Data used to measure degree value is ‘unfair’ to arts graduates

National datasets used by policy makers to determine the relative value of degrees are flawed when it comes to measuring the worth and benefits of creative courses, a new report has claimed.

Published by higher education representative body GuildHE and United Kingdom Arts and Design Institutions Association (UKADIA), The Value of Creative Graduates report was led by a steering group of creative specialist higher education providers and Creative UK to investigate the challenge of defining the merits of creative degrees and the careers they can lead to.

Researchers found that although arts graduates are routinely shown to have some of the lowest salaries of any industry – Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis shows that lifetime earnings of creative graduates tend to be not much higher than for non-graduates – using earning metrics alone does a “disservice” to capturing the complex nature of creative careers. This is partly because many creative graduates aim for self-employment, portfolio careers, freelancing and entrepreneurial endeavours.

READ MORE:

Frequently cited by the Department of Education, the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset, which collects education information and links it to employment, benefits and earnings, was criticised in the report for limitations when evaluating creative careers.

As LEO only looks at annual earnings not the number of hours worked, researchers found it was more likely to show flexible contracts, which are more prevalent in the creative sector, as less lucrative than full-time employment.

The report also noted that as LEO does not collect dates of employment when analysing freelance work, it is not possible to compare annual earnings to those collected through the PAYE system.

Researchers also criticised the Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS), which collects information in a census-style questionnaire 15 months after graduation. As participants can only report on their job activities on the day they complete the survey, the report suggested it may not accurately reflect the activities of freelance creative workers who often work short contracts for multiple employers.

Skilled or unskilled

The report also found that datasets used by the government often inaccurately categorise many creative careers as unskilled.

Both the GOS and LEO use the Office for National Statistics Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes to define occupational types, but researchers suggest many highly skilled creative jobs are being classified as 'every day' roles.

Codes 1-3 are deemed 'high level and highly skilled,' yet the report notes all employment in the textile and garment trade is in category 5, regardless of skill level. High-level, demanding posts, including wardrobe assistants, costumiers and costume designers for television, film and stage, are also not included in SOC 1-3.

The report cites false analogies, such as showrunners being classified in the same category as lifeguards rather than as production roles, photography being coded as a sales and customer service occupation, and hair, makeup and prosthetics professionals for film, theatre and TV being classified as beauticians.

The report notes there is no way to question coding of some data, such as LEO, and where it can be challenged, the process is time-consuming and not always successful.

'Misconceptions and negative rhetoric'

Writing in a blog about the research, Lisa Mann, Executive Director of Innovation at AUB and Chair of the Steering Group representing UKADIA, said that along with "battling misconceptions and negative rhetoric" around the value of creative education and skills, "there is always more we can do to improve our understanding and measurement of value".

In its recommendations, the report calls on the government to acknowledge that the value of graduate outcomes should not be based solely on private economic benefits.

Demanding an overhaul of government's approach to measuring the value of graduates and redefining 'highly skilled' to better reflect creative industry careers, the report asks for a review of SOC and SIC codes and their use in national skills policy.

Extra investment is also recommended to help Unit for Future Skills, DCMS and DfE better understand the value of creative qualifications.

In the report’s foreword, Paul Gough, Chair UKADIA and Vice-Chancellor at Arts University Bournemouth warned that creative education has been “under pressure” from the “systematic devaluing of creative education”.

“The pipeline of talent is being squeezed,” he said. “Secondary schools are abandoning creative and cultural subjects, school art rooms and workshops are closing, fewer art and designer teachers are being trained and employed, and arts courses are unfairly criticised as ‘low-value learning’.

“To help us fully understand and contest this challenging environment, we need a clear evidence base, robust longitudinal data and compelling narratives drawn from both the arts sector and from industries further afield to help realign the perception of the value of creative graduates.”