The article is written from an English perspective. It does follow very closely the usual worn out consensus of recent decades that it is mandatory to further increase the numbers of graduates, despite their growing personal indebtedness.<p>Apparently, according to the author, this is all justified by the fact that graduates have lower unemployment rates than non-graduates.<p>I think it is time to start questioning this dogma. It is the more able half of the population that is typically selected for entrance by the UK universities (and so it should be). Surely, it would be very surprising indeed, if they were not also the more employable half, regardless of whether they study or not? The content of their studies is increasingly irrelevant anyway, as is confirmed by the fact that &quot;more than half of graduates are overqualified for their jobs&quot;. That means they are the more able people competing for the same old unqualified jobs and so, of course, they win.<p>In these circumstances, the &quot;studies&quot; of ever increasing proportion of population are nothing more than a way of transferring more of their future incomes to the bankers. It is an interesting &quot;coincidence&quot; that the drive for expansion of student numbers coincided with the introduction of the american model of personal loans for education and ever increasing fees.