For around 700,000 teenagers on the treadmill that is the English education system, the A and T-level results that drop this week may be the most important step of all.

They matter because they open the door to higher education, and a crucial life decision based on an unwritten contract that has stood since the 1960s: the better the marks, the greater the choice of institution and course available to applicants, and in due course, the value of the degree at the end of it.

A quarter of a century after Tony Blair set a target of 50% of school-leavers going to university, however, the fundamentals of that deal have been transformed.

Today’s prospective undergraduates face rising costs of tuition and debt, new labour market dynamics, and the uncertainties of the looming AI revolution.

Together, they pose a different question: Is going to university still worth it?

Huge financial costs

Of course, the value of the university experience and the degree that comes with it cannot be measured by finances alone, but the costs are unignorable.

For today’s students, the universal free tuition and student grants enjoyed by their parents’ generation have been replaced by annual fees that increase to £9,500 this year.

Living costs meanwhile will run to at least £61,000 over three years, according to new research.

Together, they will leave graduates saddled with average debts of £53,000, which, under new arrangements, they repay via a “graduate tax” of 9% on their earnings above £25,000 for up to 40 years.

A squeezed salary gap

As well as rising fees and costs of finance, graduates will enter a labour market in which the financial benefits of a degree are less immediately obvious.

Graduates do still enjoy a premium on starting salaries, but it may be shrinking thanks to advances in the minimum wage.

The Institute of Student Employers says the average graduate starting salary was £32,000 last year, though there is a wide variation depending on career.

With the minimum wage rising 6% to more than £26,000 this April, however, the gap to non-degree earners may have reduced.

A reduction in earning power may be compounded by the phenomenon of wage compression, which sees employers having less room to increase salaries across the pay scale because the lowest, compulsory minimum level has risen fast.

Taken over a career, however, the graduate premium remains unarguable.

Government data shows a median salary for all graduates aged 16-64 in 2024 of £42,000 and £47,000 for post-graduates, compared to £30,500 for non-graduates.

Graduates are also more likely to be in employment and in highly skilled jobs.

There is also little sign of buyer’s remorse.

A University of Bristol survey of more than 2,000 graduates this year found that, given a second chance, almost half would do the same course at the same institution.

And while a quarter would change course or university, only 3% said they would have skipped higher education.

No surprise then that industry body Universities UK believes the answer to the question is an unequivocal “yes”, even if the future of graduate employment remains unclear.

“This is a decision every individual needs to take for themselves; it is not necessarily the right decision for everybody. More than half the 18-year-old population doesn’t progress to university,” says chief executive Vivienne Stern.

“But if you look at it from a purely statistical point of view, there is absolutely no question that the majority who go to university benefit not only in terms of earnings.”

‘Roll with the punches’

She is confident that graduates will continue to enjoy the benefits of an extended education even if the future of work is profoundly uncertain.

“I think now more than ever you need to have the resilience that you acquire from studying at degree level to roll with the punches.

“If the labour market changes under you, you might need to reinvent yourself several times during your career in order to be able to ride out changes that are difficult to predict. That resilience will hold its value.”

The greatest change is likely to come from AI, the emerging technology whose potential to eat entry-level white collar jobs may be fulfilled even faster than predicted.

The recruitment industry is already reporting a decline in graduate-level posts.

Anecdotally, companies are already banking cuts to legal, professional, and marketing spend because an AI can produce the basic output almost instantly, and for free.

That might suggest a premium returning to non-graduate jobs that remain beyond the bots. An AI might be able to pull together client research or write an ad, but as yet, it can’t change a washer or a catheter.

It does not, however, mean the degree is dead, or that university is worthless, though the sector will remain under scrutiny for the quality and type of courses that are offered.

The government is in the process of developing a new skills agenda with higher education at its heart, but second-guessing what the economy will require in a year, never mind 10, has seldom been harder.

Read more from Sky News:
Water shortfall declared ‘nationally significant’
New pancreatic cancer vaccine shows promise
Could flashing mouthguards help safety problem?

Universities will be crucial to producing the skilled workers the UK needs to thrive, from life sciences to technology, but reducing students to economic units optimised by “high value” courses ignores the unquantifiable social, personal, and professional benefits going to university can bring.

In a time when culture wars are played out on campus, it is also fashionable to dismiss attendance at all but the elite institutions on proven professional courses as a waste of time and money. (A personal recent favourite came from a columnist with an Oxford degree in PPE and a career as an economics lecturer.)

The reality of university today means that no student can afford to ignore a cost-benefit analysis of their decision, but there is far more to the experience than the job you end up with. Even AI agrees.

Ask ChatGPT if university is still worth it, and it will tell you: “That depends on what you mean by worth – financially, personally, professionally – because each angle tells a different story.”

The US State Department has accused the UK of having “significant human rights issues”, including restrictions on free speech.

The unflattering assessment comes via a new version of an annual Human Rights Practices report, with its publication coinciding with Vice President JD Vance’s holiday in the Cotswolds.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates and analysis

It says human rights in the UK “worsened” in 2024, with “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression”, as well as “crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism” since the 7 October Hamas attack against Israel.

On free speech, while “generally provided” for, the report cites “specific areas of concern” around limits on “political speech deemed ‘hateful’ or ‘offensive'”.

Sir Keir Starmer has previously defended the UK’s record on free speech after concerns were raised by Mr Vance.

In response to the report, a UK government spokesperson said: “Free speech is vital for democracy around the world including here in the UK, and we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.”

The US report highlights Britain’s public space protection orders, which allow councils to restrict certain activities in some public places to prevent antisocial behaviour.

It also references “safe access zones” around abortion clinics, which the Home Office says are designed to protect women from harassment or distress.

They have been criticised by Mr Vance before, notably back in February during a headline-grabbing speech at the Munich Security Conference.

The report also criticises the Online Safety Act and accuses ministers of intervening to “chill speech” about last summer’s murders in Southport, highlighting arrests made in the wake of the subsequent riots.

Ministers have said the Online Safety Act is about protecting children, and repeatedly gone so far as to suggest people who are opposed to it are on the side of predators.

Read more politics news:
Is Keir Starmer falling into booby trap?
What is ex-minister Tulip Siddiq on trial for?

The report comes months after Sir Keir bit back at Mr Vance during a summit at the White House, cutting in when Donald Trump’s VP claimed there are “infringements on free speech” in the UK.

“We’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that,” the PM said.

But Mr Vance again raised concerns during a meeting with Foreign Secretary David Lammy at his country estate in Kent last week, saying he didn’t want the UK to go down a “very dark path” of losing free speech.

The US State Department’s report echoes similar accusations made by the likes of Nigel Farage and Elon Musk.

The Trump administration itself has been accused of trying to curtail free speech and stifle criticism, most notably by targeting universities – Harvard chief among them.

The police’s use of facial recognition technology is to be significantly expanded in an attempt to catch more offenders, ministers have announced.

Under the plans, 10 live facial recognition (LFR) vans will be used by seven forces across England to help identify “sex offenders or people wanted for the most serious crimes”, according to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates and analysis

The tech, which has been trialled in London and south Wales, will be subject to strict rules, the Home Office said, but human rights groups have warned it is “dangerous and discriminatory”.

Amnesty International UK said the plans should be “immediately scrapped”, with facial recognition proven to be “discriminatory against communities of colour”.

“It has been known to lead to misidentification and the risk of wrongful arrest,” said Alba Kapoor, the charity’s racial justice lead, “and it’s also known to be less accurate in scanning the faces of people of colour.”

The Home Office said the LFR vans will only be deployed when there is “specific intelligence”, and will be operated by trained officers who will check every match made by the cameras.

The vehicles will also only be used against bespoke watch lists, compiled for each use under guidelines set by the College of Policing.

The vans will be operated by police forces in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey and Sussex (jointly), and Thames Valley and Hampshire (jointly).

‘The most serious offenders’

Ms Cooper has said ministers are focused on making sure “there are proper safeguards in place”.

As part of the plans, the home secretary has announced she will be launching a consultation on how and when the cameras should be used, and with what safeguards, which the government will use to draw up a new legal framework for the use of the cameras.

Ms Cooper said the tech had been used in London and South Wales “in a targeted way”, and helped catch “the most serious offenders, including people wanted for violent assaults or for sex offences”.

According to the Metropolitan Police, the tech has led to 580 arrests for offences such as rape, domestic crime and knife crime in the space of 12 months.

The government has pointed to independent testing by the National Physical Laboratory, which it said found the tech was “accurate” and showed “no bias for ethnicity, age, or gender”.

Read more politics news:
Is Keir Starmer falling into booby trap?
What is ex-minister Tulip Siddiq on trial for?

Liberty has welcomed the government’s decision to create a statutory framework for using facial recognition, but said that should be in place before the tech is rolled out.

“There’s no reasonable excuse to be putting even more cameras on our streets before the public have had their say and legislation is brought in to protect all of us,” said a statement.

The civil liberties charity cited how more than 1.6 million people have had their faces scanned in South Wales, mostly on football match days in Cardiff city centre.

But Lindsey Chiswick, from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), has said the expansion “is an excellent opportunity for policing”, and will help officers locate suspects “quickly and accurately”.