For decades, league tables have dominated perceptions of university quality. Students, parents, and policymakers often equate a high rank with better teaching, higher earnings, or superior career prospects. Yet national rankings mask deep regional disparities annual tables fail to reflect the vibrant diversity of local economies, industries, and graduate experiences.

The Limits of Traditional League Tables

Conventional rankings emphasise entry standards, research output, student satisfaction, and average graduate salaries at the institutional level. These broad metrics obscure critical variations:

  • Regional cost of living and wage differences distort salary comparisons £30,000 in London isn’t equivalent, in real terms, to the same figure in the North East or the Midlands.

  • Subject mix matters. Institutions strong in creative or service disciplines may deliver exceptional outcomes in those sectors, yet appear weaker when rankings focus solely on salary averages.

  • Local job markets shape outcomes. Strong regional demand for graduates in healthcare, education or green energy may be underrepresented in national summaries.

Why Localised Graduate Outcomes Matter

The graduate labour market is far from uniform:

  • Graduate earnings vary by region. Even a decade into their careers, graduates in all regions earn at least 30–37% more than non-graduates, although the income gap between London and regions like the North remains significant.

  • Employment quality differs locally. Graduates in Northern England are more likely to be overqualified for available jobs, reflecting a mismatch between supply and regional labour demand.

  • Fair work and relocation dynamics vary. Preliminary HESA analysis shows that graduates who move (‘movers’) generally report better fair-work experiences than local stayers, though London shows a unique pattern where both groups record lower fair-work scores compared to many other regions.

  • Local opportunity mapping: The Office for Students (OfS) uses interactive “geographies of employment” to visualise regional variation in graduate job opportunities based on earnings and high-skill employment.

Towards a Fairer, More Nuanced Picture

What if graduate rankings embraced localised data?

  • Contextual insights: Comparing graduate outcomes relative to local cost of living, unemployment and regional demands paints a richer picture.

  • Revealing hidden strengths: A small regional university delivering excellent local outcomes say, in health sciences or community leadership would stand out beyond national averages.

  • Informed student decisions: Students aiming for specific careers or locales could compare universities based on real, relevant data.

Benefits for Students, Institutions, and Policymakers

Stakeholder Benefit of Localised Outcomes
Students Choose universities based on realistic, place-sensitive prospects
Universities Demonstrate regional impact beyond league-table prestige
Policymakers Target funding and skills development to underserved regions

Challenges and Next Steps

Bringing this vision to life involves overcoming certain hurdles:

  • Data privacy: Analysing outcomes by postcode requires careful management to maintain graduate anonymity.

  • Standardisation: Benchmarks must account for varying regional economic contexts median incomes, cost of living, local demand.

  • Communication: Presenting granular insights in a digestible, user-friendly format (e.g. interactive dashboards rather than overwhelming tables).

Yet tools like HESA’s Graduate Outcomes Survey and LEO data, and OfS’s “geography of employment” framework already lay a solid foundation for this evolution.

Conclusion: Success Rooted in Place

League tables are a snapshot; localised graduate outcomes tell a story about region, opportunity, and meaningful employment. By shifting focus from prestige to place and purpose, we can enable better-informed choices, support regional development, and ultimately redefine what “success” means in higher education.

References