A recent argument by a leading university vice-chancellor that a UK degree is no longer a 'passport' to social mobility but merely a 'visa' has sparked a robust debate among academics and experts. The comments, made by Professor Shitij Kapur of King's College London, suggested the UK has a 'surfeit' of graduates, diminishing the automatic premium a degree once provided.
The 'Class Ceiling' and a Broader View of Mobility
In response, critics argue that Professor Kapur's analysis is misleadingly narrow. They contend that social mobility is not solely determined by educational attainment. Factors like class, region, race, and socioeconomic status create a significant 'class ceiling', as identified by researchers Daniel Laurison and Sam Friedman. This invisible barrier privileges graduates from more affluent backgrounds in the competition for top jobs.
Furthermore, the modern graduate landscape is more diverse than the traditional model implies. The expansion of degree apprenticeships means many students now leave higher education with both academic qualifications and robust, employer-ready skills. The core issue, therefore, is not simply possessing a degree, but ensuring access to good jobs is not blocked by prejudice or a lack of social capital.
A Visa to Interview, a Passport to the Job
While engaging with Kapur's analogy, some academics propose a different interpretation. They suggest that a degree acts as the necessary 'visa' to gain entry to the job market—securing an interview—but it is no longer sufficient on its own. The true 'passport' to securing employment is the demonstrable set of employability skills that employers actively seek. This shift explains the increased focus within universities on developing these competencies across all student cohorts.
The central challenge facing the UK is reframed not as an excess of graduates, but as a critical failure of economic strategy. Critics point to a shortage of political ambition, a weak industrial strategy, and a chronic lack of investment in building an economy that can fully utilise its highly educated workforce. This failure is stark in STEM fields, leading to a worrying exodus of world-class scientific talent from the country.
Questioning the Fundamental Value of Education
Other responses express deeper concern about the framing of the debate. Dr Campbell Edinborough of the University of Leeds found it 'demoralising' and 'bizarre' to reduce the purpose of a degree to a transactional document for mobility, ignoring its vital role in education, personal growth, and fostering critical thinking. The notion of a 'surplus' of graduates, measured purely in economic terms, was described as a 'slippery slope', especially when democratic values globally are under threat.
Meanwhile, some argue that Professor Kapur's statement simply echoes long-held scepticism in elite institutions about the 50% higher education participation target. Despite widening participation efforts, significant barriers remain for disadvantaged students. A proposed solution is to make social mobility a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, a move championed by the Trades Union Congress and the Social Mobility Commission, but one on which universities have been notably quiet.
The consensus from these critical responses is clear: the narrowing 'graduate premium' and fierce competition for jobs are symptoms of systemic failures in government policy and economic planning, not an overabundance of educated citizens. The debate underscores a pressing need to address the structural 'class ceiling' and build an economy worthy of its workforce's potential.
