Search

This paper examines evidence from the HESA DLHE six-month Censuses and 3½ year ('longitudinal') surveys relating to three aspects of the flows of those who have left university with Higher Education Engineering qualifications, to test the robustness of the conclusions of SKOPE Research Paper No. 122 (Dixon, 2015), which showed strong evidence that most Engineering graduates do not go on to work in the sectors of the economy that might be expected, in particular in the 'natural' Manufacturing sub-sector. Specifically, the paper examines three questions: (1) whether evidence of starting salary levels for those from particular disciplines going into particular sectors could explain the relative flows (on the assumption that higher salaries for graduate vacancies in a particular sector would attract more applications); (2) whether evidence of sector destinations three years on from the (six-month after graduation) Census data analysed in Dixon (2015) would show up significantly different levels of 'leakage'; and (3) whether those entering employment having completed Taught Masters (as opposed to First Degree) courses in particular Engineering disciplines would tend (in the light of their apparent greater interest and deeper understanding in the specific discipline) to enter the "expected" sectors more than their Bachelors colleagues. The "bottom line" answers to these questions is that -- with rather minor exceptions -- none of the relevant broader evidence from HESA DLHE data over a ten-year period significantly questions the very considerable 'leakage', away from the 'natural' Manufacturing sub-sector, that was found and presented in Dixon (2015). (1) There is "some" correlation between the "average salaries offered" (by employers in each 'destination' sector to cohorts from each Engineering discipline examined) and the "size of the flows" from each discipline into each sector, but it is limited and rarely strong. While there might be reasons why average salary differences might not be large enough to provide a sufficient incentive for Engineering graduates to choose one sector over another, evidence of considerably greater correlation would have been helpful to justify the traditional response of classical economics to employers' concerns about shortages: "offer more money"! (2) While there are sample size issues constraining the statistical precision of comparisons between the two DLHE surveys, these have been addressed, and comparisons of the "linear flows" of graduates from each discipline into the natural Manufacturing sub-sector show (a) comparatively very small differences, and (b) on balance, slightly "greater" 'leakage' three years on; and (3) More MSc's in "Automotive" and "Aerospace Engineering" have, over the ten years examined, then gone into the "Manufacture of Motor Vehicles"... and "Air and Space craft manufacture" (respectively) than BEng's from these disciplines. However, for the other disciplines compared, there is little difference, and -- in terms of entry into Manufacturing as a whole, for the most recent year in the period - the fraction of the disciplinary cohorts entering "any type of Manufacturing" is slightly "higher" for MSc's than First Degree (FD) graduates in "three" Engineering disciplines, though "lower" for MSc's than FD's in "four"! This new evidence, therefore, only serves to "strengthen" the great importance of NOT assuming linear flows of Engineering graduates into the "natural" Manufacturing sub-sectors corresponding to their discipline, in particular in policy responses to reports of shortages from such sub-sectors.