This absolutely disturbs me. I don’t have a problem, per se, with a ranking system based on how many students drop out, since I think that is a relatively reasonable indicator of quality. I don’t have a problem with a ranking system based loosely on student satisfaction surveys, with appropriate caveats for personal bias and whatnot. I don’t even have a problem with a ranking system based on results, although that requires some sort of standardization and runs the risk of ‘teaching to the test’. In general, I don’t have a problem with ranking systems for education – with so much choice, there has to be a way to narrow the field a little bit or people get overwhelmed.

Earning potential should not be a part of these ranking systems. I understand that my attitude is born out of an upper-middle-class, privileged background that allows me to think this way, but education should not merely be a means to money. People should study something that they’re interested in, ideally in a program that provides transferable skills. (And employers should recognize these transferable skills, no matter what it says on a person’s certificate or diploma.) If you aren’t learning about something that you’re interested in, if you don’t work at something you enjoy at some level, then all the money in the world doesn’t matter.

Also, future earnings can’t possibly be a secure, reliable factor. Look at how much the economy has changed in the last couple of years, and the last decade. Plus, a qualification is not a guarantee of a job offer, much less a salary band. Certain courses – the ones that list higher potential earnings – will be flooded with people who have only a minimal interest in the subject, which will overload the job market – which right now is overloaded anyway. I see no good reason that is not purely mercenary to include potential earnings on a ranking system.

This is not to say that potential earnings do not have a place when people are making a choice about what to study. Just that they shouldn’t be used in a ranking system, and especially not one linked to funding of courses or – especially – whether or not a course continues to exist, as is implied in the first paragraph of this article.

Also, quango: Originally: an ostensibly non-governmental organization which in practice carries out work for the government. Now chiefly: an administrative body which has a recognized role within the processes of national government, but which is constituted in a way which affords it some independence from government, even though it may receive state funding or support and senior appointments to it may be made by government ministers. [OED]