New data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms what many already suspected: a degree in law, economics, or medicine is a golden ticket. But the report also lays bare the staggering wage gap between disciplines and exposes the hollow promise of a university education for those in the arts.
The IFS study, which tracked graduates over a 30-year period, found that medicine and economics graduates earn around £500,000 more over their lifetime than those who studied creative arts. Law and engineering follow closely behind, while graduates in subjects like English literature or history can expect to earn roughly the same as someone who never set foot on campus.
Sources confirm the gap is not just about the degree itself. The report shows that a significant portion of the earnings premium comes from the universities these students attend. Graduates from Oxford, Cambridge, and other Russell Group institutions earn substantially more than those from newer or lower-ranked universities, even after controlling for subject choice.
But here is where the story gets murky. The IFS data reveals that students from wealthier backgrounds are far more likely to choose high-earning degrees. According to the report, only 12% of students from the poorest fifth of households study subjects like law, economics, or medicine, compared to 28% from the richest fifth. This suggests that the earnings advantage is not just a matter of choice but a reinforcement of class privilege.
The government has long pushed the narrative that university is a path to social mobility. This report suggests otherwise. Uncovered documents from the Department for Education show that officials have been aware of these disparities for years but have done little to address them. One internal memo, obtained by our sources, admits that “the current system perpetuates inequality rather than reduces it”.
The IFS also found that women and ethnic minorities face additional penalties. Female graduates earn on average 10% less than men with the same degree and from the same university. Black and Asian graduates earn less than their white counterparts, even after accounting for subject and institution.
One particularly damning finding concerns the so-called “graduate premium”. For men who studied creative arts, the lifetime earnings differential compared to non-graduates is actually negative when accounting for tuition fees and lost earnings during study. In other words, these graduates would have been better off financially not going to university at all.
The data also reveals a growing divide between STEM subjects and the humanities. Over the past decade, the earnings gap between engineering and English literature graduates has widened by nearly 20%. This is not just a matter of market forces, it is a result of deliberate policy choices that prioritise investment in STEM fields over the arts.
A spokesperson for the IFS declined to comment on the policy implications, but the message is clear. For anyone considering a university degree, the choice of subject and institution is not just about passion or aptitude. It is a financial decision with consequences that last a lifetime.
Our sources confirm that the Department for Education is preparing a response, but insiders say there are no plans to overhaul the funding system. Instead, the focus will be on promoting “informed choice” among students. Critics argue this is a smokescreen to avoid addressing the underlying inequalities in the system.
This report comes as the government pushes ahead with plans to cut tuition fees for certain STEM subjects. The implication is clear. Some degrees are worth more than others, and the state is willing to subsidise those it deems valuable. The rest are on their own.
For now, the numbers speak for themselves. A degree in law or medicine is a ticket to a comfortable life. A degree in philosophy or history is a gamble. And for those who cannot afford to gamble, the system offers little comfort.
