Trade skills lose out to scarfie lifestyle

Do we really need so many students, especially when it’s so expensive for both the taxpayer and the individual

Should we aim to have every single young person in university, and if not, when do we say enough is enough

Universities used to be elite institutions for only the brightest of students but since the 1960s the number of tertiary students has increased 10-fold. This reflects a now common view that going to university is the only way to have a successful and rewarding career.
But despite billions of dollars in extra government funding, there is still a serious mismatch between graduate numbers and the shortages in the trades. Anyone who’s struggled to find a builder or a plumber knows all about this.

The tragedy is that there are thousands of young people with good practical skills and smarts who could be making a great career for themselves. Instead too many of them are sitting in a lecture theatre at university for three years, doing courses they don’t particularly enjoy.

The trades have suffered from an image problem over the years but they offer satisfying and creative work, good money and the chance to start your own business.

Meanwhile, there is no shortage of lawyers or arts graduates. In fact, only about half of law students actually become lawyers.
At first glance university might seem a pretty good investment in your future. Ministry of Education figures show that adults with a tertiary degree earn 29% more on average than those with only an upper high school education, and graduates have a better chance of finding a job in the first place.

But the problem with these figures though is that they are the average outcome. What we need to know is the marginal benefit; that is, how much benefit is each new student gaining, in particular those with only average academic ability
So why is there such a mismatch

I think middle-class parents have a lot to answer for. Many of the baby-boomer generation never went to university, so to them it is still an elite institution.

Many still believe that the only path to success is through university and that trades are a dirty, low-skilled career choice.
At the same time, many 17- and 18-year-olds don’t really know exactly which course will suit them and they end up just following their friends. University is more like a rite of passage for many middle class kids, just like an OE or getting a tattoo.

But perhaps the biggest cause of the problem is the government. By subsidising 75% of course fees (around $12,000 a year) politicians are making university appear artificially attractive. Interest free loans only add to this problem.

By contrast, if you want to be a builder or a plumber there are only a limited number of apprenticeships and capped funding. It’s little wonder then that so many young people choose university when the government is effectively paying them to do so.

The government is well aware of this problem, and is promising to take more of a hands-on approach to funding courses that are in the national interest. But maybe the answer is not to give up on student choice but to make that choice a little more realistic.
Higher fees might not be popular, but they need to be considered.

Governments have always subsidised university education because of the public benefit it has for society, by making us more civilised and productive (and richer) as a nation. But given the explosion in student numbers and the high cost to society, surely its time to re-evaluate whether the benefit to society really is worth 75%.

Is it really fair that working class families are taxed so middle class families can ensure their children remain in the middle class
Of course, no politician will have the guts to do this, because students and their parents are such a powerful voting lobby. But the longer this distortion carries on, the worse these problems will get.

Phil Rennie is a policy analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies