A plan by the Conservative Party to cut funding for certain university courses, which they describe as "dead-end" or "rip-off," and redirect money to apprenticeships is drawing sharp reactions. Supporters argue this approach will better equip young people with job-ready skills, while critics warn it could harm the higher education sector and limit educational choices. The proposals aim to boost apprenticeship numbers and focus taxpayer money on courses deemed more valuable to the economy.
Context: A Shift in Higher Education Policy
The Conservative Party has signaled a significant shift in its approach to higher education funding, with proposals to reduce or eliminate government support for university degrees perceived as lacking in economic or career value. This initiative is closely tied to a broader pledge to increase the number of apprenticeships available, aiming to create 100,000 new apprenticeship places annually. The party's rationale centers on redirecting resources toward subjects and training that directly address skills shortages and provide clearer pathways to employment, while simultaneously capping student numbers in less favored fields.
Read More: England SEND Reforms: Faster Support for Children with Special Needs by April 2026
Timeline: The discussion around "dead-end" courses and a pivot towards vocational training has been building. In May 2021, then-Education Secretary Gavin Williamson's comments on "dead-end courses" and the government's move to consult on halving subsidies for some arts subjects, like performing arts and archaeology, marked an early stage of this debate. More recently, in May 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledged to scrap "rip-off" degrees to fund apprenticeships, with subsequent reports detailing plans to cut university places and introduce stricter controls on courses.
Key Actors:
Conservative Party: Proposing the funding changes, emphasizing job skills and apprenticeships.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak: Championing the pledge to end "rip-off" degrees.
Education Secretaries (past and present): Gavin Williamson and potentially others, have articulated the rationale behind focusing on certain course types.
University Leaders and Sector Bodies (e.g., Universities UK): Expressing concerns about the potential negative impact on higher education.
Student Representatives (e.g., National Union of Students - NUS): Voicing worries about cuts to arts and humanities subjects.
Opposition Parties (e.g., Labour Party): Criticizing the plans as "laughable" or detrimental.
Regulators (e.g., Office for Students - OfS): May be given powers to assess course performance and potentially shut them down.
Core Proposals:
Scrapping or defunding university courses deemed "dead-end" or "rip-off."
Using savings to fund 100,000 new apprenticeships annually.
Potentially capping student numbers in certain subjects.
Giving regulators power to assess course progression, drop-out rates, and graduate earnings.
Focusing funding on subjects supporting national skills needs, such as STEM and healthcare.
Evidence of Proposed Reforms
The Conservative Party's intention to reduce funding for specific university courses and boost apprenticeships is supported by several public statements and reported plans.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pledged to "scrap 'rip-off' degrees" to fund an expansion of apprenticeships. This initiative aims to place a cap on student numbers in such courses and divert funds towards 100,000 new apprenticeship places each year. This strategy is framed as enhancing young people's life chances. (Article 5)
Ministers have stated that a regulator would examine "progression and drop-out rates of university courses, as well their future earnings potential" to identify underperforming degrees. (Article 4)
The party has outlined plans to limit student numbers across all subjects, with stricter controls on those identified as having the "greatest losses for taxpayers and students." The stated intention is to use these savings to "double" the budget for apprenticeships. (Article 6)
Previous government actions, such as the consultation to "halve a subsidy given to universities for some arts subjects," align with this directional shift. (Article 7)
Assessing Course Viability: Earnings vs. Broader Value
A central point of contention in the proposed reforms is the criterion used to determine which courses might face cuts. The government's focus appears to be on graduate earnings and taxpayer value, while critics argue that educational value extends beyond immediate financial returns.
Focus on Financial Returns:
Analysis has examined degree subjects with the lowest average earnings for graduates five years after completion to identify courses that "could be under threat." (Article 3)
The government has highlighted professional shortages in STEM and healthcare fields, suggesting a prioritization of subjects aligned with these needs. (Article 7)
Concerns have been raised that courses with "greatest losses for taxpayers and students" might be subject to stricter limits. (Article 6)
Counterarguments on Educational Value:
Education experts urge caution, stating that degree subjects offer value "about more than simply boosting earning potential." (Article 3)
Critics argue that focusing solely on immediate salaries may overlook the long-term career trajectory and societal contributions of graduates from arts and humanities. (Article 4, Article 7)
The NUS has criticized comments that label arts and music courses as "dead-end," asserting that such disciplines "enrich our society." (Article 7)
Impact on Universities and Students
The proposed reforms have generated significant concern among university leaders and students about potential negative consequences for the higher education sector and individual educational opportunities.
Concerns from University Leaders:
University chiefs have warned that the policy could "run down and undermine" the higher education sector and discourage students from pursuing degrees. (Article 4)
There is a fear that arts courses could be "on the chopping block," with some universities already planning to cut humanities departments. (Article 2)
Some believe that pitting apprenticeships against higher education is "self-defeating." (Article 4)
Student and Parent Apprehensions:
Comments by government officials about "dead-end" courses have provoked "culture war complaints" and a sense of "deja vu." (Article 2)
Students may face a "cap on the number of students" in certain courses. (Article 5)
The prospect of reassessing support for students with special educational needs has been described as "genuinely frightening" by some parents. (Article 1)
Alternative Perspectives on Skills Development
While the Conservative Party emphasizes apprenticeships as a primary route for skills development, other organizations highlight the need for a balanced approach that supports both vocational training and academic study.
Emphasis on Apprenticeships:
The plan aims to fund "100,000 more apprenticeships a year" by "cracking down" on certain degree courses. (Article 4)
The government views apprenticeships as a way to provide "degree-level study and industry experience," allowing students to "earn as they learn." (Article 4)
There is a stated ambition for an "apprenticeship revolution" to provide young people with the "best start to their careers." (Article 5, Article 6)
Advocacy for a Dual Approach:
The Recruitment and Employment Confederation suggests that the current policy appears to be "using apprenticeships to denigrate university courses, when we need both to flourish if we're going to grow." (Article 8)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that funding more apprenticeships through a crackdown on degrees would be "challenging." (Article 4)
Some argue that while apprenticeships offer benefits, a traditional university degree can provide a "positive lifetime earnings trajectory." (Article 3)
Expert Analysis and Reactions
The proposed Conservative policy on university courses has elicited varied responses from those within the education sector and political spheres.
Read More: Prince Andrew faces treason probe calls after leaving Royal Lodge on Thursday
Criticism from Opposition:
Labour's education spokesman, Bridget Phillipson, has dismissed the plan as "laughable," questioning the government's track record on creating training opportunities. (Article 5)
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott stated the Conservatives would "oppose any special educational needs (SEND) support being withdrawn" following reviews of children's needs. (Article 1)
Concerns from Academic Bodies:
Universities UK stated that "the overwhelming majority of courses are high quality and offer good value for students," while acknowledging the need to prioritize funding for high-cost courses like medicine. (Article 7)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has indicated that increasing apprenticeship funding through a reduction in degree courses would be a "challenging" undertaking. (Article 4)
Academic and Student Voices:
Hillary Gyebi-Ababio of the NUS called the Education Secretary's comments "galling" and an "assault on a multitude of hugely valuable disciplines." (Article 7)
Joseph Marshall, Deputy Editor of Epigram student newspaper, believes that former Education Secretary Gavin Williamson wrongly attributed increased science student numbers to genuine interest. (Article 2)
Conclusion and Potential Ramifications
The Conservative Party's proposed reforms to university course funding represent a significant policy direction aimed at rebalancing educational investment towards vocational training and perceived economic needs. The core objective is to streamline higher education by identifying and reducing support for degrees deemed less valuable in terms of graduate employment and return on taxpayer investment, thereby channeling resources into an expansion of apprenticeship programs.
Key Findings:
The government intends to give regulators enhanced powers to assess course performance based on metrics such as graduate earnings and student retention. (Article 3, Article 4)
A stated goal is to fund 100,000 new apprenticeships annually by reducing funding for a portion of university courses. (Article 4, Article 5)
Concerns are prevalent within the higher education sector regarding the potential for these reforms to undermine universities and limit educational diversity. (Article 4)
Critics argue that educational value encompasses more than just immediate financial outcomes, raising questions about the criteria for course assessment. (Article 3, Article 7)
Implications:
Should these plans be enacted, a significant portion of university courses, potentially one in eight, could face reduction or elimination. (Article 5)
The policy could lead to a recalibration of institutional priorities, with a greater emphasis on STEM, healthcare, and subjects directly aligned with industry demands. (Article 7)
There is a risk of political friction, with opposition parties expressing strong disagreement with the proposed approach. (Article 5)
Next Steps:
The precise criteria for identifying "dead-end" or "rip-off" courses remain to be fully clarified, necessitating further detail from the Conservative Party.
The role and powers of the proposed regulator in assessing course viability will be crucial in determining the practical application of these reforms.
Ongoing dialogue between the government, universities, and student bodies will be essential to navigate the implementation of any changes to the higher education funding landscape.
The Guardian: Published 14 hours ago. Report covers a broader political update including education and defence, with an extract relevant to educational support reviews.
Arts Professional: Published May 21, 2021. Focuses on the reaction to comments about "dead-end courses" and potential impacts on arts programs.
Link: https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/dead-end-courses-comment-provokes-culture-war-complaints
iNews: Published May 30, 2024. Analyzes which degrees might be axed based on graduate earnings and compares them to apprenticeship salaries.
Link: https://inews.co.uk/news/mickey-mouse-degrees-tory-election-axe-3081904
The Independent: Published May 29, 2024. Reports on university leaders' warnings that the pledge to axe degrees could harm the sector.
Daily Mail: Published May 28, 2024. Details the Tory plan to ban "rip-off" degrees to fund apprenticeships, suggesting a significant number of courses could be affected.
Research Professional News: Published Oct 7, 2025. Covers the proposal to slash university places, potentially by 100,000 a year, to boost apprenticeship funding.
Inkl: Published May 16, 2021. Reports criticism of Gavin Williamson's "dead-end" course remarks and the context of proposed funding cuts to arts subjects.
BBC News: Published May 29, 2024. Explains the Conservative plan to swap "rip-off" degrees for apprenticeships, citing commentary from industry bodies.
