Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?

With many students going to university undecided about what they really want to do as a career, I've been wondering whether it should become mandatory for prospective students to undertake a year of paid work before receiving an offer of study. Basically it would be similar to the National Service scheme proposed by Rishi Sunak, but not limited to the armed forces or community volunteering. Basically, once an 18 year old finishes their A-Levels, they would be required to undertake paid work in any role for a year. This will help to better prepare them for the world of work since they will learn more about themselves and might find that their newfound knowledge on a particular career didn't match their expectations.
Alternatively, such a scheme could come in the form of mandatory apprenticeships, with guaranteed progression provided students are competent in their role. There are many degree subjects that could be reworked as an apprenticeship, with more real-world skills training and no debt for students, but could still come with university-like perks such as accommodation, team building and social events. Thinking about it, if there were more apprenticeships available, would there be much point in going to university at all?
Now I'm not saying university is a bad thing, but there is this obsession with young people going as soon as they turn 18, when in reality it might be better for prospective students to wait a few years while earning an income and deciding what they really want to do for a career before wasting any taxpayers money. Would you support a mandatory working gap year for all 18-year olds after they finish their A-Levels?

Sounds like an idea, but how would work placements be organised? Are the students supposed to organise them themselves? If so, what happens if they don't get the placement in the place that they want to work at or go into a line of work that's relevant to what they want to do?
Working in any job doesn't have the same effect as working in the line of work that they want to go into. Should they just get any job and not something that could benefit them (e.g. sweeping streets), how would the mandatory year be of benefit at all?
Then you have the economics of the situation: there just simply isn't enough jobs of A Level+ calibre to go around for everyone. Even if you made as many apprenticeships as widely available as you can, there are still more students than there are apprenticeship placements.
I'm not a big fan of Sunak's National Service scheme in the first place, partly because it forces young people to attend to service that they never chose to do in the first place. If you need to force people to do a job, the job is going to be done mediocre at best. If it's a conscription, then people generally are going to have a long list of issues with it e.g. fighting a war that they never chose to be in.

The point of students taking a working gap year is that it helps them develop some sort of transferable skills, even if the role is not relevant to what they want to do (and many students at that stage have absolutely no idea what they want to do!)
If students don’t get a gap year placement/job, they would be required to sign on to universal credit by law (and by that I mean actually actively looking for work) until they found a job. Alternatively, some sort of government-run matching scheme could be introduced to ensure every 18 year old is assigned a job best suited to their skills and abilities.
Menial work (like sweeping streets) has to be done by somebody, so I can’t see why that wouldn’t be of any benefit to students in their gap year. They are learning valuable life skills and earning money at the same time, which can teach them a lot about life.
If we are in a situation where there aren’t enough skilled jobs for the amount of skilled graduates, then surely the problem is to do with UK government policy and not the students themselves?

The point of students taking a working gap year is that it helps them develop some sort of transferable skills
This sounds great on paper, and in theory I would agree with you. In practice though, I fail to see much of this being material.
I am not sure about your experience of the general job market, but there aren't that many "transferrable skills" and they aren't really that transferrable between jobs.
even if the role is not relevant to what they want to do (and many students at that stage have absolutely no idea what they want to do!)
It's a fair point if they don't know what they want to do, but if they do I will struggle to see how much of a benefit a mandatory gap year for work will help them that much.
If students don’t get a gap year placement/job, they would be required to sign on to universal credit by law
I am not sure how much you know about the way the universal credit system works when it comes to job hunting. The existing system forces candidates to pick any job that they can apply for and that they can get through to. Their goal isn't to further the candidates' future job prospects as much as getting them off the dole; what developments that come from the job is irrelevant to them. You can be babysitting 2 hours per week, and that would automatically get you off the system even if it pays you £10 per week.
some sort of government-run matching scheme could be introduced to ensure every 18 year old is assigned a job best suited to their skills and abilities
As much as I like this idea, demand and supply: not enough jobs suited for college educated 18 year olds to go round. There aren't enough graduates jobs for graduates, let alone college leavers. If there were, I would be in agreement with you.
Also, "a job best suited to their skills and abilities" - that's very subjective to say the least. The government official responsible for individual candidates can be a poor judge or character and potential. Again, nothing to say that it's anything the individual student would want.
Menial work (like sweeping streets) has to be done by somebody, so I can’t see why that wouldn’t be of any benefit to students in their gap year. They are learning valuable life skills and earning money at the same time, which can teach them a lot about life.
Whilst I am not demeaning menial work and I do also agree that the work needs to be done by somebody, college leavers are usually overqualified for such roles. If they're the sort of jobs that they can get as part time jobs during their college studies, what sort of benefit would the mandatory gap year in these sort of jobs get them?
If the aim is to get the students to develop their skills and prepare them for the job market, then it would make more sense to secure them something that's going to increase the number of marketable skills (as opposed to transferrable skills) that they can get. If you see candidates with a long list of menial jobs, what's the likelihood of an employer jumping on the chance of employing them for a role in say investment banking, accounting, law?
Menial work at the end of the day introduces very few marketable skills to other employers, and at the very best a reference that the prospective employer might not value.
Do also note that there are significantly more menial jobs than there are of college leaver level jobs. If the student is like any other job candidate in the market and gained very little in terms of this mandatory gap year that would differentiate him from his competitors, would the gap year be a deterrent or a benefit?
Also, you don't really learn a lot of life skills in menial work, as anyone who worked in menial work can tell you.
If we are in a situation where there aren’t enough skilled jobs for the amount of skilled graduates, then surely the problem is to do with UK government policy and not the students themselves?
I would love to blame the government for this, especially if they implement a mandatory gap year that lead students on wild goose chases. However, the government can't always control the economics of a country (in theory they should be able to, but in practice they can't).
The job market at the end of the day is down to basic economics. The government doesn't really dictate the number of skilled jobs available; it's a matter of what is available. Organisations hire what they need, not what people wish. If organisations only need 1 college leaver each, they won't suddenly have the budget and manpower to hire and train 2. Even if they are the richest company in the world, if they only need 10 graduates, they won't go out of their way to hire 20.
Hiring people is an expensive endeavour, not a bureaucratic exercise. Care and thought are (or rather should) goes into each hiring decision and employment. Hiring the wrong person can cost the company more than just the salary of the individual e.g. backlog of work, expensive delays, cost of training replacement, demotivation of the company in general. You can't just pluck jobs out of the sky.
In theory, I would love to agree with you. In practice, it's just not realistic.

If you are arguing that menial work will not improve a student’s career prospects, then arguably what’s the point of doing such work at all unless you desperately need the money? Time spent doing a part-time menial job could instead be used for a student to further their studies or take on volunteering/enrichment activities better suited to their career goals. I never took on a part time job during my studies, and I could say that I got better grades as a result. Whether I lost out on learning valuable skills as a result is another matter.
From my impression, many graduate recruiters say that working low-skill jobs are still good for improving career prospects, as they provide skills such as working at pace, team building, customer service and following procedures. I’d argue it’s much better to be working a menial job than not working at all for that reason.
The point is that unless we invest in high pay high skilled jobs, there will always be people working jobs that are below their ability, no matter how hard young people try to improve their prospects.
It’s no good shaming and penalising young people who fail to teach their potential when such opportunities were never available in the first place.

If you are arguing that menial work will not improve a student’s career prospects, then arguably what’s the point of doing such work at all unless you desperately need the money?
Pretty much, other than getting a reference and networking. Unless the job they did was similar or closely resemble what their next job would be, I haven't seen evidence of this being particularly helpful.
Time spent doing a part-time menial job could instead be used for a student to further their studies or take on volunteering/enrichment activities better suited to their career goals.
Pretty much. Having said that, it depends on what they are studying as not everything they study can or would be of benefit. Also the scope that volunteering has for job prospects is also severely limited; again if there's minimal relevance to their next job (in my opinion, anything that's not in the charity sector), there's not much to gain from it other than reference and networking.
From my impression, many graduate recruiters say that working low-skill jobs are still good for improving career prospects, as they provide skills such as working at pace, team building, customer service and following procedures.
My impression after speaking with a variety of recruiters is somewhat different. However, that's just my impression though.
I’d argue it’s much better to be working a menial job than not working at all for that reason.
I'd suppose, but I would still say the most that they would get out of it is a reference.
It’s no good shaming and penalising young people who fail to reach (sic) their potential when such opportunities were never available in the first place.
I don't believe I have said that young people should be shamed or penalised for lacking the opportunities. If I have implied that this is the case, then I want to clarify that I am not saying it was their fault (it's still their responsibility, but not their fault). I am saying that it is the situation that they're in, and it's up to them to respond accordingly.

If you are arguing that menial work will not improve a student’s career prospects, then arguably what’s the point of doing such work at all unless you desperately need the money? Time spent doing a part-time menial job could instead be used for a student to further their studies or take on volunteering/enrichment activities better suited to their career goals. I never took on a part time job during my studies, and I could say that I got better grades as a result. Whether I lost out on learning valuable skills as a result is another matter.
From my impression, many graduate recruiters say that working low-skill jobs are still good for improving career prospects, as they provide skills such as working at pace, team building, customer service and following procedures. I’d argue it’s much better to be working a menial job than not working at all for that reason.
The point is that unless we invest in high pay high skilled jobs, there will always be people working jobs that are below their ability, no matter how hard young people try to improve their prospects.
It’s no good shaming and penalising young people who fail to teach their potential when such opportunities were never available in the first place.

With many students going to university undecided about what they really want to do as a career, I've been wondering whether it should become mandatory for prospective students to undertake a year of paid work before receiving an offer of study. Basically it would be similar to the National Service scheme proposed by Rishi Sunak, but not limited to the armed forces or community volunteering. Basically, once an 18 year old finishes their A-Levels, they would be required to undertake paid work in any role for a year. This will help to better prepare them for the world of work since they will learn more about themselves and might find that their newfound knowledge on a particular career didn't match their expectations.
Alternatively, such a scheme could come in the form of mandatory apprenticeships, with guaranteed progression provided students are competent in their role. There are many degree subjects that could be reworked as an apprenticeship, with more real-world skills training and no debt for students, but could still come with university-like perks such as accommodation, team building and social events. Thinking about it, if there were more apprenticeships available, would there be much point in going to university at all?
Now I'm not saying university is a bad thing, but there is this obsession with young people going as soon as they turn 18, when in reality it might be better for prospective students to wait a few years while earning an income and deciding what they really want to do for a career before wasting any taxpayers money. Would you support a mandatory working gap year for all 18-year olds after they finish their A-Levels?

So basically, a government-run mandatory job scheme for 18 year olds would be unworkable due to the fact that you can't force skilled jobs to become available, and many would refuse to take up menial work.
If this is the case, should we be pushing towards automating menial jobs? If this results in a loss of part-time jobs for students and parents, how would they be prepared for the world of work? How would they make ends meet? Would some sort of universal basic income have to be implemented?

I swear you are prompting me to write a novel.
should we be pushing towards automating menial jobs?
If we are pushing to automate menial jobs when there is a good portion of the population who are looking for wages from menial jobs to survive, wouldn't that put a good portion of the population in dire financial straits?
On the other hand, you can automate a good portion of menial jobs, but not all of them. For a good number of jobs where you will require a certain degree of creativity, customer facing service, ingenuity, and judgement, you can't automate all these jobs out of existence. Some jobs would still require people to attend to.
If this results in a loss of part-time jobs for students and parents, how would they be prepared for the world of work?
Probably a better type of work preparation programme set by the government - of course the government shouldn't be the ones who design it since they would try to make it an academic and bureaucratic exercise. These should be designed by people who understand job requirements and are familiar with the job markets; the course then should be updated annually to reflect market changes and employer expectations/requirements.
In fact, prior to the industrial revolution and advent of factories, a lot of people were self employed and learned their crafts through apprenticeships, much like how a lot of people still maintain this tradition in non-Western countries.
How would they make ends meet? Would some sort of universal basic income have to be implemented?
It depends how far you want to take this idea of a dystopian future where people are overqualified, unemployment rate is sky high, and the robots have taken over the world. I came across enough material from futurologists to understand the hype.
If you take things to the extreme, it's likely that people would need to have a UBI in order to sustain themselves. Whether you can call this socialism or a social democracy, I would leave it up to you since I am not into the political debate side of things or fuss over minute differences in definitions.
Building on from the answer in the previous question, prior to the introduction of the industrial revolution, many people have been self employed workers or work in small teams. According to some entrepreneurs who I have spoken to, it seems like the trend is reverting back to this as the norm. This is advantageous if you know how to use the technology that we have to benefit you as an entrepreneur; if you are a worker where you are likely to be automated out of a job, then this isn't so much.
If this is the case, then it would make sense for the government to set and design a programme that would introduce more people into setting up their own businesses. You might argue that we have plenty of these in place already, but I would argue that a lot of these are more academic and don't really provide much of the knowledge businesspeople need to know that are required of them by law e.g. how to file for self assessment, what are the key dates for filing taxes, safety regulations for work, employment rights. In fact, I have yet to come across a start-up business course that even teaches people how to sell; one of the most important skills you would need to get anywhere in business.
That is, if the government doesn't want more people on UBI and not contribute to society.
In practice though, we are far from seeing anything resembling the dystopian future described above for a long time. Despite the progress of technology, many companies are still sticking to traditional ways of working; many still use archaic methods, pressured by senseless bureaucratic processes that are still in place. Until cost pressures become too much and new attitudes towards change come into organisations, it's not so likely that things would change that fast. In other words, we would still have need for people doing menial jobs for a long time to come.
By the way, are you a student?

No, I’m no longer a student. In fact I graduated 2 years ago but have only done menial work since. Ironically i’m the type of person that my proposed policy would aim to prevent from churning out.

I get where you are coming from with this.
What gets me more though is that people are attending uni thinking that their degree would get them a skilled occupation with nicer salaries. The problem is that most of the jobs they are thinking of getting into don't need a degree. For example, if you want to go into accounting, an accounting degree is pretty redundant; nobody is specifically requiring you to have a degree in geography to work in civil service; professional IT certificates tend to be help more than degrees in computer science to go into tech.
I think the information colleges and schools dishing out regarding higher education is far from accurate and would require a lot of revision. In more cases than not, I think the inaccurate information is doing more harm than anything. For one, setting unrealistic expectations of what is achievable for the masses is setting people up for disappointment (not saying people can't do the job, but more so the chances can be incredibly slim for them to get the opportunity to do the job, even if it's not something as rare as becoming a footballer or a pop star).

With many students going to university undecided about what they really want to do as a career, I've been wondering whether it should become mandatory for prospective students to undertake a year of paid work before receiving an offer of study. Basically it would be similar to the National Service scheme proposed by Rishi Sunak, but not limited to the armed forces or community volunteering. Basically, once an 18 year old finishes their A-Levels, they would be required to undertake paid work in any role for a year. This will help to better prepare them for the world of work since they will learn more about themselves and might find that their newfound knowledge on a particular career didn't match their expectations.
Alternatively, such a scheme could come in the form of mandatory apprenticeships, with guaranteed progression provided students are competent in their role. There are many degree subjects that could be reworked as an apprenticeship, with more real-world skills training and no debt for students, but could still come with university-like perks such as accommodation, team building and social events. Thinking about it, if there were more apprenticeships available, would there be much point in going to university at all?
Now I'm not saying university is a bad thing, but there is this obsession with young people going as soon as they turn 18, when in reality it might be better for prospective students to wait a few years while earning an income and deciding what they really want to do for a career before wasting any taxpayers money. Would you support a mandatory working gap year for all 18-year olds after they finish their A-Levels?

This is an interesting perspective.
With the rise of online learning and MOOCs which can provide as much depth as a traditional degree module in a shorter space of time, will there be much point in going to university in the future?

It depends on what you are attending university for.
If I wanted to cover the material in a university degree for example and have the same competence of a graduate with said degree, I can sometimes just go through the same textbooks and reading that they were assigned to in their degree. Likewise, if I wanted to learn about a specific module, I could always just do the reading for that module.
In your case, going through online learning and MOOCs can provide you with similar competence of a graduate of someone who did similar modules.
The problem comes if the said degree involves any practicals or require you to produce work that you would need supervision, equipment, etc. You can't claim to be a scientist if you have never done an experiment or have any experience in a lab for example.
Likewise, specific degrees hold specific accreditation that is required in specific jobs. I wouldn't be confident someone who just did MOOCs and online courses in medicine would be of the same competence as someone who has a degree in medicine for example. I also wouldn't want the law to then permit the same said person to go into medicine.
It's the same for other certain professions such as architect, engineer, nurse, midwife, and teacher.
If you can attain the same accreditation (certifications, professional qualifications) outside of uni at lower cost and in a shorter timeframe e.g. accounting, marketing, HR, IT, etc. then it would make sense to do so
In some cases, you would need to have a degree in a cognate subject in order to pursue research in the subject in academia. I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with a person who just did MOOCs and online courses in say maths, and then went ahead and try to claim to be a mathematician in academia for example.
If you want to do a degree for the sake of having knowledge in said degree and the degree doesn't hold any accreditation that you would legally need in a regulated profession, then I would be comfortable saying there isn't much point in going to university. I can probably be comfortable saying this applies for most theoretical subjects such as maths, philosophy, business studies, English lit, theology, etc.
In some cases, if the equipment you would need to cover the practicals is somewhat assessible, you might be able to apply the same logic as above e.g. if you want to learn about art or computer science, you can sometimes get away without going through the degree and cover the same content if you have all you need at home.
That's not to say if you want to develop an art form or a skill that requires intensive mentoring (that most universities don't provide at undergrad level) you won't benefit from a mentor of any kind though. It would be presumptuous to say that you can become the calibre of a businessperson that a billionaire is just by going through MOOCs and online courses, for example.
So no, it's not an straightforward answer in my perspective. There is more to it, and there is a place for having higher education in society in some respects. However, there is also a lot of scope for there being less need for a traditional degree as you have pointed out.

Another part of the problem is the fact that many employers state on job adverts that they require “at least x years of experience” for entry level roles, or a degree for a role which can competently be done by a school leaver, all for the purposes of narrowing down candidates. This just pressurises students to attend university when they don’t really need to, and actually their line of work that “required a degree and 3 years experience” could have been done by someone with just A-Levels or even GCSEs.
Ultimately there are two ways to solve this, either employers are mandated to be truthful when writing job adverts, or students should be taught not to take information at face value (they question whether that entry level job actually needs that level of academia/experience in the first place)

Another part of the problem is the fact that many employers state on job adverts that they require “at least x years of experience” for entry level roles, or a degree for a role which can competently be done by a school leaver, all for the purposes of narrowing down candidates.
Quite common unfortunately. I hear a lot of stories of this in the tech sector (I don't work in it).
On the other extreme, you actually get "entry level jobs" that actually require 2 years or more experience i.e. even if you come straight out of college or uni, you won't be able to do the work. However, I would think this is to do more with the companies trying to underpay workers and squeeze more out of them instead of paying them properly and fairly.
In any case, it's more to do with HR doing a poor job, if the line managers and companies are being genuine with their requirements. See some hilarious examples as follows:
https://x.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830?lang=en
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/w8jlso/but_doc_this_programming_language_just_came_out_5/#lightbox
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-ask-8-years-experience-something-invented-5-ago-bill-ray
This just pressurises students to attend university when they don’t really need to, and actually their line of work that “required a degree and 3 years experience” could have been done by someone with just A-Levels or even GCSEs.
Candidates will be overqualified all the same. They will get bored and move on. I agree, it's stupid.
Ultimately there are two ways to solve this, either employers are mandated to be truthful when writing job adverts, or students should be taught not to take information at face value (they question whether that entry level job actually needs that level of academia/experience in the first place)
Not that I'm a fan of bureaucracy and quangos , but you could have an independent regulatory body assessing the requirements of jobs for entry level roles or to assess job adverts are fair - in terms of salary, requirements, etc. They could also in turn feed back the requirements to the education sector for what is actually required in jobs.
I sometimes wonder what the cost to the economy is with all these inflated job requirements and educational achievements.