Qualification inflation: who’s to blame?

If you haven’t heard of the concept of ‘qualification inflation’ then you’re not alone. While this concept per se isn’t necessarily new, with the impact of inflation and cost of living in the global spotlight, this too has become an agenda for society. The impacts are being seen (and felt) by our younger generations.

Historically, the evolution of education pathways has changed. As the world has continued to develop – with access to information and the changing nature of jobs and careers being part of that change – so, too, has what has been considered “qualified”. From a high school diploma to a bachelor’s degree, to a master’s degree and even to the ‘niche’ PhD – this pathway, irrespective of requirements for workplaces and the ‘inflation’ of what may now be required, has also proven a traditional pathway for many.

However, there are several issues with this.

The first is that some universities are playing up the prestige of certain degrees, fueling competition amongst candidates, inflating course fees without the guaranteed ROI vis-à-vis guaranteed employment, leaving those entering higher education with a risk factor: Three-to-five years of study, tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and a “let’s hope I get a job after this” approach.

The second is the problem that workplaces are creating, by placing huge emphasis on candidates not just having to have a degree for entry-level jobs, but the top end of that qualification pathway (i.e. masters). And the relevancy of the degree to the actual job? Well, oftentimes not aligned because, let’s be honest, preferential treatment of candidates with degrees just happens.

What both institutions (and the government) are doing is inflating education – and not in a way that supports prospective students or graduates. Not only does it put pressure on people to get degrees, but there’s also the question of whether the value of degrees remains if everyone becomes qualified. Where is the value in the acquired learning? Would it be more equitable if no one had degrees?

It’s also creating drought conditions in some sectors (like teaching and nursing) where students don’t want to take on debt for ‘average’ salaries of $70,000 to $80,000 (and who blames them?). And without any industry pay rises and the cost of living now exceeding wages it’s causing a huge strain on financial situations – and equating to more debt.

This means those being hit the hardest are our younger generations: feeling the pain of student debt, with no solid career prospective post-graduation, are working multiple part-time jobs, not just to support themselves, but because the guaranteed (and even rate) of full-time employment isn’t there.

So where does the responsibility lie? Universities? Employers? Government?

While the answer is debatable (and one could argue all) one thing is for certain: To support workplaces, careers (current and future) and wellbeing of our younger generations – and create a society that brings into the equation more accountability and equality – more needs to be done. Starting with more collaboration and conversation between universities, employers, and government.