IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Myth of Parity of Esteem: Earnings and Qualifications

Listed author(s):
  • Peter Robinson
Registered author(s):

    There is no parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications in the labour market. Data from the Labour Force Survey show that on average men and women working full-time with academic qualifications at one level in the national qualifications framework earn about the same as men and women with vocational qualifications set notionally one level higher. So those with A levels have earnings similar to those with higher or level 4 vocational qualifications, those with 5 or more O levels or higher grade GCSEs have earnings similar to those with level 3 vocational qualifications, and those with 1-4 O levels or higher grade GCSEs have earnings similar to those with level 2 vocational qualifications. These higher earnings occur firstly because academic qualifications at a given level are more successful in buying access to more highly paid occupations. Secondly, within the most highly paid managerial, professional and technical occupations, academic qualifications are associated with higher earnings. These findings raise significant issues for public policy, calling into question the way in which the UK's National Targets for Education and Training have been formulated and much work on international comparisons of educational attainment.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Centre for Economic Performance, LSE in its series CEP Discussion Papers with number dp0354.

    in new window

    Date of creation: Jul 1997
    Handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0354
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.