credentials, which seem to be really helping students in ways that will also help the higher education landscape. But we would love to see bigger, broader action that will be on a wider scale, but that’s hard.

Inside Higher Ed : Especially at a time of increasing public division that we don’t show a lot of signs of coming out of. David, thoughts from you on potential solutions?

Schleifer: It’s clear what people’s priorities are, which is affordability, access and also career-relevant skills. As I mentioned, we asked about a lot of different ways of addressing affordability and saw strong cross-partisan support for basically all of them, which I think just shows that people are [saying], “Please, just do something.” All of the various things we asked about appeal to people. The message there is “Just give something a shot.”

In the conversation about affordability, I would say not to lose sight of completion or student success. We have this long list of things there’s cross-partisan support for—flexible credentials and stackable credentials and all partnerships so people graduate from high school with some college credits, working more closely with employers.

There is quite a mandate for substantial change. Even in an environment where we do see a lot of polarization, there’s no shortage of things that are doable if politicians and system leaders are willing to take their cues from the public.

Louisiana Governor Gains More Control Over College Boards

Critics fear that the bill Governor Landry signed could be an overstep that threatens public institutions’ accreditat

Share This Article

More from learning & assessment.

Why Faculty Should Randomize Grading Order

Research from the University of Michigan finds sequential grading biases impact students with alphabetically lower la

New Data Consortium Wants Colleges to ‘Own’ Their AI Future

American Council on Education will lead global effort to pool data on tens of millions of students to improve learner

Assessment of Student Learning Is Broken

And generative AI is the thing that broke it, Zach Justus and Nik Janos write.

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Create Free Account

Alternatively, use our A–Z index

The value of a university education

Professor dame nancy rothwell.

How should the value of a university degree be measured? There has been a great deal of public discussion about this of late – so much so that the Financial Times asked me to give my thoughts on the debate (There is more to university than money, FT, 16 April).

I argued that employability and future earnings are undoubtedly important for any student entering higher education today. How could they not be? Students pay fees of £9,000 a year and many graduate with significant debt. But I also expressed concern that by focusing so much on money, the conversation misses the much wider value of a university education.

The recent flurry of interest has been provoked by a study from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that reported that graduates from one in ten UK universities earn less than non-graduates. Of course, if, after several years of study and with major debt, these graduates unexpectedly find themselves unable to find employment, particularly of the type that they had hoped for, then this is a major concern.

The IFS report is revealing, but it doesn't paint a whole picture. It doesn't name the universities in question, and so we're told nothing about what they offer. Some could, for example, be specialist arts institutions. We know that, perhaps unfairly, artistic performers are paid very little – especially at the start of their careers.

Nor does the study account for the choices graduates may make. Some choose to enter low-paid professions to follow their passion, for example in social or voluntary work, or sport. Others may decide to work part-time – for a whole variety of reasons. Universities are encouraged to support entrepreneurs, who may go on to run their own companies, but they will normally pay themselves very little while starting up.

Getting a good job is an important reason given by many who choose to go to university, and we can be proud that at The University of Manchester we have a strong record of graduate employment. According to the latest data, 84% of our employed graduates are in 'graduate jobs' six months after completing their degrees and 94% of graduates overall go straight into jobs or further study. But figures such as these shouldn't be the sole measure of a Manchester degree's worth.

A student who chooses Manchester joins a community drawn from 160 countries – it's a meeting place for different backgrounds, religions and beliefs. Once here, they have fantastic opportunities to participate in sport, join numerous societies offered by our Students' Union, volunteer through the Manchester Leadership Programme or take course units outside their subject in our University College for Interdisciplinary Learning. They can learn about enterprise, hear a world-leading academic give a seminar or undertake a research project in outstanding facilities.

Their views and beliefs may be challenged. They will make new friends – maybe even meet their lifelong partner. Many of the 330,000+ alumni that we are in contact with worldwide tell us that they gained value from their time at Manchester beyond their academic training and formal qualifications. My piece for the FT sparked a lot of responses but, for me, one comment on Twitter stood out: "Going to university should teach you how to make a life, not just a living".

It is important that we ensure that our prospective and current students are aware of the breadth of experiences available to them. We should encourage them to grasp as many of these opportunities as possible.

Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell - President and Vice-Chancellor

Recent opinion

Hema Radhakrishnan / Let's make women count in science

Hema radhakrishnan, jonathan darling / housing asylum seekers in the uk: where next, jonathan darling, julia segar / health and social care devolution: it's complicated, julia segar, rathaven gunaratnarajah / little things make a big difference.

• The University of Manchester Magazine

Higher education and the importance of values: evidence from the World Values Survey

• Open access
• Published: 02 August 2022
• Volume 85 , pages 1401–1426, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Paul Koshy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9621-223X 1 ,
• Helen Cabalu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6390-8030 2 &
• Vicar Valencia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6110-7168 3  

5837 Accesses

3 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The collection of data on values through instruments such as the World Values Survey has focused attention on two opposing but inter-related trends, namely the combination of substantial cultural change in many countries and the persistence of distinctive traditional values. This reflects the interplay between social changes associated with modernisation and globalisation—including increased global trade and the rise of global popular culture—with traditional values country-specific systems. In this paper, we introduce a focus on another potentially important source of change, that of widening higher education participation and attainment, and the extent to which self-reported values differ between university graduates and non-graduates. We investigated this question using data from the most recent collection of the World Values Survey (2017–2020) for six core values—family, friends, leisure, work, politics, and religion—and tested for the influence of higher education attainment on the perceived “importance” of each value and the extent to which this influence differs across values and in gender, generation and country grouping sub-samples. We find evidence for consistent effects in most contexts, with no statistical differences between graduates on non-graduates in relation to the propensity to view family and work as important, statistically significant positive effects on the propensity of graduates to view friends, leisure, and politics as important, and a significant negative effect in relation to religion.

Similar content being viewed by others

Differences in Values within Macedonia: Macedonian—Albanian Comparisons

Political orientations and personal values among university lecturers in Europe

Values in Life Domains in a Cross-National Perspective

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Rising participation in higher education is a global phenomenon, with a recent UNESCO report noting that “in the first decade of the 2000s, participation rates in higher education institutions increased by 10 percentage points or more in many regions like Europe, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean” (UNESCO, 2020 : p.24). This follows the documented global expansion in university systems since World War II, resulting in a shift from “elite” to “mass” rates of participation and attainment in most developed countries, eventually approaching near “universal” levels, where up to 50% of a population have received degrees (Trow, 1974 , 2007 ). Statistics from the OECD group for 2020 indicate that such levels of attainment are now present among younger cohorts in those countries, with 45% of 25- to 34-year-olds in the OECD having obtained a tertiary qualification, the largest component of which includes those whose highest degree is a bachelor’s qualification (OECD, 2021 ).

Higher education attainment shapes societies in many ways. University graduates earn higher wages than non-graduates, even if recent evidence suggests that the earning premium for graduates is declining (for the UK, see: Boero et al., 2021 ). In addition, graduates have traditionally experienced better outcomes in terms of health, longevity and family formation (Hartog and Oosterbeek, 1998 ). Higher education attainment has also been accompanied by major societal changes, including significant shifts such as increased female participation in the labour force (OECD, 2019 ).

Given the increase in higher education participation and attainment, it seems plausible to consider higher education as an important factor in either shaping value sets across countries. However, the study of cross-country values over the past three decades has focused largely on the impact of other major drivers or change in challenging accepted norms and customs at the national level. These include both economic and cultural processes operating through common vectors: global trade and travel; international economic and political institutions and groupings; and global mass media and communications networks (Inglehart and Baker, 2000 ).

Two views on the impact of these forces on national culture are largely characterised by the observed convergence in national cultural norms and values resulting from them: modernisation, a process by which traditional values are replaced with “modern” values (Yeganeh, 2017 ); and globalisation, whereby standardisation in industrial, cultural and educational structures results in a homogenous transnational culture (Ritzer, 1996 ). A common feature of these two notions is the increase in “interconnectedness” of national cultures in the post-Cold War global setting (Buell, 1994 ).

Consequently, standard approaches to discussing national cultures, such as cultural dimensions approaches, are less likely to provide a coherent understanding of national culture (Yeganeh, 2017 ). Focus has instead shifted to an analysis of the influence of globalist/modernist forces on national cultural values.

Inglehart and Baker ( 2000 ) nominate competing effects that capture outcomes from this process, namely, convergence , whereby values across countries and groups become more similar over time and persistence , whereby traditional values are maintained. Data on values have been collected at the country-level through the World Values Survey (WVS), a global survey that has tracked changes in reported values since 1981 and is currently in its Wave 7 (2017–2020) collection (Haerpfer et al., 2020 ). Inglehart and Baker ( 2000 ) analysed data from the 1995–1998 wave of the WVS to determine the extent to which economic development results in changes in value orientations. This primarily reflects global convergence in values. They describe a traditional to secular-rational orientation, where due to economic and technological integration associated with modernisation, a convergence of values takes place towards the secular-rational , including a less central role for religious or national societal beliefs in value expression. In a second value orientation, survival to self-expression , populations begin to emphasise values and preferences which favour the consumptive and exploratory ( self-expression ) rather than those predominantly associated with survival and protection. They found evidence for a combination of effects, demonstrating that “massive cultural change and the persistence of distinctive traditional values” was evident in the WVS data, as social changes associated with modernisation were moderated or checked by traditional institutions and practices, making country-specific effects path dependent on individual country histories—much of them shared between groups of countries with common geographical, cultural and religious backgrounds.

Recently, this analysis has been extended to focus on longitudinal trends in the WVS. For instance, Matei and Abrudan ( 2018 ) examined trends in WVS respondents’ assessments of the importance of six broad values: family , friends , leisure , work , politics and religion , and found that over the multi-year collection horizon for the WVS, changes in respondents’ views on values at the national level occurred more quickly in countries undergoing major sustained changes, principally economic ones.

In this paper, we focus on higher education attainment as a potentially important influence on values, focusing on evidence from the WVS on respondents’ assessed importance of the six WVS values examined in Matei and Abrudan ( 2018 ). Specifically, we examined the extent to which the importance placed on these values differed between university graduates and non-graduates in the most recent WVS collection (2017 to 2020), both in a main sample and sub-samples generated for gender, generational and country grouping.

Higher education and values

It is not difficult to view higher education attainment as a consequential force for both globalisation and modernisation. As the OECD ( 2019 ) points out:

Higher education plays an integral role in globalisation and in the knowledge economy, as it facilitates the flow of people, ideas and knowledge across countries. Higher education therefore acts as an engine for ‘brain circulation’ between countries. (p.36)

This is a natural extension of higher education’s traditional focus on the acquisition, retention and transmission of knowledge irrespective of national borders (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007 ), with this role amplified through the rise of global travel and communications networks, the cross-border movements of researchers and students and the emergence of the bachelor’s degree as an entry level qualification for many occupations. This has been accompanied by the emergence of high participation systems (HPS) in higher education, which have extended the opportunity for, and increased levels of, attainment and its benefits across society, with the diffusion of benefits dependent on social consensus and policy commitment around the importance of social equality and mobility (Marginson, 2016 ).

The latter point is critical as the emerging centrality of education to improved social outcomes is recognised by those who have experienced its benefits. A recent study using WVS data by Feldmann ( 2020 ) found that respondents with higher levels of educational attainment were more likely to regard inadequate education as the most serious problem in the world, while Marginson ( 2018 ) finds support for Trow’s ( 1973 ) prediction that the expansion in higher education places would be led by social demand rather than government fiat.

How might higher education attainment influence the reported importance placed on the six values tracked by the WVS? The immediate answer is that the influence is bi-directional as stated “values” reflect not only experiences at university, but also encompass key influences on higher education. Although they comprise a sizeable minority in younger cohorts, higher education graduates are still characterised as belonging to a relatively advantaged section of their community across countries (Atherton et al., 2016 ). Marginson ( 2016 ) points out that:

In contemporary societies, those desires [for betterment], particularly the hopes of parents for children, have become primarily focused on formal education, which is seen as the privileged pathway to professional work. Family ambitions have no ultimate limiting factor and feed on themselves. Over time the social demand for higher education accumulates and tends towards the universal, as Trow predicted it would, and higher education provision becomes large, growing and increasingly ubiquitous. (pp. 414-415)

An extension of this argument is that higher education participation facilitates social reproduction, thus entrenching traditional systems of values in countries, with parents from advantaged backgrounds provide resources in the form of monetary, social and cultural capital to facilitate their children’s transition into post-compulsory education (Bourdieu, 1986 ).

This mechanism applies to other WVS values such as work , where family background is a key influence in relation to education and career choice, as outlined in the ecological model of Bronfenbrenner ( 1979 ). Thus, professionally qualified parents instil value sets that replicate their experiences and facilitate inter-generational transfers of privilege. The persistent importance attached to the family value in the WVS is testament to this influence, with around 91.7% of Wave 7 WVS respondents regarded family as being important.

Alternatively, the position of universities at the forefront of changes associated with globalisation, modernity and the emergence of the global market economy also produces graduates who are more likely to challenge traditional norms. In many settings, higher education is especially transformative, as young adults leave home to live on or around campuses, elevating the importance of friendships and associations—both temporary and more permanent—during their formative years (Gravett and Winstone, 2020 ; Picton et al., 2018 ; Brooks, 2007 ), ostensibly making friendship more important to higher education graduates and raising the importance of the value of friends to graduates.

After family , work is the WVS value most likely to be regarded as important. This is tied to the centrality of work to life choices, both in terms of earnings and professional or employment satisfaction. Higher education graduates see better outcomes on both these measures than non-graduates (high school and technical graduates), an effect described in both the human capital (Becker, 1964 ) and signalling (Spence, 1973 ) theories of earnings in economics and constructivist theories of education in sociology (Bourdieu, 1986 ), and borne out in empirical work (Crivellaro, 2016 ; Elias & Purcell, 2004 ; Wilkins, 2015 ). Job satisfaction also tends to be higher among higher education graduates compared to non-graduates (Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 2016 ).

Perceptions of the value attributed to leisure tend to be dichotomous, given the trade-off between it and work inherent in its common definition, for instance:

…all activities that we cannot pay somebody else to do for us and we do not really have to do at all if we do not wish to. (Burda et al., 2007 , p. 1)

Leisure thus encompasses activities other than work and personal care (core non-work responsibilities), but with a potential for overlap between these three categories. While there has been relatively little work on the relationship between leisure preferences and higher education attainment, the OECD ( 2009 , p.38) examined cross-country evidence on the residual of paid work (a measure of leisure) and net national income, finding a positive relationship between the two, suggesting that leisure is a normal good—one whose demand rises with income. Presumably, this also applies to personal or household income, subject to the time constraints associated with higher earnings (i.e. increased hours). Given this, we hypothesise that higher education graduates will have increased preferences for leisure compared to non-graduates.

The impact of higher education participation on attitudes to politics , political activism and interest is well documented, with graduates more likely to be politically engaged than non-graduates (see for instance, Hillygus, 2005 ), although recent studies have explored the extent to which this is attributable to higher education institutions or is intrinsic to the broader social backgrounds and life experiences of graduates (Kam and Palmer, 2008 ; Perrin and Gillis, 2019 ). This latter point raises the question as to the uniqueness of higher education in modern society in shaping political values and opinions. Higher levels of education are associated with greater degrees of interest in broader value discussions, such as those relating to the environment (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014 ). More generally, education attainment is a key factor in voting patterns and related issues such as trust in political processes (Nie et al., 1996 ).

In relation to religion , higher education attainment is associated with a reduced level of religious belief and a preference for the secularisation of institutions, although not necessarily religious observance—seemingly contradictory outcomes that Glaeser and Sacerdote ( 2008 ) attribute to the tendency of education to displace religious belief with secular humanism while at the same time raising virtually all measures of social connection. This is often specific to country grouping. For instance, the Pew Research Centre’s 2016 study of higher education and religion found that in the USA and France, self-described atheists were more likely to have post-secondary qualifications than those citing a religion, whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in many other developed countries (Hackett et al., 2016 ).

Across the six WVS values, the influence of higher education may be mediated by a variety of associated factors, many of which influence higher education participation itself. These include individual factors, such as gender, age/generation and family educational background, class group membership and household income (in the context of pro-environmental concerns and behaviour, see Gifford and Nilsson, 2014 ), as well as the social and national context factors identified by Inglehart and Baker ( 2000 ) and others.

Methodology: data and method

This study sought to examine differences between higher education graduates and non-graduates in their stated importance of the six WVS values, both in a cross-country sample and important sub-sample contexts: gender, generation and country grouping associated with stage of economic development or shared cultural values.

We analysed data from the Wave 7 of the WVS on the importance respondents place on various core values. The study included response sets from 48 of 49 countries (listed in Table 1 ) who reported back for Wave 7. We omitted Guatemala, as the country’s response file was missing data on questions pertaining to mother’s and father’s educational background (Questions Q277r and Q278R).

The measures of values examined corresponded to WVS respondent views on six values from the survey, drawn from answers to the first question in the “Core Questionnaire” of the WVS:

For each of the following, indicate how important it is in your life. Would you say it is… ( Very important / Rather important / Not very important / Not at all important ) –

Q3 Leisure time

Q4 Politics

Q6 Religion

From this response set, we constructed dependent categorical variables for each of the six listed values ( family to religion ), with “important” being defined as whether a respondent found the value to be either “very important” or “rather important”, with responses coded as “1” in either instance or “0” for any other response.

From the WVS, a set of explanatory indicators was constructed to explain variations in the categorical dependent variable. These are the following:

Gender: 1 = Female; 0 = Male. (The count in the “Other” option was too low to include it in the analysis).

Ln (Age): Natural Log of Age (years). (A continuous variable).

Higher Education: 1 = higher education; 0 = otherwise.

Marital Status: Married (base, omitted in the analysis); Living Together ; Divorced ; Separated ; Widowed ; Single .

Children: Number of children. Continuous variable.

Non-migrant: 1 = born in country; 0 = otherwise.

Mother Higher Education Background: 1 = mother has higher education degree; 0 = otherwise.

Father Higher Education Background: 1 = father has higher education degree; 0 = otherwise.

Employed: 1 = person is working; 0 = otherwise.

Work Sector: Public Sector (base); Private Industry ; Private Non-Profit .

Social Class: Self-nominated — Upper (base); Upper Middle; Lower Middle; Working; Lower.

Income Level: Self-nominated — Upper (base); Medium; Low.

Religious Belief: 1 = person nominates a religion; 0 = otherwise.

In addition, data on two country groupings were included from other sources.

Data on per capita gross domestic product (GDP per capita) was sourced from the online CIA World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency, 2021 ), for the year 2018. Countries were classified as follows:

GDP per capita: High (> US$25,000) (base); Middle (US$10,000–25,000); Low (< US$10,000).

Countries were classified according to the cultural categories outlined in the Inglehart-Welzel World Cultural Map (2020) in Haerpfer et al. ( 2020 ):

Inglehart-Welzel categories: Classification of countries in the sample was as follows:

In total, the main sample sourced from the Wave 7 collection of the WVS included records from 41,146 respondents across the 48 countries, of whom 14,399 (35%) had attained a higher education degree.

In the first instance, we examined reported outcomes for each of the six values. We then constructed an explanatory model for each value. As the dependent variable was binary, we used a logistic regression method to explain the probability of respondents nominating a value as important, using the same set of independent variables to explain the odds of respondents nominating a given value as being important. Each model was estimated using the main sample (N = 41,146), with effects reported as odds ratios. After this, we analysed sub-samples selected along the lines of gender, generation and country grouping ( GDP per capita and Inglehart-Welzel category).

The importance of values in the WVS

In the first instance, we examined patterns of responses across the six values (percentage and ranking) for the main sample. As reported in Table 2 , responses generated a wide dispersion in the percentage of respondents nominating values as “important”, ranging from near universal acceptance of the statement for family (99.3%) to only minority support for politics (46.7%).

The sub-sample for higher education graduates indicated that preferences among graduates tended to broadly track the patterns seen in the total population, but with noticeable differences. For instance, in relation to friends , 91.1% of graduates cited this value as being important compared to 87.3% of the total population, with other differences apparent (e.g., Politics: 50.4% vs 46.7%). However, the ranking of values between graduates, non-graduates and indeed the entire sample was identical: family , work , friends , leisure , religion and politics .

In addition, value preferences were examined across the sub-samples for gender, generation and country grouping measures. In these cases, differences did emerge.

For instance, in the gender sub-samples, differences were observed between females and males, especially in regard to politics . However, the ordering of values was identical to that seen in the main sample in both instances.

Differences across the generations were most pronounced at either end of the age spectrum, as expected, reflecting the age gap and the natural drift in concerns over the life-cycle. For instance, only 68.7% of the largely retired Post-War generation nominated work as being important, compared with 94.6% of Millennials . An examination of the ordering of values indicates a broad split between the generations, with the younger generations, Generation X and Millennials , having the same ordering of values, one identical to the main sample, the young boomers ( Boomers II) attached greater importance to friends than work , albeit marginally, and the two older generations, Boomers and Post-War , placing a greater emphasis on leisure than work.

Finally, an analysis using the two country groupings, the GDP per capita and Inglehart-Welzel category variables, allowed for the classification of respondents at the super-national level. Country income levels (proxied by GDP per capita ) appear to be correlated with two effects also observed in relation to higher education attainment: an increasing importance attributed to friends as income levels increased — with this value ranked second for high GDP per capita countries compared to fourth for low GDP per capita countries; and a reduced importance attached to religion , ranked fifth among respondents in the high and middle low GDP per capita groups compared to third in low GDP per capita groups. A similar pattern is seen in a country classification using the Inglehart-Welzel categories, with the importance attached to friends and religion differing across countries.

Findings on the determinants of value preferences

The analysis of the main sample for each WVS value was conducted using logistic regression, with odds ratios and overall model statistics reported in Table 3 . For categorical variables, the null hypothesis is that of no statistically significant difference between categories in the odds of respondents regarding a value as “important”, corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.000. For example, in the case of the higher education variable, a failure to reject the null hypothesis—or similarly, a statistically significant odds ratio of 1.000—indicates no difference between graduates and non-graduates in their odds of nominating a value as important. Alternatively, a statistically significant estimate of the odds ratio above (below) 1.000 indicates that graduates are more (less) likely to do so.

Family was rated as important by a near totality of respondents, with few noticeable differences across the sub-samples. There was no statistically significant effect observed at the 0.05 level attributable to higher education attainment relative to non-attainment ( higher education : 1.138 [odds ratio], p  > 0.1).

A highly significant gender effect was observed, with women 73 per cent more likely to view family as being an important value than men ( gender : 1.730, p  < 0.01). In addition, a significant effect was present in relation to age ( Ln (age) : 0.342, p  < 0.01), indicating a declining propensity to view Family as important with respondent age. Somewhat unsurprisingly, marital status affected the value attached to family relationships. In comparison to married respondents, those living together (0.579, p  < 0.05), divorced (0.294, p  < 0.01), separated (0.233, p  < 0.01) or single (0.313, p  < 0.01) were substantially less likely to nominate family as being important. Household size and composition was also significant, as proxied by the children variable (1/150, p  < 0.05). Social class (household), income level effects and GDP per capita were not significant in explaining preferences for family as a value. In fact, there were no effects observed for social class across all values, although income effects operating at the micro- (household) or macro-economic (GDP per capita) levels were observed. Religious belief (1.816, p  < 0.01) had a significant and positive effect on respondents’ views. There were limited effects seen across the Inglehart-Welzel category variables, although one exception was the Confucian country category (1.891, p  < 0.01). This result was not surprising as Confucian teaching places a special emphasis on the importance of family as the most basic unit of society (Yi, 2021 ).

In the main sample, the friends value had the strongest effect associated with higher education attainment ( higher education : 1.402, p  < 0.01), with graduates 40 per cent more likely to nominate friends as an important value compared to the entire sample. Single respondents were more likely to value friendships compared with married people ( single : 1.146, p  < 0.01), while respondents in non-married relationships and those with children were less likely to nominate it as being important ( living together : 0.734, p  < 0.01; children : 0.967, p  < 0.01). Employment effects were observed, notably a reduced likelihood among those in the private sector ( private industry : 0.846, p  < 0.01) compared to those in the public or private non-profit sectors. No meaningful household income level effects were observed. Religious belief had a positive influence ( religious belief : 1.115, p  < 0.05), although this was substantially weaker than that seen in the family model. A strong GDP per capita effect was observed, whereby in contrast to the findings for family , those from low (0.638, p  < 0.01) and medium (0.643, p  < 0.01) countries were less likely to nominate friends as being important than from high GDP per capita countries (the control group). Several Inglehart-Welzel category effects were observed, with respondents in Latin America (0.338, p  < 0.01) and Orthodox Europe (0.621, p  < 0.01) being less likely to view friends as important, relative to the omitted category ( English ), while respondents in the Confucian (1.327, p  < 0.01) and Protestant Europe category (respondents from Germany only) ( Protestant Europe : 2.998, p  < 0.01) substantially more likely to do so.

The influence of higher education attainment on views on leisure as a value was significant and positive ( higher education : 1.381, p  < 0.01), with an effect comparable to that seen in the friends model. There was no statistically significant effect associated with gender (1.122, p  < 0.01), with women more likely to nominate leisure as important, and a statistically significant, but muted effect associated with age ( Ln (age) : 0.901, p  < 0.05). This latter effect suggests that the propensity to value leisure as important declines with age, where other control variables are present in the model. In comparison with family and friends , marital status had less influence on leisure’s perceived value, with non-married partnered respondents ( living together : 1.141, p  < 0.05) and single respondents ( single: 1.093, p  < 0.05) both reporting more positive positions in relation to leisure than the control group ( married ). Non-migrant status had a significant and positive influence, one broadly comparable to that associated with higher education attainment ( non-migrant : 1.219, p  < 0.01) and in direct contrast to its statistical insignificance in models of the first two values. Employment had a strong and statistically significant positive influence on leisure preference ( employed: 1.232, p  < 0.01), with private sector employment moderating this effect ( private industry: 0.833, p  < 0.01). A GDP per capita effect was observed, with respondents in low (0.275, p  < 0.01) and medium (0.449, p  < 0.01) income countries less likely to cite leisure as being important in comparison with those from high GDP per capita countries. No effect was present for the religious belief variable. The Inglehart-Welzel category variables showed that respondents in Confucian (0.689, p  < 0.01) and Orthodox Europe (0.628, p  < 0.01) countries were substantially less likely to attach importance to leisure compared with those from the omitted ( English-Speaking ) category. The strongly positive effect associated with Catholic Europe (2.022, p  < 0.01) applies to the only country in the category, Andorra.

Politics was the value respondents were least likely to nominate as important. As was the case with friends and leisure , the higher education variable was positive and significant ( higher education : 1.220, p  < 0.01), indicating substantially higher odds of university graduates nominating political issues as being as important, with the effect being somewhat less pronounced, although still significant at the 0.01 level. The estimated odds ratio for gender (0.813, p  < 0.01) indicates that female respondents were less likely to share this view. Although a significant age effect was observed, the odds ratio ( Ln (age) : 1.187, p  < 0.01) indicated a very limited trend across the age spectrum. Marital status encompassed two significant effects, with respondents who were in relationships self-classified as living together (0.852, p  < 0.01) or separated (0.856, p  < 0.05), less likely to view politics as important in their value sets. Non-migrant , or native born, respondents were more likely to be engaged with political values than migrant respondents ( non-migrant : 1.276, p  < 0.01). Parental educational background was marginally statistically significant, although this depended on the gender of parents, with a statistically significant effect only observed among respondents whose fathers had higher education degrees ( father HE: 1.090, p  < 0.05).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, employment and household income status affected the probability of respondents nominating politics as important. Those in employment were less likely to nominate politics as important ( employed : 0.932, p  < 0.1), with a stronger effect demonstrated among those in the public sector given the relative reduced likelihood of private sector employees to nominate politics as an important value ( private industry : 0.882, p  < 0.01; private non-profit : 0.814, p  < 0.01). While no effects were determined in relation to social class , relative effects attributable to income level were observed, with respondents from low (0.899, p  < 0.05) and medium (0.852, p  < 0.01) income level households less likely than those from high -income households (the omitted category) to describe politics in their country as being important to them. As was the case with leisure , no effect was present in relation to the religious belief variable.

In terms of country effects, respondents from medium GDP per capita countries were much less likely than those from high GDP per capita to nominate politics as being important to them. The inclusion of the Inglehart-Welzel category variables indicated that all groups, except for the Protestant Europe (Germany) (higher probability) and Confucian (statistically insignificant) groups, had lower probabilities of their respondents nominating politics as important compared to the omitted English-Speaking category. This may be in part due to the timing of the survey in 2017, coming after the 2016 Brexit vote in the UK, and subsequent political shocks through Europe, and the US presidential election in 2016 (Inglehart and Norris, 2016 ).

After family , work was the value second most nominated as important by respondents, at around 91.6% of the main sample. No statistically significant effect was observed in relation to higher education , although an effect was seen for maternal higher education status ( mother HE : 0.740, p  < 0.01). The gender variable was also statistically insignificant in explaining patterns of work importance. The Ln (age) variable had a significant parameter estimate (0.382, p  < 0.01), somewhat capturing the effect observed in the data reported by generation in Table 1 , which showed a marked divergence in attachment to work across the generations due to their position in the employment life-cycle, with just 68.7% of members of the Post-War generation nominating work as being important, compared to 94.6% of Millennials. The marital status variables were insignificant with exception of widowed (0.680, p  < 0.01), with the other household composition variable, children , also having a statistically significant effect ( children : 1.093, p  < 0.01).

The strongest effect observed was in regard to employment status, with those in employment much more likely to nominate work as important ( employed : 3.716, p  < 0.01), although there was no observed difference by sector of employment The social class and income level variables were insignificant in explaining trends in this value.

Three other prominent effects were identified. Respondents from non-migrant or native-born backgrounds were more likely to exhibit a strong work preference ( non-migrant : 1.216, p  < 0.01). Similarly, respondents with religious beliefs were more likely to do so ( religious belief : 1.317, p  < 0.01). Finally, country effects were observed, with respondents from low and medium GDP per capita countries more likely to nominate work as being important compared to those from high GDP per capita countries ( low : 1.701, p  < 0.01; medium : 1.451, p  < 0.01). The Inglehart-Welzel category variables were all highly significant and uniformly indicated a greater probability of respondents nominating work as important compared with those in the omitted English-Speaking category.

Religion was rated as important by 70.3% of respondents, ranking fifth in the main sample. The most important variable in explaining religious preference as a value was stated religious belief ( religious belief : 7.685, p  < 0.01).

Higher education graduates were likely to be less religious ( higher education : 0.817, p  < 0.01). The negative impact of higher education attainment on religious belief in this sample is multi-generational, with parental higher education attainment being associated with lower odds that respondents viewed religion as important ( mother HE : 0.889, p  < 0.05; father HE : 0.904, p  < 0.05).

A gender effect was observed, indicating that women were more likely to nominate religion as important (gender: 1.188, p  < 0.01). Non-marital status was associated with a reduced probability of identification with religious values, with respondents in de facto relationships ( living together : 0.756, p  < 0.01) or involvement in relationship breakdowns ( divorced: 0.867, p  < 0.05; s eparated : 0.793, p  < 0.05), having reduced probabilities in comparison with married respondents. Respondents with children were more likely to cite religion as being important to them ( children : 1.129, p  < 0.01).

Citizenship and economic factors influenced respondent perceptions. Non-migrant status ( non-migrant : 0.827, p  < 0.01) was associated with a negative effect on respondents’ perceived importance of religion . Economic effects accorded with received evidence on religious participation. For instance, while private sector employment was associated with a reduction in the probability of religion belief compared to public sector participation ( private industry : 0.831, p  < 0.01), participation in the non-profit sector was associated with a substantially higher likelihood of placing importance on religion ( private non-profit : 1.340, p  < 0.01). Participation in the non-profit sector is consistent with the importance of helping others as a common theme in many religious traditions, and many scientific studies have found a link between religiosity and helping (Einolf, 2011 ). Household income level was negatively correlated with the dependent variable, with respondents from low and medium income levels more likely to ascribe importance to religion ( low : 1.171, p  < 0.01; medium : 1.103, p  < 0.1). Again, no effects were present for any of the social class variables.

At the country level, there was a significant and negative effect associated with middle-income countries ( middle GDP per capita : 0.612, p  < 0.01) and a range of effects across the Inglehart-Welzel category variables compared to the omitted English-Speaking category control group—notably, strong positive effects among respondents from countries in the African-Islamic (15.626, p  < 0.01), Latin America (6.920, p  < 0.01) and West & South Asia (3.060, p  < 0.01) categories.

The influence of higher education on values: evidence from sub-samples

The analysis of the main sample indicated that higher education attainment affected respondents’ views on the importance of certain values. This is summarised in Fig.  1 below, which graphs the odds ratios for the higher education variable in each value model in Table 3 .

Odds ratio for higher education in each value model, main sample. Estimated odds ratios and the upper and lower limits of the 0.95 confidence interval for the higher education variable in a model of each value. Darker shading indicates that the estimate of the odds ratio is statistically different from 1.000 at the 0.05 level, lighter shading that it is not

Higher education attainment was significant in increasing the odds that respondents viewed friends , leisure , and politics as important, and reducing the odds of them viewing religion as important, while being statistically insignificant in relation to family and work.

As noted in the discussion above, given the near universal importance attached to family in response data in the main sample, the insignificant impact of higher education attainment was not unexpected. That attitudes to work did not differ in a statistically significant way in this model is also perhaps not entirely unexpected considering over 91% of both higher education graduates (91.2%) and non-graduates (91.8%) nominated it as being important.

Moving to the four values for which a statistically significant effect was observed, it is tempting to view this as evidence for the secularising influence of higher education, with a reduction in the importance attached to religion , coupled with a tendency to view friends , leisure and politics as being important.

These effects were also tested in sub-samples by gender, generation and country grouping.

Splitting the main sample into gender sub-samples allowed us to examine the influence of higher education attainment by gender. The odds ratios for the higher education variable in the gender sub-sample models are represented in Fig. 2 below.

Odds ratio for higher education in each value model, gender sub-samples. Estimated odds ratios and the upper and lower limits of the 0.95 confidence interval for the higher education variable in a model of each value, estimated using the gender sub-samples. Darker shading indicates that the estimate of the odds ratio is statistically different from 1.000 at the 0.05 level, lighter shading that it is not

Following the findings from the main sample analysis, no statistically significant gender-specific effects were present in relation to the influence of higher education attainment in the family or work value models. The effect of higher education attainment was larger in determining the attitudes of female respondents to friends and leisure than was the case for males, while among male respondents, stronger effects were observed for religion —where a lower odds ratio indicated less likelihood that male respondents would nominate this value as important—and politics.

Turning to the generation sub-samples, again, there was no observed effect for higher education attainment in relation to family or work values, as seen in Fig. 3 . The value attached to family appeared to be universal across sub-samples, as indicated in the main sample averages reported in Table 2 . By comparison, work was the value that saw the most marked variations in terms of reported importance across generations. The absence of a higher education effect in generation sub-samples indicates that work attitudes reflect broader life-cycle and economic trends affecting entire cohorts, which are independent of higher education attainment.

Odds ratio for higher education in the value models, generation sub-samples. Estimated odds ratios and the upper and lower limits of the 0.95 confidence interval for the higher education variable in a model of each value, estimated using the generation sub-samples. Darker shading indicates that the estimate of the odds ratio is statistically different from 1.000 at the 0.05 level, lighter shading that it is not. * In the family model using the Post-War sub-sample, the upper and lower limits of the 0.95 confidence interval for the higher education variable were 25.043 to 0.274

Overall, there were no observed effects attributable to higher education among the Post-War generation, reflecting a combination of respondents’ shared experience of current life circumstances in post-retirement, the relatively low levels and therefore prominence of higher education attainment for that generation, and the still emerging influence of modernisation and globalisation in terms of value formation for them.

However, higher education attainment was significant in models of the four other values. It was positive and highly significant in explaining the probability of respondents attaching increased importance to friends and leisure. While these effects were comparable between the genders, they were differentiated across generations, with older generations exhibiting no significant effects. In relation to friends , sub-samples of respondents from the three younger generations— Boomers II, Generation X and Millennials —indicated that higher education graduates were around 33% more likely than non-graduates to nominate friends as important.

For leisure , a more pronounced effect was associated with higher education attainment in younger cohorts, with Generation X and Millennial graduates almost 40% more likely than non-graduates to nominate this value as important.

The overall sample means reported in Table 2 show a rising proportion of all respondents valuing politics as important in a comparison of generations, compared to a decline in the valuing of religion . From this, it appears that the level of engagement with politics, if not political institutions, is widespread in the younger generations, whereas declines in the reporting of religion as a value are increasingly concentrated among higher education graduates in generations where attainment is higher. This was borne out by re-estimation of the politics and religion value models using the generation sub-samples.

The results for politics were intuitive given the notion of cultural convergence between graduates and non-graduates over time. Again, there was an observed positive influence of higher education attainment on the odds of respondents in the main sample nominating politics as important, with no observed gender effects. However, there were pronounced effects present across the generations—from Boomers I to Millennials —but with the influence of higher education attainment waning. For instance, graduates in the Boomers I cohort were 50% more likely than non-graduates to place importance on politics , with this likelihood declining markedly across younger cohorts, reaching around 14% for Generation X graduates, with a marginal increase in effect for Millennials (15.5%, from: higher education : 1.155, p  < 0.01). This suggests a convergence between graduates and non-graduates on their views of the importance of politics.

The study confirmed the negative association between higher education attainment and religion observed in previous studies. The analysis using the generation sub-samples provided some evidence for an ongoing divergence between graduates and non-graduates in their views on the importance of religion —with Boomers I graduates 76% ( higher education : 0.763, p  < 0.01) as likely as non-graduates to nominate religion as important. By comparison, graduates among Millennials were less than 70% as likely as non-graduates in their cohort to do so. In effect, not only as the general importance of religion declined across the generations, but the divergence between graduates and non-graduates has also widened, although there is evidence that this has stabilised among younger generations ( higher education odds ratios— Generation X: 0.698, p  < 0.01; Millennials: 0.699, p  < 0.01).

Country grouping

To check the extent to which observed effects occurred across countries, an examination of country grouping sub-samples was undertaken, the first for a division of countries by GDP per capita ( low , middle and high ) groupings and the second by the stylised Inglehart-Welzel categories listed in Table 1 .

The analysis by GDP per capita groups confirmed that higher education was largely insignificant in explaining respondent’s perceived importance of the family and work values—with only one significant and seemingly anomalous result in estimation across 11 sub-samples in each case. Modelling of the four values with consistent effects attributable to higher education attainment— friends , leisure , politics and religion —resulted in broadly consistent findings across sub-samples (see Fig.  4 ). Of interest though was the seeming convergence between graduates and non-graduates’ valuation of religion as national income rises, perhaps attributable in part to both the decrease in religiosity with income (Inglehart and Baker, 2000 ) and also the tendency for higher education participation to increase with national income (Marginson, 2016 ; OECD, 2021 ).

Odds ratio for higher education in four value models, GDP per capita sub-samples. Estimated odds ratios and the upper and lower limits of the 0.95 confidence interval for the higher education variable across four values, estimated using the per capita GDP sub-samples. Darker shading indicates that the estimate of the odds ratio is statistically different from 1.000 at the 0.05 level, lighter shading that it is not

There were some notable insignificant effects, with no statistically significant difference between graduates and non-graduates in the low GDP per capita sub-sample on the importance placed on friends and politics , and in the high GDP per capita sub-sample, on leisure , suggesting that observable differences between graduates and non-graduates in the former tend to emerge as societies become richer, but dissipate in the latter. The response summary data in Table 2 indicates that leisure is a “normal” good or value at the national level, with an increasing percentage of respondents nominating it as important as GDP per capita increases—74.9% of respondents in low GDP per capita countries compared to 90.2% of respondents in high GDP per capita countries.

Estimation using the Inglehart-Welzel category sub-samples was also undertaken. This confirmed the finding from the main sample that higher education variable was largely insignificant in the family and work value models. In relation to the other four values, as per Fig.  5 , the sub-sample analysis showed a consistent, if somewhat dispersed, higher education effect across the Inglehart-Welzel categories. This was most notable in politics , where there was a statistically significant positive effect attributable to higher education in all sub-samples. Generally, the sub-samples confirm trends seen overall, with higher education attainment driving an increase in the reported valuation of friends , leisure and politics , at the expense of religion .

Odds ratio for higher education in four value models, by Inglehart-Welzel category, sub-samples. Estimated odds ratios for the higher education variable across four values, estimated using the Inglehart-Welzel category sub-samples. Darker shading indicates that the estimate of the odds ratio is statistically different from 1.000 at the 0.01 level; lighter shading, at the 0.05 level; and no shading, that the estimate is not statistically different from 1.000 at the 0.05 level

Widening higher education participation and attainment, leading to the emergence of HPS in middle- and high-income countries, has been a feature of modern economic development. It is a global phenomenon that is considered to exert influence on country-specific values beyond the influence of other factors, such as rising income levels and the emergence of global mass media.

In paper, we have examined the extent to which higher education attainment affects the importance people place on the six core values from the WVS. Attainment was not significant in explaining respondent views in relation to family , a value with near universal acceptance of being important, or work , another value with majority acceptance. The centrality of these values to respondent’s self-perceptions was uniform across gender and generation sub-samples, as well as cross-country sub-samples. However, statistically significant effects were present elsewhere, as higher education attainment increased the propensity of respondents to nominate friends , leisure and politics as important and lowered it in relation to religion .

The inclusion of a broad sample, one crossing gender, generations—and respondents’ position in the life-cycle—country income and cultural disposition indicated that this measured effect of higher education attainment was relatively consistent across values. This raises questions around the extent to which secularisation is an important facet of higher education’s influence on values, with graduates de-emphasising it in favour of relationships, leisure activities and political interests.

A question around convergence in values also emerges, whereby as higher education attainment has expanded—both across generations and the country income spectrum—the uniqueness of higher education graduates’ lived experiences is diminished relative to that of the general population. Evidence from the sub-samples organised by generation and country grouping provided some interesting questions for future research. In the generation sub-samples, where there was increasing levels of higher education attainment and greater exposure to modernist/globalist forces, among younger cohorts, there was evidence that differences between graduates and non-graduates have in fact widened in recent generations. For instance, the value graduates place on leisure and religion appears to diverge from that of non-graduates in Generation X and Millennials , with graduates having a higher odds of valuing leisure and lower odds of valuing religion than non-graduates, compared to the effects observed in earlier generations (that is, the odds ratios are diverging from 1.000 across generations in each instance).

In contrast, the analysis of the GDP per capita sub-samples indicated a convergence in responses for friends , leisure and religion across the country income spectrum, with the estimated odds ratio on the higher education variable converging on 1.000 in a comparison of results across the three groups ( low to high ). However, there was also evidence of a divergence between graduates and non-graduates on the importance attached to politics in this comparison.

Given the gradient in higher education participation and attainment in regard to generation and country income, it appears that a “scale effect” may apply to the influence of higher education on respondent opinions on the six values, with graduates seeing benefits in terms of the increased levels of leisure and friendships, a decreased connection to religion, but an increased importance attached to political issues and engagement, with the latter emerging as the key point of differentiation between graduates and non-graduates. However, this effect seems more pronounced across generations than across country income levels. This idea is worth investigating, accompanied by an extension of this analysis to other collected variables in the WVS, including respondents’ views on social questions and general views around political, economic and social organisation.

More generally, the examination of higher education’s impact on values needs to address the extent to which the era of HPS in higher education both addresses and reinforces social disadvantage and stratification.

Atherton, G., Dumangane, C., & Whitty, G. (2016). Charting equity in higher education: Drawing the global access map . Pearson.

Google Scholar  

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education . National Bureau of Economic Research.

Boero, G., Nathwani, T., Naylor, R. and Smith, J. (2021). Graduate earnings premia in the UK: Decline and fall? The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series . No. 1387. Department of Economics, The University of Warwick: Coventry

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human developments: Experiments by nature and design . Harvard University Press.

Brooks, R. (2007). Friends peers and higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28 (6), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701609912

Article   Google Scholar  

Buell, F. (1994). National culture and the new global system . The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Burda, M.C., Hamermesh, D.S. Weil, P. (2007). Total work, gender, and social norms. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2705. Institute for the Study of Labor: Bonn

Central Intelligence Agency. (2021). The World Factbook . https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/

Crivellaro, E. (2016). The college wage premium over time: Trends in Europe in the last 15 years. Inequality: Causes and Consequences (Research in Labor Economics, Vol. 43) . Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley. 287–328.

Einolf, C. J. (2011). The link between religion and helping others: The role of values, ideas, and language. Sociology of Religion, 72 (4), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srr017

Elias, P., & Purcell, K. (2004). Is mass higher education working? Evidence from the labour market experiences of recent graduates. National Institute Economic Review, 190 , 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/002795010419000107

Feldmann, H. (2020). Who favors education? Insights from the World Values Survey. Comparative Sociology, 19 (4–5), 509–541. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-BJA10018

Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49 (3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034

Glaeser, E. L., & Sacerdote, B. I. (2008). Education and religion. Journal of Human Capital, 2 (2), 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1086/590413

Gravett, K., & Winstone, N. E. (2020). Making connections: Authenticity and alienation within students’ relationships in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1842335

Hackett, C., McClendon, D., Potančoková, M., & Stonawski, M. (2016). Religion and Education Around the World . Pew Research Center.

Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., Puranen, B., et al. (Eds.). (2020). World values survey: Round seven – country-pooled datafile . Madrid: JD Systems Institute. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.1

Hartog, J., & Oosterbeek, H. (1998). Health, wealth and happiness: Why pursue a higher education? Economics of Education Review, 17 (3), 245–256.

Hillygus, D. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement. Political Behavior, 27 (1), 25–47.

Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP16–026. August 2016. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/trump-brexit-and-rise-populism-economic-have-nots-and-cultural-backlash#citation

Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65 (1), 19–51.

Kam, C. D., & Palmer, C. L. (2008). Reconsidering the effects of education on political participation. Journal of Politics., 70 (3), 612–631.

Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education., 72 , 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x

Marginson, S., & van der Wende. M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/173831738240 .

Marginson, S. (2018). High participation systems in higher education. in Cantwell, B., Marginson, S., and Smolentseva, A. (eds.). High participation systems in higher education .

Matei, M.-C., & Abrudan, M.-M. (2018). Are national cultures changing? Evidence from the World Values Survey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.04.047

Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America . University of Chicago Press.

OECD. (2009). OECD Social indicators: Society at a Glance . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2019). Higher education and the wider social and economic context. In Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance. Paris: OECD Publishing . https://doi.org/10.1787/15ff30ce-en

OECD. (2021). Education at a glance 2021: OECD indicators . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en

Perrin, A. J., & Gillis, A. (2019). How college makes citizens: Higher education experiences and political engagement. Socius, 5 , 1–16.

Picton, C., Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Hardworking, determined and happy’: First-year students understanding and experience of success. Higher Education Research & Development., 37 (6), 1260–1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1478803

Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of Society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life . Pine Forge Press.

Rosenbaum, J., & Rosenbaum, J. (2016). Money isn’t everything: Job satisfaction, nonmonetary job rewards, and sub-baccalaureate credentials. Research in Higher Education Journal , 30. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/162430.pdf .

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics., 87 (3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education . Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Trow, M. (2007). Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In J. F. Forrest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 243–280). Springer.

Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (ed.). Policies for Higher Education . OECD: Paris, 1–55.

UNESCO. (2020). Towards universal access to higher education: International trends . UNESCO (International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean). https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/eng/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Towards-Universal-Access-to-HE-Report.pdf

Wilkins, R. (2015), The household, income and labour dynamics in Australia survey: Selected findings from waves 1 to 12 , Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research: Melbourne, available at: http://melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/hilda/Stat_Report/statreport_2015.pdf

Yeganeh, H. (2017). Cultural modernization and work-related values and attitudes: An application of Inglehart’s theory. International Journal of Development Issues., 16 (2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDI-10-2016-0058

Yi, F. (2021). The rise and fall of Confucian family values . Institute of Family Studies. Web Blog (30 April 2021). https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-rise-and-fall-of-confucian-family-values

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia

School of Accounting, Economics & Finance, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Helen Cabalu

Leighton School of Business and Economics, Indiana University South Bend, South Bend, IN, USA

Vicar Valencia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Koshy .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

This paper uses unit record data from the World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017–2020). The authors have no financial or non-financial interests directly or non-directly related to work submitted for publication.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Koshy, P., Cabalu, H. & Valencia, V. Higher education and the importance of values: evidence from the World Values Survey. High Educ 85 , 1401–1426 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00896-8

Download citation

Accepted : 28 June 2022

Published : 02 August 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00896-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• World Values Survey
• Cross-country comparison
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Monash Online

Study at Monash

• Why Monash?
• Your study options
• Part-time study Part-time study
• Mature age learning
• Monash Access Program Monash Access Program
• Monash courses explained
• Undergraduate Undergraduate
• Double degrees
• Art, Design and Architecture Art, Design and Architecture
• Business Business
• Education Education
• Engineering Engineering
• Information Technology Information Technology
• Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences
• Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Science Science
• Graduate degrees Graduate degrees
• Research degrees Research degrees
• Professional Development Professional Development
• Your future career
• Alumni success stories Alumni success stories
• Your student experience
• Your learning environment Your learning environment
• Leadership Leadership
• Our rankings Our rankings
• Our locations
• Clayton campus Clayton campus
• Caulfield campus Caulfield campus
• Parkville campus Parkville campus
• Peninsula campus Peninsula campus
• Collins Street campus Collins Street campus
• Law Chambers Law Chambers
• Life in Melbourne
• Cost of living Cost of living
• Bringing family (child care) Bringing family (child care)
• Life in Melbourne video Life in Melbourne video
• Change of Preference entry options Change of Preference entry options
• Information for agents
• Becoming a licensed Monash agent Becoming a licensed Monash agent
• Contacts for agents Contacts for agents
• Information for parents
• The benefits of university education The benefits of university education
• Types of undergraduate courses Types of undergraduate courses
• Internal transfers for Monash students Internal transfers for Monash students
• Making the transition to university study Making the transition to university study
• Useful terms Useful terms
• Translated information for international students
• Latin America
• ¿Por qué elegir Monash University?
• Nuestros rankings
• Nuestra red global
• Monash y Latinoamérica
• Nuestra filosofía
• Vive y estudia en Melbourne, Australia
• ¿Dónde estamos?
• Apoyo a nuestros estudiantes
• Testimonios de alumnos
• Encuentra un programa de estudio
• Programas preparatorios o pre-universitarios y de inglés
• Programas de Grado/Licenciaturas
• Programas de posgrados y de investigación
• ¿Cómo solicitar la admisión a Monash University?
• Requisitos mínimos de entrada
• ¿Cómo presentar la solicitud de admisión a Monash University?
• ¿Cómo solicitar la visa de estudiante?
• Después que presentaste tu solicitud de admisión
• Agentes en países latinoamericanos
• Becas y Soporte Financiero
• Endeavour Awards
• Conicyt Becas Chile
• HonduFuturo
• Guatefuturo
• Testimonios de alumnos Testimonios de alumnos
• Contáctenos Contáctenos
• Information for high-achieving school students
• Monash Scholars
• Monash Scholars frequently asked questions Monash Scholars frequently asked questions
• Operoo FAQs Operoo FAQs
• Monash Scholars events
• Year 11 - Networking and Effective Communication
• Monash Scholars Application Intake
• Monash Scholars Successful Application
• Monash Scholars Year 11 Knowledge Summit
• Monash Scholars - What it takes to be a Doctor
• Monash Scholars Year 12 Beat Procrastination! Conquer Time! Webinar
• Year 11 Monash Scholars: Choose Your Own Adventure
• Monash Scholars Year 10 Event: Preparing for Year 11 and 12
• Year 12 Scholars - Motivating Your Mind
• Monash Scholars - What it takes to build a career with Economics
• Year 11 and 12 Study Skills Webinar - Study Hacks for Academic Success
• Monash Scholars - What it takes to make data your career!
• Monash Scholars - What it takes to be a Lawyer!
• Information for schools and teachers
• School visit booking form School visit booking form
• Schools and teacher engagement Schools and teacher engagement
• Domestic student recruitment team Domestic student recruitment team
• International Student Recruitment Team International Student Recruitment Team
• Events and programs Events and programs
• Monash Update Monash Update
• Tertiary Information Service Tertiary Information Service
• Careers Practitioners Seminar Careers Practitioners Seminar
• Monash course guides Monash course guides
• Information for interstate students studying in Australia Information for interstate students studying in Australia
• Information for international students studying at Australian secondary schools Information for international students studying at Australian secondary schools
• Information for students from underrepresented backgrounds Information for students from underrepresented backgrounds
• Student life
• Clubs and societies Clubs and societies
• Sport at Monash Sport at Monash
• Services for students
• Rural student services Rural student services
• International students International students
• Accommodation Accommodation
• Getting started Getting started
• Find a course
• Accounting - B2029 Accounting - B2029
• Accounting - B6038 Accounting - B6038
• Actuarial Science - B2033 Actuarial Science - B2033
• Actuarial Science and Actuarial Studies - B6060 Actuarial Science and Actuarial Studies - B6060
• Actuarial Studies - B6014 Actuarial Studies - B6014
• Addictive Behaviours - M4018 Addictive Behaviours - M4018
• Addictive Behaviours - M5022 Addictive Behaviours - M5022
• Addictive Behaviours - M6014 Addictive Behaviours - M6014
• Addressing the Needs of EAL Students in Primary Classrooms - PDD1008 Addressing the Needs of EAL Students in Primary Classrooms - PDD1008
• Advanced Clinical Anatomy Dissection Masterclass - PDM1165 Advanced Clinical Anatomy Dissection Masterclass - PDM1165
• Advanced Clinical Nursing - M6031 Advanced Clinical Nursing - M6031
• Advanced Coaching Skills for Educational Leadership - PDD1078 Advanced Coaching Skills for Educational Leadership - PDD1078
• Advanced Engineering - E6017 Advanced Engineering - E6017
• Advanced Executive Diabetes Education Program - PDM1178 Advanced Executive Diabetes Education Program - PDM1178
• Advanced Finance - B6039 Advanced Finance - B6039
• Advanced Health Care Practice - M6001 Advanced Health Care Practice - M6001
• Advanced Nursing - M6006 Advanced Nursing - M6006
• Aeromedical Retrieval - M4022 Aeromedical Retrieval - M4022
• An Introduction to Using Research to Inform Educational Practice - PDD1081 An Introduction to Using Research to Inform Educational Practice - PDD1081
• An evidence-based approach to managing Polycystic Ovary Syndrome - PDM1176 An evidence-based approach to managing Polycystic Ovary Syndrome - PDM1176
• Analytics - B4008 Analytics - B4008
• Analytics - B6028 Analytics - B6028
• Applied Behaviour Analysis - D6015 Applied Behaviour Analysis - D6015
• Applied Data Science - C4012 Applied Data Science - C4012
• Applied Data Science - C5003 Applied Data Science - C5003
• Applied Data Science - C6011 Applied Data Science - C6011
• Applied Data Science - S2010 Applied Data Science - S2010
• Applied Data Science Advanced - S3003 Applied Data Science Advanced - S3003
• Applied Econometrics - B6036 Applied Econometrics - B6036
• Applied Econometrics and Advanced Finance - B6043 Applied Econometrics and Advanced Finance - B6043
• Applied Linguistics - A4016 Applied Linguistics - A4016
• Applied Linguistics - A6001 Applied Linguistics - A6001
• Applied Marketing - B6042 Applied Marketing - B6042
• Applied Mental Health - M4039 Applied Mental Health - M4039
• Applied Mental Health - M6042 Applied Mental Health - M6042
• Applying Behavioural Science to Create Change - PDU1004 Applying Behavioural Science to Create Change - PDU1004
• Architectural Design - F2001 Architectural Design - F2001
• Architectural Design and Architecture - F6003 Architectural Design and Architecture - F6003
• Architecture - F6001 Architecture - F6001
• Art and Design - 2613 Art and Design - 2613
• Art, Design and Architecture - 1322 Art, Design and Architecture - 1322
• Artificial Intelligence - C4008 Artificial Intelligence - C4008
• Artificial Intelligence - C6007 Artificial Intelligence - C6007
• Arts - 0020 Arts - 0020
• Arts - 0498 Arts - 0498
• Arts - 2618 Arts - 2618
• Arts - 2695 Arts - 2695
• Arts - A2000 Arts - A2000
• Arts - A3701 Arts - A3701
• Arts - Education - 2645 Arts - Education - 2645
• Arts Research Training - A7001 Arts Research Training - A7001
• Arts and Criminology - A2012 Arts and Criminology - A2012
• Arts and Fine Art - A2005 Arts and Fine Art - A2005
• Arts and Global Studies - A2018 Arts and Global Studies - A2018
• Arts and Health Sciences - A2017 Arts and Health Sciences - A2017
• Arts and Media Communication - A2019 Arts and Media Communication - A2019
• Arts and Music - A2004 Arts and Music - A2004
• Assessment in Health Professions Education - PDM1097 Assessment in Health Professions Education - PDM1097
• Australian Law - L5002 Australian Law - L5002
• Banking and Finance - B2042 Banking and Finance - B2042
• Banking and Finance - B6004 Banking and Finance - B6004
• Behaviour Change and Implementation Science for Health and Social Care Improvement - PDM1155 Behaviour Change and Implementation Science for Health and Social Care Improvement - PDM1155
• Bioethics - A4003 Bioethics - A4003
• Bioethics - A6002 Bioethics - A6002
• Biomedical Science - 2977 Biomedical Science - 2977
• Biomedical Science - M2003 Biomedical Science - M2003
• Biomedical Science - M3702 Biomedical Science - M3702
• Biomedical and Health Science - M6003 Biomedical and Health Science - M6003
• Biostatistics - M5017 Biostatistics - M5017
• Biostatistics - M6025 Biostatistics - M6025
• Biostatistics for Clinical and Public Health Research - PDM1041 Biostatistics for Clinical and Public Health Research - PDM1041
• Biotechnology - M6030 Biotechnology - M6030
• Business - B2000 Business - B2000
• Business - B4001 Business - B4001
• Business - B5001 Business - B5001
• Business - B6005 Business - B6005
• Business - Business - 2607 Business - Business - 2607
• Business - Commerce - 2608 Business - Commerce - 2608
• Business - Education - 2647 Business - Education - 2647
• Business Administration (Digital) - B4009 Business Administration (Digital) - B4009
• Business Administration (Digital) - B6029 Business Administration (Digital) - B6029
• Business Administration - B2007 Business Administration - B2007
• Business Analytics - B6022 Business Analytics - B6022
• Business Information Systems - C4005 Business Information Systems - C4005
• Business Information Systems - C6003 Business Information Systems - C6003
• Business Management - B4006 Business Management - B4006
• Business Management - B6026 Business Management - B6026
• Business and Accounting - B2040 Business and Accounting - B2040
• Business and Arts - B2019 Business and Arts - B2019
• Business and Banking and Finance - B2035 Business and Banking and Finance - B2035
• Business and Economics - 0029 Business and Economics - 0029
• Business and Information Technology - B2017 Business and Information Technology - B2017
• Business and International Business - B2041 Business and International Business - B2041
• Business and Marketing - B2037 Business and Marketing - B2037
• Business and Media Communication - B2028 Business and Media Communication - B2028
• Civics and Citizenship Professional Learning Program for Teachers - PDA1030 Civics and Citizenship Professional Learning Program for Teachers - PDA1030
• Clear Leadership - PDB1028 Clear Leadership - PDB1028
• Climate change and business risk - PDU1001 Climate change and business risk - PDU1001
• Clinical Embryology - M6010 Clinical Embryology - M6010
• Clinical Neuropsychology - 4586 Clinical Neuropsychology - 4586
• Clinical Pharmacy (Aged Care) - P4004 Clinical Pharmacy (Aged Care) - P4004
• Clinical Pharmacy - P6002 Clinical Pharmacy - P6002
• Clinical Psychology - 4585 Clinical Psychology - 4585
• Clinical Psychology - M6046 Clinical Psychology - M6046
• Clinical Registry Data Analysis Using Stata - PDM1119 Clinical Registry Data Analysis Using Stata - PDM1119
• Clinical Research - M6028 Clinical Research - M6028
• Clinical Simulation - M4008 Clinical Simulation - M4008
• Clinical Simulation - M6039 Clinical Simulation - M6039
• Clinical Trial Fundamentals (Online) - PDM1129 Clinical Trial Fundamentals (Online) - PDM1129
• Clinical Trial Fundamentals - PDM1120 Clinical Trial Fundamentals - PDM1120
• Clinical Trials in Practice - PDM1163 Clinical Trials in Practice - PDM1163
• Coding Boot Camp - PDC1001 Coding Boot Camp - PDC1001
• Commerce - B2001 Commerce - B2001
• Commerce - B3701 Commerce - B3701
• Commerce - B6023 Commerce - B6023
• Commerce and Actuarial Science - B2030 Commerce and Actuarial Science - B2030
• Commerce and Arts - B2020 Commerce and Arts - B2020
• Commerce and Biomedical Science - B2021 Commerce and Biomedical Science - B2021
• Commerce and Computer Science - B2008 Commerce and Computer Science - B2008
• Commerce and Economics - B2032 Commerce and Economics - B2032
• Commerce and Finance - B2043 Commerce and Finance - B2043
• Commerce and Global Studies - B2006 Commerce and Global Studies - B2006
• Commerce and Information Technology - B2025 Commerce and Information Technology - B2025
• Commerce and Music - B2022 Commerce and Music - B2022
• Commerce and Politics, Philosophy and Economics - B2047 Commerce and Politics, Philosophy and Economics - B2047
• Commerce and Science - B2023 Commerce and Science - B2023
• Communications and Media Studies - A4007 Communications and Media Studies - A4007
• Communications and Media Studies - A6003 Communications and Media Studies - A6003
• Compassion Training for Healthcare Workers - PDM1150 Compassion Training for Healthcare Workers - PDM1150
• Computer Science - C2001 Computer Science - C2001
• Computer Science - C3702 Computer Science - C3702
• Computer Science - C4009 Computer Science - C4009
• Computer Science - C5008 Computer Science - C5008
• Computer Science - C6008 Computer Science - C6008
• Computer Science Advanced - C3001 Computer Science Advanced - C3001
• Corporate and Financial Regulation - L4008 Corporate and Financial Regulation - L4008
• Counselling - D4002 Counselling - D4002
• Counselling - D6003 Counselling - D6003
• Court Interpreting - PDA1011 Court Interpreting - PDA1011
• Court Interpreting in Family Violence Matters - PDA1027 Court Interpreting in Family Violence Matters - PDA1027
• Creative writing - 3940 Creative writing - 3940
• Criminology - A2008 Criminology - A2008
• Criminology and Information Technology - A2009 Criminology and Information Technology - A2009
• Criminology and Policing - A2014 Criminology and Policing - A2014
• Cultural and Creative Industries - A4017 Cultural and Creative Industries - A4017
• Cultural and Creative Industries - A6004 Cultural and Creative Industries - A6004
• Cybersecurity - C4001 Cybersecurity - C4001
• Cybersecurity - C6002 Cybersecurity - C6002
• Cybersecurity Boot Camp - PDC1004 Cybersecurity Boot Camp - PDC1004
• Dare To Lead™ - PDB1128 Dare To Lead™ - PDB1128
• Data Analytics Boot Camp - PDC1002 Data Analytics Boot Camp - PDC1002
• Data Science - C4004 Data Science - C4004
• Data Science - C6004 Data Science - C6004
• Design (by Research) - 3111 Design (by Research) - 3111
• Design - F2010 Design - F2010
• Design - F6002 Design - F6002
• Design and Business - F2011 Design and Business - F2011
• Design and Information Technology - F2012 Design and Information Technology - F2012
• Design and Media Communication - F2009 Design and Media Communication - F2009
• Designing and Using Surveys and Questionnaires for Clinical Practice - PDM1123 Designing and Using Surveys and Questionnaires for Clinical Practice - PDM1123
• Digital Health in Low Resource Settings - PDM1154 Digital Health in Low Resource Settings - PDM1154
• Digital marketing boot camp - PDA1029 Digital marketing boot camp - PDA1029
• Driving Change: Harnessing Implementation Science for Healthcare Improvement - PDM1175 Driving Change: Harnessing Implementation Science for Healthcare Improvement - PDM1175
• Early Childhood Education - D4011 Early Childhood Education - D4011
• Early Childhood Education - D5005 Early Childhood Education - D5005
• Economic Analytics - B5007 Economic Analytics - B5007
• Economics - B2031 Economics - B2031
• Economics - B6030 Economics - B6030
• Education - 0079 Education - 0079
• Education - D3001 Education - D3001
• Education - D6002 Education - D6002
• Education Interpreting - PDA1012 Education Interpreting - PDA1012
• Education Studies - D4001 Education Studies - D4001
• Education and Arts - D3002 Education and Arts - D3002
• Education and Business - D3007 Education and Business - D3007
• Education and Fine Art - D3006 Education and Fine Art - D3006
• Education and Music - D3004 Education and Music - D3004
• Education and Science - D3005 Education and Science - D3005
• Educational Design - D4008 Educational Design - D4008
• Educational Leadership - D6013 Educational Leadership - D6013
• Educational Research - D4004 Educational Research - D4004
• Educational and Developmental Psychology - 3736 Educational and Developmental Psychology - 3736
• Educational and Developmental Psychology - D6007 Educational and Developmental Psychology - D6007
• Educational and Developmental Psychology Advanced - D6016 Educational and Developmental Psychology Advanced - D6016
• Embedding Research Use in Educational Practice - PDD1086 Embedding Research Use in Educational Practice - PDD1086
• Employment Regulation - L4010 Employment Regulation - L4010
• Engaging in Positive Behaviour Support Practices - PDD1071 Engaging in Positive Behaviour Support Practices - PDD1071
• Engaging with others to (re)design approaches to health and social care - PDM1158 Engaging with others to (re)design approaches to health and social care - PDM1158
• Engineering (Industry) - E8011 Engineering (Industry) - E8011
• Engineering - 2612 Engineering - 2612
• Engineering - 3291 Engineering - 3291
• Engineering - E3001 Engineering - E3001
• Engineering - E6014 Engineering - E6014
• Engineering Science (Research) - 3292 Engineering Science (Research) - 3292
• Engineering and Architectural Design - E3009 Engineering and Architectural Design - E3009
• Engineering and Arts - E3002 Engineering and Arts - E3002
• Engineering and Biomedical Science - E3004 Engineering and Biomedical Science - E3004
• Engineering and Commerce - E3005 Engineering and Commerce - E3005
• Engineering and Computer Science - E3010 Engineering and Computer Science - E3010
• Engineering and Design - E3012 Engineering and Design - E3012
• Engineering and Engineering - E6003 Engineering and Engineering - E6003
• Engineering and Information Technology - E3011 Engineering and Information Technology - E3011
• Engineering and Pharmaceutical Science - E3008 Engineering and Pharmaceutical Science - E3008
• Engineering and Science - E3007 Engineering and Science - E3007
• Enterprise - B6034 Enterprise - B6034
• Environment and Sustainability (Double Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong University) - S6009 Environment and Sustainability (Double Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong University) - S6009
• Environment and Sustainability - S6002 Environment and Sustainability - S6002
• Epidemiology - M4028 Epidemiology - M4028
• Epidemiology - M4033 Epidemiology - M4033
• Ethics and Good Research Practice - PDM1046 Ethics and Good Research Practice - PDM1046
• Ethics for Interpreters - PDA1013 Ethics for Interpreters - PDA1013
• Ethics for Translators - PDA1014 Ethics for Translators - PDA1014
• Evaluating Public Health Programs - PDM1156 Evaluating Public Health Programs - PDM1156
• Evolving Health Leadership - PDM1145 Evolving Health Leadership - PDM1145
• Executive Ethics - PDN1002 Executive Ethics - PDN1002
• Executive Presence - PDB1029 Executive Presence - PDB1029
• Extending Mathematical Understanding (EMU) – Early Years (Prep to Year 2) Intervention Specialist Teacher course - PDD1036 Extending Mathematical Understanding (EMU) – Early Years (Prep to Year 2) Intervention Specialist Teacher course - PDD1036
• Extending Mathematical Understanding (EMU) – Intervention Specialist Teacher Ongoing Professional Learning - PDD1042 Extending Mathematical Understanding (EMU) – Intervention Specialist Teacher Ongoing Professional Learning - PDD1042
• Extending Mathematical Understanding (EMU) – Middle Years (Years 3 to 6) Intervention Specialist Teacher course - PDD1037 Extending Mathematical Understanding (EMU) – Middle Years (Years 3 to 6) Intervention Specialist Teacher course - PDD1037
• Family Violence Prevention - A4005 Family Violence Prevention - A4005
• Family Violence Prevention - A5005 Family Violence Prevention - A5005
• FinTech Boot Camp - PDC1003 FinTech Boot Camp - PDC1003
• Finance - B2034 Finance - B2034
• Financial Mathematics - S6001 Financial Mathematics - S6001
• Fine Art - 2953 Fine Art - 2953
• Fine Art - F2003 Fine Art - F2003
• Fine Art - F3701 Fine Art - F3701
• Fine Art and Business - F2007 Fine Art and Business - F2007
• Fine Art and Information Technology - F2006 Fine Art and Information Technology - F2006
• Fine Art and Media Communication - F2013 Fine Art and Media Communication - F2013
• Food Science and Agribusiness - S4003 Food Science and Agribusiness - S4003
• Food Science and Agribusiness - S6004 Food Science and Agribusiness - S6004
• Forensic Medicine - M6009 Forensic Medicine - M6009
• Forensic Nursing and Midwifery - M4041 Forensic Nursing and Midwifery - M4041
• Forensic and Legal Studies - M4037 Forensic and Legal Studies - M4037
• Forensic and Legal Studies - M5031 Forensic and Legal Studies - M5031
• Fundamentals of Clinical Coaching (FCC) - PDM1160 Fundamentals of Clinical Coaching (FCC) - PDM1160
• Fundamentals of Digital Health - PDM1130 Fundamentals of Digital Health - PDM1130
• Fundamentals of teaching in the health sciences - PDM1173 Fundamentals of teaching in the health sciences - PDM1173
• Gender and family violence - PDA1003 Gender and family violence - PDA1003
• Gender, family violence and criminal justice responses - PDA1004 Gender, family violence and criminal justice responses - PDA1004
• Gender-Sensitive Training for Inclusive Placemaking - PDF1002 Gender-Sensitive Training for Inclusive Placemaking - PDF1002
• Genome Analytics - S4007 Genome Analytics - S4007
• Genome Analytics - S5008 Genome Analytics - S5008
• Genome Analytics - S6005 Genome Analytics - S6005
• Getting Ready in Numeracy (GRIN®) - PDD1041 Getting Ready in Numeracy (GRIN®) - PDD1041
• Global Business - B6040 Global Business - B6040
• Global Business and Accounting - B6046 Global Business and Accounting - B6046
• Global Business and Advanced Finance - B6048 Global Business and Advanced Finance - B6048
• Global Business and Applied Econometrics - B6045 Global Business and Applied Econometrics - B6045
• Global Business and Applied Marketing - B6047 Global Business and Applied Marketing - B6047
• Global Business and Management - B6049 Global Business and Management - B6049
• Global Business and Regulation and Compliance - B6044 Global Business and Regulation and Compliance - B6044
• Global Executive Business Administration - B6017 Global Executive Business Administration - B6017
• Global Executive Business Administration and Business - B6054 Global Executive Business Administration and Business - B6054
• Global Studies - A2001 Global Studies - A2001
• Global Studies and Information Technology - A2015 Global Studies and Information Technology - A2015
• Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technologies (Dble Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong Uni) - S6008 Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technologies (Dble Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong Uni) - S6008
• Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technologies - S4005 Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technologies - S4005
• Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technologies - S6006 Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technologies - S6006
• Grid Forming Inverters - PDE1003 Grid Forming Inverters - PDE1003
• Grid Integration and GPS Studies of Renewables - PDE1001 Grid Integration and GPS Studies of Renewables - PDE1001
• Health Administration - M4005 Health Administration - M4005
• Health Administration - M6007 Health Administration - M6007
• Health Data Analytics - M6036 Health Data Analytics - M6036
• Health Interpreting - PDA1020 Health Interpreting - PDA1020
• Health Management - M4006 Health Management - M4006
• Health Management - M5007 Health Management - M5007
• Health Management - M6008 Health Management - M6008
• Health Professions Education - M4009 Health Professions Education - M4009
• Health Professions Education - M6038 Health Professions Education - M6038
• Health Promotion - M4034 Health Promotion - M4034
• Health Sciences - M2014 Health Sciences - M2014
• Health Sciences - M3706 Health Sciences - M3706
• Health and Conflict - PDM1162 Health and Conflict - PDM1162
• Health and family violence - PDA1006 Health and family violence - PDA1006
• Higher Education - D0501 Higher Education - D0501
• Human Resource Management - B6035 Human Resource Management - B6035
• Human Rights - L4007 Human Rights - L4007
• Implementing Improvement In Healthcare - PDM1152 Implementing Improvement In Healthcare - PDM1152
• Implementing Improvement in Healthcare Program - 12 month Teaching & Coaching - PDM1153 Implementing Improvement in Healthcare Program - 12 month Teaching & Coaching - PDM1153
• Implementing Innovation in Healthcare - PDM1133 Implementing Innovation in Healthcare - PDM1133
• Inclusive Education - D6014 Inclusive Education - D6014
• Indigenous Business Leadership - B6024 Indigenous Business Leadership - B6024
• Information Technology - 0190 Information Technology - 0190
• Information Technology - 2638 Information Technology - 2638
• Information Technology - C2000 Information Technology - C2000
• Information Technology - C4003 Information Technology - C4003
• Information Technology - C6001 Information Technology - C6001
• Information Technology and Arts - C2002 Information Technology and Arts - C2002
• Information Technology and Science - C2003 Information Technology and Science - C2003
• Innovation for Sustainability - S4006 Innovation for Sustainability - S4006
• Intermediate Community Interpreting Practice - PDA1016 Intermediate Community Interpreting Practice - PDA1016
• Intermediate/Advanced Interpreting in Family Violence Settings - PDA1019 Intermediate/Advanced Interpreting in Family Violence Settings - PDA1019
• International Business - B2005 International Business - B2005
• International Business and Arts - B2038 International Business and Arts - B2038
• International Development Practice (Double Masters with Tata Institute of Social Sciences) - A6038 International Development Practice (Double Masters with Tata Institute of Social Sciences) - A6038
• International Development Practice - A4012 International Development Practice - A4012
• International Development Practice - A6006 International Development Practice - A6006
• International Relations (Double Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong University) - A6013 International Relations (Double Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong University) - A6013
• International Relations - A2020 International Relations - A2020
• International Relations - A4006 International Relations - A4006
• International Relations - A6010 International Relations - A6010
• International Relations and Journalism - A6011 International Relations and Journalism - A6011
• International Sustainable Tourism Management (Double Masters International) - A6040 International Sustainable Tourism Management (Double Masters International) - A6040
• International Sustainable Tourism Management - A4009 International Sustainable Tourism Management - A4009
• International Sustainable Tourism Management - A6012 International Sustainable Tourism Management - A6012
• Interpreting and Translation Studies (Double Masters International) - A6023 Interpreting and Translation Studies (Double Masters International) - A6023
• Interpreting and Translation Studies - A6007 Interpreting and Translation Studies - A6007
• Interpreting in Crisis Situations - PDA1021 Interpreting in Crisis Situations - PDA1021
• Introduction to Clinical Research and Evidence Based Practice - PDM1139 Introduction to Clinical Research and Evidence Based Practice - PDM1139
• Introduction to Community Interpreting Practice - PDA1015 Introduction to Community Interpreting Practice - PDA1015
• Introduction to Data Analysis: SPSS Without Tears - PDM1144 Introduction to Data Analysis: SPSS Without Tears - PDM1144
• Introduction to Education Research in the Health Professions and Sciences - PDM1167 Introduction to Education Research in the Health Professions and Sciences - PDM1167
• Introduction to Interpreting in Family Violence Settings - PDA1018 Introduction to Interpreting in Family Violence Settings - PDA1018
• Introduction to Paediatric Nutrition for Health Professionals - PDM1081 Introduction to Paediatric Nutrition for Health Professionals - PDM1081
• Introduction to Stata - PDM1033 Introduction to Stata - PDM1033
• Introduction to Translation Practice - PDA1017 Introduction to Translation Practice - PDA1017
• Journalism (Double Masters with University of Warwick) - A6015 Journalism (Double Masters with University of Warwick) - A6015
• Journalism - A4013 Journalism - A4013
• Journalism - A6008 Journalism - A6008
• Juris Doctor - L6005 Juris Doctor - L6005
• Languages - A0501 Languages - A0501
• Law - 0069 Law - 0069
• Laws - L3001 Laws - L3001
• Laws - L4005 Laws - L4005
• Laws - L5001 Laws - L5001
• Laws - L6004 Laws - L6004
• Laws and Arts - L3003 Laws and Arts - L3003
• Laws and Biomedical Science - L3004 Laws and Biomedical Science - L3004
• Laws and Commerce - L3005 Laws and Commerce - L3005
• Laws and Computer Science - L3011 Laws and Computer Science - L3011
• Laws and Criminology - L3012 Laws and Criminology - L3012
• Laws and Engineering - L3002 Laws and Engineering - L3002
• Laws and Global Studies - L3009 Laws and Global Studies - L3009
• Laws and Information Technology - L3010 Laws and Information Technology - L3010
• Laws and Music - L3006 Laws and Music - L3006
• Laws and Politics, Philosophy and Economics - L3013 Laws and Politics, Philosophy and Economics - L3013
• Laws and Science - L3007 Laws and Science - L3007
• Leading Collaboration through STEM Education - PDD1049 Leading Collaboration through STEM Education - PDD1049
• Learning Analytics - C4011 Learning Analytics - C4011
• Learning and Teaching with Simulation - PDM1115 Learning and Teaching with Simulation - PDM1115
• Learning conversations: Feedback and debriefing practices in clinical simulation - PDM1106 Learning conversations: Feedback and debriefing practices in clinical simulation - PDM1106
• Legal Interpreting - PDA1010 Legal Interpreting - PDA1010
• Legal Studies - L4004 Legal Studies - L4004
• Legal Studies - L5004 Legal Studies - L5004
• Legal Studies - L6013 Legal Studies - L6013
• Liberal Arts - A0502 Liberal Arts - A0502
• MCHRI Women In Leadership Program - PDM1148 MCHRI Women In Leadership Program - PDM1148
• MRI PRO - Advanced Reading of Prostate MRI - PDM1159 MRI PRO - Advanced Reading of Prostate MRI - PDM1159
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging - M4019 Magnetic Resonance Imaging - M4019
• Maintaining a Mindful Life - PDM1134 Maintaining a Mindful Life - PDM1134
• Management - B6041 Management - B6041
• Management and Accounting - B6053 Management and Accounting - B6053
• Management and Advanced Finance - B6051 Management and Advanced Finance - B6051
• Management and Applied Marketing - B6052 Management and Applied Marketing - B6052
• Management and Regulation and Compliance - B6050 Management and Regulation and Compliance - B6050
• Marketing - B2036 Marketing - B2036
• Marketing and Arts - B2039 Marketing and Arts - B2039
• Marketing and Digital Communications - A4014 Marketing and Digital Communications - A4014
• Marketing and Digital Communications - A6032 Marketing and Digital Communications - A6032
• Marketing and Media Communication - B2044 Marketing and Media Communication - B2044
• Mathematics - S6003 Mathematics - S6003
• Media Communication - A2002 Media Communication - A2002
• Medical Science - M3701 Medical Science - M3701
• Medical Science and Medicine - M6011 Medical Science and Medicine - M6011
• Medical Science and Medicine - M6018 Medical Science and Medicine - M6018
• Medical Ultrasound - M6005 Medical Ultrasound - M6005
• Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences - 0047 Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences - 0047
• Mental Health Interpreting - PDA1024 Mental Health Interpreting - PDA1024
• Mental Health Science - M6022 Mental Health Science - M6022
• Mindful Critical Thinking - PDA1032 Mindful Critical Thinking - PDA1032
• Mixed Methods Education Research in Health Professions and Sciences - PDM1166 Mixed Methods Education Research in Health Professions and Sciences - PDM1166
• Monash Access Program - D0001 Monash Access Program - D0001
• Monash Sustainable Development Institute - 2710 Monash Sustainable Development Institute - 2710
• Monash University Accident Research Centre - 2602 Monash University Accident Research Centre - 2602
• Monash University Foundation Year - Extended - 3633 Monash University Foundation Year - Extended - 3633
• Monash University Foundation Year - Intensive - 3622 Monash University Foundation Year - Intensive - 3622
• Monash University Foundation Year - Standard - 3611 Monash University Foundation Year - Standard - 3611
• Music - 4088 Music - 4088
• Music - A2003 Music - A2003
• Music - A3702 Music - A3702
• My Allied Health Space - PDM1137 My Allied Health Space - PDM1137
• My Professional Practice Space - PDM1151 My Professional Practice Space - PDM1151
• NHET-SIM - PDM1007 NHET-SIM - PDM1007
• Negotiations and Influence - PDB1065 Negotiations and Influence - PDB1065
• Nursing - M2006 Nursing - M2006
• Nursing - M3704 Nursing - M3704
• Nursing Practice - M6016 Nursing Practice - M6016
• Nursing and Midwifery - M3007 Nursing and Midwifery - M3007
• Nutrition Science - M2001 Nutrition Science - M2001
• Nutrition and Dietetics - M6002 Nutrition and Dietetics - M6002
• Occupational Therapy - M3001 Occupational Therapy - M3001
• Occupational Therapy Practice - M6017 Occupational Therapy Practice - M6017
• Occupational and Environmental Health - M5018 Occupational and Environmental Health - M5018
• Occupational and Environmental Health - M6026 Occupational and Environmental Health - M6026
• On the face of it – Understanding AHPRA’s guidelines on mental health assessment of cosmetic - PDM1181 On the face of it – Understanding AHPRA’s guidelines on mental health assessment of cosmetic - PDM1181
• Online Counselling: Concepts, Ethics and Skills - PDD1070 Online Counselling: Concepts, Ethics and Skills - PDD1070
• Paramedic Practitioner - M6048 Paramedic Practitioner - M6048
• Paramedicine - M2011 Paramedicine - M2011
• Paramedicine - M3707 Paramedicine - M3707
• Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for clinical registries - PDM1146 Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for clinical registries - PDM1146
• Perioperative Medicine - M4029 Perioperative Medicine - M4029
• Perioperative Medicine - M6033 Perioperative Medicine - M6033
• Personal Injury Management - M4035 Personal Injury Management - M4035
• Personal Injury Management - M5030 Personal Injury Management - M5030
• Personal Injury Scheme Evaluation - PDM1168 Personal Injury Scheme Evaluation - PDM1168
• Personal Injury Strategic Claims Management - PDM1164 Personal Injury Strategic Claims Management - PDM1164
• Pharmaceutical Science - P2001 Pharmaceutical Science - P2001
• Pharmaceutical Science - P3701 Pharmaceutical Science - P3701
• Pharmaceutical Science - P6005 Pharmaceutical Science - P6005
• Pharmaceutical Science Advanced - P3002 Pharmaceutical Science Advanced - P3002
• Pharmacy - P3001 Pharmacy - P3001
• Pharmacy - P6001 Pharmacy - P6001
• Pharmacy Practice - P4001 Pharmacy Practice - P4001
• Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences - 2625 Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences - 2625
• Philosophy (IITB-Monash) - 4706 Philosophy (IITB-Monash) - 4706
• Philosophy (Joint Award with Southeast University) - 4703 Philosophy (Joint Award with Southeast University) - 4703
• Philosophy (Joint award with the University of Warwick) - 3547 Philosophy (Joint award with the University of Warwick) - 3547
• Philosophy (Monash - Bath) - S8001 Philosophy (Monash - Bath) - S8001
• Philosophy (Monash - Leipzig) - S8003 Philosophy (Monash - Leipzig) - S8003
• Philosophy (Monash-Bayreuth) - 4714 Philosophy (Monash-Bayreuth) - 4714
• Philosophy - 2603 Philosophy - 2603
• Philosophy - 2627 Philosophy - 2627
• Philosophy - 3194 Philosophy - 3194
• Philosophy - 3337 Philosophy - 3337
• Philosophy - 3379 Philosophy - 3379
• Philosophy - 3438 Philosophy - 3438
• Philosophy - 3521 Philosophy - 3521
• Philosophy - D7001 Philosophy - D7001
• Physiotherapy - M3002 Physiotherapy - M3002
• Physiotherapy - M6032 Physiotherapy - M6032
• Podiatric Medicine - M6043 Podiatric Medicine - M6043
• Politics, Philosophy and Economics - A2010 Politics, Philosophy and Economics - A2010
• Politics, Philosophy and Economics and Arts - A2013 Politics, Philosophy and Economics and Arts - A2013
• Principles of Personal Injury Scheme Design - PDM1138 Principles of Personal Injury Scheme Design - PDM1138
• Professional Accounting - B6011 Professional Accounting - B6011
• Professional Accounting and Business Law - B6015 Professional Accounting and Business Law - B6015
• Professional Certificate in International School Leadership - PDD1087 Professional Certificate in International School Leadership - PDD1087
• Professional Certificate of Adolescent Counselling - PDD1075 Professional Certificate of Adolescent Counselling - PDD1075
• Professional Certificate of Business Administration - B9001 Professional Certificate of Business Administration - B9001
• Professional Certificate of Clinical Simulation - M9002 Professional Certificate of Clinical Simulation - M9002
• Professional Certificate of Coaching for Educational Leaders - PDD1013 Professional Certificate of Coaching for Educational Leaders - PDD1013
• Professional Certificate of Education Support - PDD1079 Professional Certificate of Education Support - PDD1079
• Professional Certificate of Epidemiology - M9004 Professional Certificate of Epidemiology - M9004
• Professional Certificate of Health Professions Education - M9001 Professional Certificate of Health Professions Education - M9001
• Professional Certificate of Public Health - M9003 Professional Certificate of Public Health - M9003
• Professional Engineering - E6011 Professional Engineering - E6011
• Professional Psychology - D5002 Professional Psychology - D5002
• Professional Psychology - D6008 Professional Psychology - D6008
• Program Development Using Intervention Mapping - PDM1157 Program Development Using Intervention Mapping - PDM1157
• Project Management - B4005 Project Management - B4005
• Project Management - B5005 Project Management - B5005
• Project Management - B6025 Project Management - B6025
• Psychology - M2018 Psychology - M2018
• Psychology - M3708 Psychology - M3708
• Psychology - M5013 Psychology - M5013
• Psychology Advanced - M5003 Psychology Advanced - M5003
• Public Health - M2012 Public Health - M2012
• Public Health - M4032 Public Health - M4032
• Public Health - M6021 Public Health - M6021
• Public Health - M6024 Public Health - M6024
• Public Policy (Double Masters with O.P. Jindal Global University) - A6037 Public Policy (Double Masters with O.P. Jindal Global University) - A6037
• Public Policy - A4011 Public Policy - A4011
• Public Policy - A6028 Public Policy - A6028
• Qualitative Research Methods for Public Health - PDM1122 Qualitative Research Methods for Public Health - PDM1122
• Radiation Sciences - M2017 Radiation Sciences - M2017
• Radiation Therapy - M6004 Radiation Therapy - M6004
• Radiography and Medical Imaging - M3006 Radiography and Medical Imaging - M3006
• Regulation and Compliance - B6037 Regulation and Compliance - B6037
• Reproductive Sciences - 0100 Reproductive Sciences - 0100
• Reproductive Sciences - M5010 Reproductive Sciences - M5010
• Road Safety - 4718 Road Safety - 4718
• SPSS without tears - PDM1044 SPSS without tears - PDM1044
• Scenario design for simulation-based education - PDM1116 Scenario design for simulation-based education - PDM1116
• Science - 0057 Science - 0057
• Science - 2637 Science - 2637
• Science - Education - 2646 Science - Education - 2646
• Science - S2000 Science - S2000
• Science - S3701 Science - S3701
• Science - S6000 Science - S6000
• Science Advanced - Global Challenges - S3001 Science Advanced - Global Challenges - S3001
• Science Advanced - Research - S3002 Science Advanced - Research - S3002
• Science and Arts - S2006 Science and Arts - S2006
• Science and Biomedical Science - S2007 Science and Biomedical Science - S2007
• Science and Computer Science - S2004 Science and Computer Science - S2004
• Science and Global Studies - S2003 Science and Global Studies - S2003
• Science and Music - S2005 Science and Music - S2005
• Simultaneous Interpreting - PDA1022 Simultaneous Interpreting - PDA1022
• Social Work - M6012 Social Work - M6012
• Specialist Paramedic Practice - M6015 Specialist Paramedic Practice - M6015
• Strategic Communications Management (Double Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong University) - A6031 Strategic Communications Management (Double Masters with Shanghai Jiao Tong University) - A6031
• Strategic Communications Management - A4010 Strategic Communications Management - A4010
• Strategic Communications Management - A6030 Strategic Communications Management - A6030
• Stress management for interpreters - PDA1023 Stress management for interpreters - PDA1023
• Supporting Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Early Childhood Settings - PDD1047 Supporting Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Early Childhood Settings - PDD1047
• Supporting Improved Student Behaviour at School - PDD1082 Supporting Improved Student Behaviour at School - PDD1082
• Surgery - 3443 Surgery - 3443
• Sustainable Healthcare in Practice - PDU1007 Sustainable Healthcare in Practice - PDU1007
• TESOL - D6005 TESOL - D6005
• Teaching - D6001 Teaching - D6001
• Teaching Strategies to Support Students with Disabilities and Difficulties - PDD1004 Teaching Strategies to Support Students with Disabilities and Difficulties - PDD1004
• Technology and Regulation - L4009 Technology and Regulation - L4009
• Tertiary Studies - D0502 Tertiary Studies - D0502
• The Science of Medicines - PDM1136 The Science of Medicines - PDM1136
• Theatre performance - 4066 Theatre performance - 4066
• Transforming Retail Food Environments to be Health-Enabling - PDM1140 Transforming Retail Food Environments to be Health-Enabling - PDM1140
• Translation and Technology - PDA1025 Translation and Technology - PDA1025
• Translation studies - 4080 Translation studies - 4080
• Transport and Mobility Planning - E6016 Transport and Mobility Planning - E6016
• Travel Medicine Masterclass - PDM1043 Travel Medicine Masterclass - PDM1043
• UX/UI Boot Camp - PDC1005 UX/UI Boot Camp - PDC1005
• Undergraduate Certificate of Aged Care Health Essentials - M0502 Undergraduate Certificate of Aged Care Health Essentials - M0502
• Undergraduate Certificate of Health Care Essentials - M0503 Undergraduate Certificate of Health Care Essentials - M0503
• Undergraduate Certificate of Mental Health - M0501 Undergraduate Certificate of Mental Health - M0501
• Urban Planning and Design - F6004 Urban Planning and Design - F6004
• Using data to understand family violence - PDA1005 Using data to understand family violence - PDA1005
• Wellbeing and Engagement for Teachers - PDD1084 Wellbeing and Engagement for Teachers - PDD1084
• Working with Primary School Aged Students with Autism - PDD1003 Working with Primary School Aged Students with Autism - PDD1003
• Wound Care - M4027 Wound Care - M4027
• Wound Care - M5028 Wound Care - M5028
• Wound Care - M6035 Wound Care - M6035
• X-ray Image Interpretation - M4020 X-ray Image Interpretation - M4020
• ppl - Public Purpose Leadership program - PDU1003 ppl - Public Purpose Leadership program - PDU1003
• ​Too young for menopause?: An evidenced-based approach - PDM1177 ​Too young for menopause?: An evidenced-based approach - PDM1177
• Majors, extended majors, minors and specialisations Majors, extended majors, minors and specialisations
• Entry pathways for domestic students Entry pathways for domestic students
• Entry pathways for international students Entry pathways for international students
• Entry requirements Entry requirements
• English language programs English language programs
• Admissions transparency
• ATAR distribution report ATAR distribution report
• Student profile Student profile
• ATAR offer profile report ATAR offer profile report
• Admissions transparency FAQs Admissions transparency FAQs
• Inherent requirements Inherent requirements
• ATAR explained
• ATAR scores ATAR scores
• ATAR explained redirect ATAR explained redirect
• Course guides Course guides
• Study online Study online
• How to apply
• Domestic student applications
• Entry schemes
• Special Entry Access Scheme (SEAS)
• Late SEAS applications
• The Monash Guarantee
• Under-represented schools - 2024 entry
• Monash Guarantee ATARs
• Student profiles Student profiles
• Certifying documents (for domestic and international students) Certifying documents (for domestic and international students)
• International student applications
• Admission eligibility search Admission eligibility search
• Current Monash University Foundation Year students in Australia Current Monash University Foundation Year students in Australia
• Current Monash University Foundation Year students outside Australia Current Monash University Foundation Year students outside Australia
• Current Monash Diploma students in Australia Current Monash Diploma students in Australia
• Current Monash Diploma students outside Australia Current Monash Diploma students outside Australia
• Information for students under 18 Information for students under 18
• Visa requirements Visa requirements
• Apply through an agent Apply through an agent
• After you apply
• Accept your offer Accept your offer
• Preparing to arrive
• Book your airport reception
• Pre-arrival briefings
• Defer or change your course Defer or change your course
• Alternative entries to university Alternative entries to university
• APPLICATION PROGRESS
• CHANGE COURSE PREFERENCE / DEFERRAL
• CREDIT TRANSFER
• HOW TO ACCEPT / PAYMENT OPTION
• WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS AFTER ACCEPTING MY OFFER
• PRE-ARRIVAL SERVICES
• Research degree applications Research degree applications
• Credit for prior study Credit for prior study
• Indigenous student applications Indigenous student applications
• Current Monash student course transfer Current Monash student course transfer
• General domestic enquiry General domestic enquiry
• General international enquiry General international enquiry
• Fees and scholarships
• Loans and assistance
• Domestic full-fee (FEE-HELP) Domestic full-fee (FEE-HELP)
• Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP)
• Income support for Masters Courses Income support for Masters Courses
• Getting support for the SSA Fee (SA-HELP) Getting support for the SSA Fee (SA-HELP)
• Additional things to keep in mind Additional things to keep in mind
• Scholarships
• Find a scholarship Find a scholarship
• Applications
• Scholarships and grants available in semester 1 2024 Scholarships and grants available in semester 1 2024
• Scholarships and grants available mid-year 2024 Scholarships and grants available mid-year 2024
• Supporting documentation
• Certifying documents
• Summer and Winter Vacation Research Scholarship Program Summer and Winter Vacation Research Scholarship Program
• Scholarship equity and disadvantage definitions Scholarship equity and disadvantage definitions
• Entry Schemes Entry Schemes
• Current students
• Scholarship payments Scholarship payments
• Enrolment changes Enrolment changes
• Terms and conditions
• Scholarships terms and conditions for 2024
• Scholarships terms and conditions for 2023
• Scholarships terms and conditions for 2022
• Scholarships terms and conditions for 2021
• Scholarships terms and conditions for 2020
• Scholarships terms and conditions for 2019
• Scholarships terms and conditions for 2018
• Multiple Scholarships Multiple Scholarships
• Retention requirements Retention requirements
• Centrelink and taxation Centrelink and taxation
• Distinguished scholarships Distinguished scholarships
• International study grants International study grants
• International
• Graduate Graduate
• Student enquiries Student enquiries
• Forms and checklists Forms and checklists
• For parents For parents
• School counsellors School counsellors
• Skip to content
• Skip to navigation

this is everythign else

• --> --> --> -->