Researchers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Cambridge University, the Institute of Education and Harvard University found that wealthier students maintain an advantage over future income, which is not experienced by families of lower and middle class incomes.
\nFor example, the wealthiest 20% of families were earning 30% more than the 80% of the graduate population. Even if the type of degree was also taken into account, 10% of students from wealthy families were still continuing to earn 10% more than other graduates. The most profitable degree concerning future earnings were medicine, economics, engineering and law<\/p>\n
Moreover, graduates retain an earning advantage over individuals that did not attend university, and are less likely to be unemployed while female employers continued to earn less than their male counterparts. In the UK, students from LSE have the highest earning power, along with graduates from Imperial College, King’s College, Oxford University and Cambridge University. For instance, 10% of male graduates from the LSE, Oxford and Cambridge were earning over \u00a3100,000 after 10 years in the workplace. Only LSE had 10% of female graduates earning over \u00a3100,000 after 10 years in the workplace. Interestingly at 20 universities male graduates were earning on average less than non-graduate average. <\/p>\n
These figures raise questions about government policy concerning social mobility; richer students can afford the best schools and, therefore, receive education at a top institution. After they leave university their families provide the contacts needed to ensure they receive the most lucrative jobs. Students who are poorer but bright will have difficulty to reach their potential in the workplace. The government has attempted to help individuals if they wish to attend universities and the research above indicates that most have higher earning power. However, higher tuition fee students from less wealthy backgrounds will face increased difficulty in obtaining a job in the most lucrative markets.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, London remains a vital industry where most of the more profitable jobs remain. The increasing living costs especially housing, threatens many from gaining jobs which will result in higher earnings. Government policy has been fractured on the issue of social mobility by increasing the burden of higher debts on students. The maintenance grant has been replaced by a loan which puts further financial pressure on the poorest people. Government policy should aid in providing opportunities for the brightest despite their financial background, by providing subsidies to firms which hire poorer people. Or universities should establish better business links, therefore, no matter which university students attend they will have the opportunity to get the best jobs. <\/p>\n
Understandably, if parents are wealthier they will desire to provide chances for their future careers; but the government should implement policies that help other less wealthy students receive greater advantages in their future career prospects. <\/p>\n