X Close

It’s time to stop pushing all kids towards university

‘Education and qualifications are not the same thing.’ Credit: Getty

‘Education and qualifications are not the same thing.’ Credit: Getty

June 19 2026 - 3:59pm

A recent Telegraph article blamed poor parenting on the educational underachievement of white working-class children. Once again, somebody had to be held responsible. Either parents have failed, we are told, or society has. Yet amid the search for people to blame, almost nobody pauses to ask a more fundamental question: when exactly did we decide that educational attainment is the defining feature of a successful childhood?

Every social problem today is assumed to have an educational solution. Every inequality demands more qualifications. And yet few people ever pause to ask why. Policymakers have convinced themselves that the ultimate goal is to get children into university and then professional careers. The clear and persistent resistance of some children to this grand objective is seldom thoughtfully analyzed. Instead, recalcitrant kids are treated like patients who refuse to take their medicine. But why should becoming a plumber, electrician, carpenter or mechanic be regarded as a consolation prize compared to a sedate office job?

Hundreds of thousands of young people are training for trade jobs — more than 350,000 apprenticeships were started in England last year, while graduate recruitment has fallen by almost 25% in just three years, creating the weakest graduate job market for 13 years. Many degree-holders are now discovering that there are simply not enough jobs to go around. So why do we instinctively treat a university degree as evidence of success, and insist that building houses is somehow less admirable than making PowerPoint presentations?

We no longer seem to ask whether young people are becoming wiser or more capable. Instead, we ask whether they are qualified, and continue to herd young people into universities whether they belong there or not. Such is our faith in the great God of Education that Britain has spent a mind-boggling £30 billion since 2011 attempting to boost the grades of poorer children, despite the fact that many thrive once they leave school behind.

Of course, education and qualifications are not the same thing. Yet modern Britain increasingly treats them as though they were, encouraging young people to remain in formal education for as long as possible. This is especially true when it comes to the working class. Everybody appears to agree that the ultimate goal is to get these children into university and away from their socio-economic background. Yet what exactly is the message being communicated? That you should strive to leave behind your parents’ way of life, or that the world which raised you is something to escape rather than cherish?

Traditionally, the term “working class” described people who earned their living through wages rather than professional salaries, often in jobs involving manual, skilled, or routine work. It didn’t necessitate extensive qualifications.

However, now that childhood is built around education, formal qualifications are increasingly required even for traditionally working-class jobs. Nursing training has moved from the hospital ward to the university, while occupations previously learned largely on the job — from electricians and plumbers to mechanics and builders — are increasingly filtered through qualifications and structured training programs. That’s fine for the kids who are academic, but disastrous for the type of individual who would rather work their way up the ladder by dint of hard work.

This is particularly strange because working-class life once carried its own dignity. A man or woman who earned a living through skilled manual work, paid their bills, and contributed to their community was considered respectable. Today, however, the assumption is that the highest purpose of schooling is to transform every working-class child into a graduate. Yet we still need people to build houses, fit boilers, repair roads and fix broken washing machines. The country cannot survive only on consultants and business executives.

Perhaps the problem isn’t that too few children are escaping the working class, but that respectable working-class lives have become culturally invisible. Along the way, we have dismissed not only practical skills, but also the knowledge that there are many paths to a good and decent life.


Stella O’Malley is a psychotherapist and bestselling author. She is Founder-Director of Genspect, an international organisation that advocates for a healthy approach to sex and gender.

stellaomalley3

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam