Few things matter more to the UK’s future than higher education. It underpins economic growth, sustains our public services and remains one of the most powerful engines of social mobility.
Graduates staff the NHS, educate the next generation, and deliver the research and innovation that keeps the country competitive. These are not abstract benefits; they are the foundations of national resilience.
Yet too often, policy debates treat higher education as a cost to be managed rather than an asset to be invested in. Growth, productivity and renewal depend on advanced skills delivered at scale, and cutting effective routes to those skills does not make the problem disappear, it simply kicks it into the future.
A shift in emphasis
Degree apprenticeships offer a clear counter‑example to this short‑termism. They combine high‑quality degrees, real jobs, and a decent income, and they are in demand from both learners and employers. Evidence from Manchester Metropolitan University’s Force for Impact report shows strong earnings progression, high productivity returns for employers, and significant gains for social mobility. Almost a quarter of participants were eligible for free school meals, and many are now earning salaries that would once have been out of reach.
And yet, this is precisely where funding is being tightened. The shift from the Apprenticeship Levy to the Growth and Skills Levy is redirecting resources and funding away from higher‑level apprenticeships towards lower‑level provision.
Supporting early entry into the labour market matters, but we should be clear: you don’t strengthen the system by weakening parts that are delivering tangible outcomes for the economy. The government’s own industrial strategy is explicit: the vast majority of new jobs in priority sectors require graduate‑level skills. Weakening investment at degree and master’s levels, while talking up growth, is a contradiction, not a strategy.
Against fragmentation
The same tension is now emerging with the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE). The LLE, to be introduced from January 2027, promises flexibility, modular learning and opportunity across working lives, and those ambitions are welcome. But ambition alone does not generate demand.
Awareness remains low, and there is little evidence so far that loan‑funded modular study, taken in isolation, will drive large‑scale participation, particularly when individuals bear all the financial risk – resulting in what some have termed “the missing middle.” If the LLE fails to scale, it will not be because the idea lacked merit, but because it was disconnected from how people and employers behave.
This is the crux of the issue. We already know where demand exists, we already know which routes deliver strong outcomes, we just need to connect the funding system accordingly.
Aligning the LLE with the Growth and Skills Levy to support high‑demand degree apprenticeships would be a practical, growth‑focused reset. Learners would contribute through LLE loans while earning and therefore begin repaying once they graduate. Employers would invest through the levy in skills they genuinely need. The state would support the remainder, thus sharing the costs among those who benefit. This is not radical, but mirrors the economic logic of higher education itself and, as others have pointed out, has international parallels.
Such an approach would stop rationing success and start scaling it. It would release capacity in a system constrained not by demand or quality, but by fragmented policy design. Above all, it would force a more honest conversation about trade‑offs. We cannot ask more of our economy while offering less access to the skills that underpin it.
If the government wants a skills system that delivers growth, it must back what already works. Alignment, not fragmentation, is the solution. The cost of getting this wrong will be paid not in balance sheets, but in opportunities lost for the next generation.
A parent’s perspective: My daughter will be starting at MMU in September to study Biomedicine. Her A-level grades were not great, and she did not meet the offer. Essentially, she is very bright but not particularly studious. But despite this she was immediately accepted on to the course with a deferred start to accommodate the gap year she requested. No clearing required. She was understandably very happy. Life Science is one of the governments IS8 priority sectors with identified growth potential. Yet biomedicine is one of the degree subjects least likely to result in direct employment in a related field. Biomedicine is not a large employer, and biomedical scientists are required to obtain a specialised IBMS-accreditation (and practical experience) to compete for jobs. MMU offer a placement year for some students, though not all.
Higher education is important. But a volume-based approach is not beneficial to the economy or society (MMU is one of the largest universities in the UK by enrolments). Universities have been encouraged to expand by meeting the demands of learners – not industry. It is no surprise therefore that we have such high levels of graduates in non-graduate jobs and a youth unemployment problem. Education and training have been used for decades to park young people and defer their active engagement in the labour market. Until this mismatch is addressed higher education will not optimise its role in driving growth. Industry placements should become a mainstream option for many degrees. This may lead to valuable break points in learning, so that young people can earn and gain experience of work, with conversion to an honours degree later.
As for degree apprenticeships, I think many parents would now prefer their children to take this route. But opportunities are rare. Most degree apprenticeships are taken by adults already in the workforce, who would arguably benefit more from smaller units of skills training which the growth levy aims to provide.
It is entirely understandable why university leaders will focus on the financial sustainability of their institutions at a time when so much of their provision is at risk. But it is a mistake to conflate this existential problem (the too big to fail dilemma) with productivity arguments or emotional rhetoric about ‘lost opportunities for a generation’. What young people need are jobs. If these can be wrapped in higher education then perhaps the sector can respond to this challenge with the flexibility and innovation required.