University has always been sold as a gateway: to knowledge, to credentials, to networks, to better jobs. But in the last decade—especially since the pandemic and amid rapid changes in hiring—“worth it” has become a question people ask with their budgets, not just their aspirations. Tuition fees, living costs, student debt, and the uncertainty of graduate outcomes have collided with a labour market that increasingly values experience, skills, and adaptability over titles alone. At the same time, universities have continued to evolve: more flexible study options, stronger links with employers, and new approaches to teaching and employability.
This week, the Financial Times’ Working It is hosting a live Ask an Expert Q&A with Isabel Berwick to tackle the question many prospective students, parents, and career-changers are asking: is university worth it? The session will take place at 1pm BST on Thursday July 2, and viewers are invited to submit questions in advance. The discussion is timely because “worth it” is no longer a single calculation. It’s a moving target shaped by country-specific funding systems, subject choices, personal circumstances, and the kind of work people actually end up doing.
To understand why the debate feels so intense right now, it helps to separate three different meanings of “worth it”. First is the financial meaning: will the earnings premium justify the cost and risk? Second is the career meaning: will university reliably open doors, or at least improve your odds of landing good work? Third is the life meaning: will the experience build confidence, networks, and capabilities that matter even if the job title doesn’t immediately reflect them?
The uncomfortable truth is that these three meanings don’t always align. A degree can be financially worthwhile but personally disappointing. It can be personally transformative but economically marginal. And it can be both expensive and uncertain if the course doesn’t translate into employable skills or if the graduate labour market is weak in that field. That’s why the most useful conversations about university aren’t just about averages; they’re about fit—fit between a student’s goals and a programme’s outcomes, between a qualification and the labour market’s needs, and between short-term costs and long-term benefits.
The financial case: averages hide the real risk
When people talk about whether university pays off, they often cite broad statistics: higher average earnings for graduates, lower unemployment rates, and better long-run prospects. Those patterns exist in many countries and across many industries. But averages can mislead in two ways.
First, the distribution matters. Not every graduate earns enough to offset tuition and living costs quickly. Some degrees lead to stable, well-paid roles; others lead to underemployment, unpaid internships, or early-career jobs that don’t fully use the qualification. Even within the same university, outcomes can vary significantly by subject, class profile, and the strength of career support.
Second, the timing of costs and benefits matters. University costs are immediate and certain. The benefits—higher earnings, career progression, access to certain professions—are delayed and uncertain. If someone takes on debt, the repayment schedule can create pressure before the payoff arrives. In a volatile economy, that delay can feel like a gamble rather than an investment.
This is where the “worth it” question becomes personal. For some students, the financial calculus is straightforward: they have scholarships, low living costs, or a clear pathway into a profession that requires a degree. For others, the calculus is complicated by family finances, the need to work while studying, or the possibility of switching courses or dropping out. The risk isn’t only about whether university leads to employment; it’s about whether it leads to employment that is good enough to make the investment rational.
A unique take on the debate is to treat university less like a single bet and more like a portfolio of decisions. The “portfolio” includes the degree subject, the institution, the location, the student’s ability to secure internships or placements, and the plan for what happens after graduation. Two students can both “go to university,” but one may graduate with relevant experience and a clear job search strategy, while the other may graduate with a credential but without the practical evidence employers want.
The career case: credentials still matter, but so does proof
Even in a world that talks about skills over credentials, degrees remain a sorting mechanism. Many employers use qualifications as a filter, particularly for roles that require regulated knowledge or formal training. Certain professions—medicine, law, teaching, engineering, and many roles in research and analytics—still rely on degree-level education as a baseline.
But the labour market has also shifted. Employers increasingly ask: what can you do, not just what have you studied? That means the value of university depends heavily on how well it turns academic learning into demonstrable capability. A degree can provide foundational knowledge, but employers often want evidence: projects, internships, placements, work experience, portfolios, and references.
This is why the “worth it” conversation should include the hidden curriculum of employability. Does the programme offer structured opportunities to gain experience? Are there career services that actually connect students to employers? Are there modules that teach practical tools rather than only theory? Do students graduate with something tangible—case studies, lab results, coding projects, writing samples, design work, or industry placements—that makes them credible on day one?
In many fields, university can be a bridge from curiosity to competence. In others, it can become a detour if the course content doesn’t match the skills employers are hiring for. The difference often comes down to whether the degree is aligned with the labour market and whether students actively build experience during the years of study.
There’s also a psychological dimension that affects career outcomes. University can help students learn how to learn: how to manage deadlines, communicate ideas, work in teams, and handle feedback. These are transferable skills that show up in interviews and early performance reviews. But they don’t automatically appear. Students who treat university as a passive experience may miss the chance to develop the habits that employers reward.
The alternative paths: not “either/or”, but “choose the right route”
One reason the debate feels polarised is that people frame it as a binary choice: university versus alternatives. In reality, the decision is more nuanced. Alternatives include apprenticeships, vocational training, bootcamps, professional certifications, paid work experience, and self-directed learning. Some of these routes can be excellent, especially when they are connected to employers and lead to recognised qualifications.
But alternatives also vary in quality. Some programmes are tightly linked to jobs; others are marketing-heavy and light on outcomes. Some offer structured progression; others leave learners to figure out the next step alone. The best alternative paths tend to have three features: clear entry requirements, employer relevance, and a credible pathway to advancement.
A unique angle on this debate is to consider university as one of several “credentialing ecosystems.” In some sectors, university is the dominant ecosystem. In others, professional bodies, apprenticeships, and industry certifications are more influential. The question isn’t whether university is inherently valuable; it’s whether it’s the most efficient route to the kind of work you want.
For students who already know their direction—say, a specific profession that requires a degree—university can be the shortest path. For students who are still exploring, university can provide time and structure to discover interests. But exploration without a plan can also be expensive. The key is to treat exploration as purposeful: use the first year to test hypotheses about what you enjoy and what the labour market rewards.
What “worth it” looks like in practice: the decision checklist
If the FT Working It session is going to be useful, it will likely focus on practical decision-making rather than slogans. Here are the kinds of questions that typically determine whether university pays off for an individual:
1) What is the specific outcome you want?
Not “a better job,” but the type of role, industry, and timeline. If you want a job that requires a degree, the decision is different from wanting a general improvement in employability.
2) How does the programme connect to jobs?
Look for placement rates, internship opportunities, employer partnerships, and the proportion of graduates entering relevant roles. Ask what employers say they look for and whether the course builds those competencies.
3) What is the cost relative to your circumstances?
Scholarships, family support, part-time work options, and debt terms change the equation dramatically. A degree that is financially sensible for one person can be risky for another.
4) What is your plan for experience during study?
University can be a multiplier if you use it to build evidence. That might mean internships, volunteering, research assistantships, student societies with real projects, or freelance work that produces a portfolio.
5) How resilient is the plan if the labour market is weak?
If you graduate into a downturn, will you have options—further study, a related role, a transferable skill set, or a network that helps you pivot?
6) Are you choosing the subject for interest or for employability—or both?
Interest matters because motivation affects performance and persistence. Employability matters because it affects outcomes. The best choices often combine both, but students need to be honest about trade-offs.
7) What is the “dropout risk” and how will you manage it?
University is not only an academic challenge; it’s a life transition. Support systems, mental health resources, and financial stability influence whether students complete their degrees. Completion is a major determinant of returns.
These questions shift the debate from ideology to strategy. They also highlight why “worth it” is not a universal verdict.
The role of universities: improving outcomes, not just enrolling students
Universities are not passive actors in this debate. If public trust is eroding, it’s partly because outcomes haven’t always matched promises. Some institutions have improved career services, strengthened employer links, and updated curricula to reflect changing skills. Others have been slower to adapt.
There’s also the issue of transparency. Students increasingly want clear information about graduate outcomes: employment rates, salary ranges, and the types of roles graduates enter. When such