A decade ago, the problem was obvious. Technical education was often described as a good option — but not quite as good as A levels and university. You could hear it in careers talks, see it in prospectuses, and read it in national headlines. Our shared fury in the FE sector was not matched by those outside of the sector. Apprenticeships and vocational pathways were treated as worthy, but still somehow second best — the choice for “other people’s children.”
Fast-forward to 2025 and you could be forgiven for thinking the pendulum has swung — but perhaps a little too far. Today’s prevailing narrative is that becoming a full-time university student is a poor choice for most young people, while apprenticeships are positioned as the only sensible route. Social media feeds are full of pithy “£50k debt vs £50k salary” comparisons, accompanied by the obligatory photo of a graduate in a cap and gown looking regretful
It’s effective clickbait, ignores the reality of availability, and is the same zero-sum game, just with the players swapped.
When we pit “academic” against “technical,” we ignore the messy, diverse reality of learner needs, employer demands, and regional skills priorities. We gloss over the fact that some careers will always require a traditional degree, while others will never need one, or that A Levels are relevant for many career paths. And we pretend that learning choices are purely rational economic decisions, when in fact they are deeply personal, shaped by aspirations, interests, and circumstances.
When we play education Top Trumps, we risk making three mistakes:
1. We oversimplify. Not all A levels, degrees, apprenticeships, diplomas, or T Levels are equal. A poor apprenticeship is not better than a high-quality BTEC, and vice versa.
2. We distort choice. Young people start from different places — in skills, aspirations, financial situations, and support networks. Our role is to help them find the right fit for them, not for our preferred policy or personal experience narrative.
3. We waste trust. Every time we knock one route to promote another, we chip away at the credibility of the system as a whole. The winners and losers of today’s rhetoric can swap places tomorrow.
Some learners will thrive in the workplace from day one; others need time, structure, and space to explore and develop. A balanced system respects that diversity.
If we truly believe in “parity of esteem,” we can’t keep framing one route’s success as another’s failure. We need stability in policy, investment in teaching and employer engagement, and high expectations for all routes — so that every choice a learner makes is worth making. And when a poor choice is made, there is a clear path that gives them the confidence to change direction at any stage of their life.
The sector has been here before. We know the damage caused when one path is labelled “less than.” The real question is whether we’ll break the cycle, or whether, ten years from now, we’ll simply have swapped the hierarchy yet again.
It’s time to stop the comparisons and continue to focus on conversations about quality, relevance, and choice. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
This article first appeared in FE News
