A new analysis of graduate earnings in Britain has confirmed a stark, data-driven reality: degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) alongside law command the highest lifetime earnings. The study, conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Department for Education, tracks the income of graduates from the country’s universities over a working lifetime, adjusting for factors such as prior attainment and institution attended. The findings offer a calibrated measure of the economic return on higher education investment.
At the top of the rankings sit degrees in medicine, economics, and engineering, with graduates earning upwards of £500,000 more over their careers than the median non-graduate. Law degrees, particularly from Russell Group institutions, yield similar returns. The data confirm a long-observed trend: the premium for quantitative and technical skills persists across the labour market, while degrees in the creative arts and humanities, though culturally invaluable, produce significantly lower lifetime earnings. The median arts graduate earns roughly £200,000 less over a career than the median economics graduate.
The geographic dimension is equally revealing. London’s universities, buoyed by proximity to financial and professional services, produce graduates with higher peak earnings, but regional institutions in England and Scotland demonstrate strong returns in specific fields. For instance, engineering graduates from the University of Manchester or Bristol command earnings rivaling their London counterparts, reflecting the high demand for these skills in the north-west and south-west growth corridors. Meanwhile, graduates from newer universities or those with lower entry tariffs face a more mixed picture: a degree in nursing or teaching can still yield stable, if modest, lifetime earnings, while degrees in media studies or performing arts often result in earnings below the graduate average.
The analysis also debunks a popular misconception: that all STEM degrees are equal. Within the broad category, physics and mathematics graduates outperform those in biological sciences or environmental studies, partly due to the higher concentration of these graduates entering finance and technology. Medicine remains the undisputed leader, with lifetime earnings over £1.5 million higher than the median graduate’s, a reflection of the steep pay scales in the NHS and private practice.
For prospective students and policymakers, these rankings underscore a fundamental trade-off. The economic return on a degree is heavily tilted toward disciplines that require strong secondary-school attainment in mathematics and the physical sciences. This has implications for university funding and student debt: graduates in low-earning subjects may struggle to repay their loans, raising questions about the sustainability of the current fee system. The government has signalled a shift toward funding models that tie tuition fees to graduate outcomes, a policy approach that would further entrench the dominance of STEM and professional degrees.
The findings also highlight a persistent gender pay gap within the graduate labour market. Women with degrees in STEM and law earn less than their male counterparts on average, a disparity that compounds over a working lifetime. This is not a failure of the degree market but a reflection of structural inequalities in promotion, parental leave penalties, and sectoral segregation.
As the climate transition accelerates and the economy digitises, the premium for technical skills is likely to grow. Britain’s universities must now decide whether to double down on producing highly paid STEM graduates or to find new ways to value the critical thinking and creativity that the humanities foster. The data does not judge, but it is clear: for those prioritising financial return, the path runs through the laboratory and the courtroom, not the studio or the seminar room.
