The graduate premium is falling in the UK but rising in the US. However even if the grad premium was rising everywhere, it still might have nothing to do what students learn at university. It could be the result of the "signal" sent by university attendance - a signal that could be replaced by something far cheaper and less time-consuming. Even in America, where the grad premium is rising, there are plenty of people who would argue that it's still the result of a signal - not the result of the human capital gained from being at university. There is a huge academic debate about this which is very hard to settle one way or the other, partly because we have such poor assessment data on universities. I don't think the value of university is 100% signal. I think it's a mix of human capital & signals. If we want to tilt it more towards human capital, we need better assessment data. We need to know which universities are the best at teaching certain skills (and which skills are most valuable in the job market). Graduate earnings data cannot tell you this. I just don't think it's good enough for the graduate premium to be the sole measure of university impact. You wouldn't measure a hospital by the later earnings of the people it treats! We shouldn't measure universities that way either! substack.nomoremarking.com/p…