Universities are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that their graduates secure meaningful employment. In response, governments and regulators have embedded employability metrics into performance frameworks, funding models, and league tables. In the UK, for example, graduate outcomes (B3) data has become a central feature of regulatory oversight and institutional strategy.
On the surface, this seems entirely reasonable. Students invest significant time and money into higher education, and they expect a return in the form of improved career prospects. Policymakers, in turn, want assurance that universities are delivering value.
Yet, despite this growing emphasis, a fundamental problem persists:
Employability metrics, as currently designed, are failing universities—and more importantly, they are failing students.
The Illusion of Measurement
At the heart of the issue lies a simple but powerful question: what exactly are we measuring?
Most employability metrics rely on narrow indicators such as:
- Graduate employment rates
- Salaries after 15 months
- Job classification (e.g. “professional” roles)(Don’t ask me about Models)
While these measures provide a snapshot, they do not capture the complexity of graduate outcomes.
Employment is not a binary state. Nor is it a static endpoint. Careers evolve over time, often through nonlinear and unpredictable pathways. By reducing employability to short-term outcomes, metrics create an illusion of precision while obscuring the reality of graduate transitions.
The Timing Problem
One of the most widely used measures in the UK is based on graduate destinations approximately 15 months after completion. This timeframe is deeply problematic.
Many graduates:
- Pursue further study
- Start businesses (which at 15 months is traveling through the valley of death)
- Take interim roles while exploring career options
- Enter industries with longer entry pathways
For these individuals, early outcomes may appear weak, even though their long-term trajectories are strong.
The result is a systematic distortion: universities are judged on when outcomes occur, rather than how meaningful those outcomes ultimately become.
Penalising the Wrong Institutions
Employability metrics often fail to account for differences in student demographics and institutional missions.
Universities that:
- Serve widening participation students
- Operate in economically disadvantaged regions
- Recruit non-traditional learners
are frequently penalised.
These institutions play a critical role in social mobility, yet their graduates may face structural barriers in the labour market. Lower short-term employment outcomes do not necessarily reflect poor educational quality—they often reflect inequality in opportunity.
By ignoring context, current metrics risk reinforcing the very inequalities they are meant to address.
The Narrow Definition of Success
Another major limitation is the narrow definition of what constitutes “success.”
Metrics typically prioritise:
- Full-time employment
- High salaries
- Traditional career pathways (Occupation codes last changed on 4 April 2024)
However, this excludes a wide range of valuable outcomes, including:
- Entrepreneurship and self-employment
- Portfolio careers
- Social impact work
- Creative and cultural industries
In an economy increasingly characterised by flexibility and diversity, these pathways are not marginal—they are central.
Yet, because they do not fit neatly into existing metrics, they are often undervalued or ignored.
Behavioural Distortions
Perhaps the most concerning consequence of current employability metrics is how they shape institutional behaviour.
When universities are measured on specific indicators, they naturally optimise for those indicators.
This can lead to:
- Overemphasis on short-term job outcomes
- Strategic steering of students towards “safe” careers
- Reduced support for entrepreneurship or risk-taking
- Gaming of data through selective reporting or classification
In extreme cases, employability becomes less about empowering students and more about managing metrics.
This is a classic example of Goodhart’s Law:
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
The Missing Middle: Capability Development
One of the most significant gaps in current frameworks is the absence of capability-based measures.
Employability is not just about outcomes; it is about:
- Skills development
- Confidence and agency
- Networks and social capital
- The ability to navigate uncertainty
These capabilities are developed over time and are often invisible in traditional metrics.
For example, a student who:
- Builds strong professional networks
- Develops entrepreneurial skills
- Gains meaningful project experience
may be highly employable, even if their first job is not immediately “high status.”
By focusing only on outcomes, metrics ignore the underlying processes that drive long-term success.
Regional and Structural Blind Spots
Employability metrics also fail to account for regional economic conditions.
Graduates in areas with:
- Limited job opportunities
- Lower average wages
- Sectoral decline
are inherently disadvantaged in outcome-based measures.
Universities cannot control local labour markets, yet they are judged as if they can.
This creates a disconnect between:
- Institutional performance
- Regional economic realities
and further disadvantages institutions located outside major economic hubs.
Data Without Insight
Another challenge is the overreliance on quantitative data without sufficient qualitative insight.
Large-scale surveys provide valuable information, but they often lack depth. They do not capture:
- Graduate experiences
- Career aspirations
- Barriers faced
- Non-linear pathways
Without this context, data can be misleading.
For example, a graduate in a “non-professional” role may be:
- Building experience in a chosen field
- Transitioning between careers
- Prioritising personal circumstances
Yet, the metric records this simply as a negative outcome.
Towards Better Employability Measures
If current metrics are failing, what should replace them?
A more effective approach would involve a shift from outcomes-only measurement to a multi-dimensional framework.
1. Longitudinal Tracking
Instead of focusing on short-term outcomes, metrics should track graduates over time:
- 3 years
- 5 years
- 10 years
This would provide a more accurate picture of career development.
2. Contextualisation
Metrics must account for:
- Student demographics
- Regional economic conditions
- Institutional mission
This would create fairer comparisons and more meaningful insights.
3. Inclusion of Diverse Pathways
Entrepreneurship, self-employment, and portfolio careers should be fully recognised and valued.
This requires:
- New classification systems
- Better data collection methods
4. Capability-Based Indicators
Universities should be assessed on their ability to develop:
- Skills
- Networks
- Confidence
- Career management capabilities
These are the foundations of employability.
5. Integration with Skills Frameworks
Linking outcomes to frameworks such as ESCO (European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations) would enable:
- Better alignment with labour market needs
- More granular analysis of skills development
Reframing the Purpose of Employability
Ultimately, the issue is not just technical—it is philosophical.
What is the purpose of higher education?
If employability is reduced to:
- Immediate job outcomes
- Salary levels
then universities become training providers for the labour market.
But higher education has a broader role:
- Developing critical thinkers
- Enabling social mobility
- Fostering innovation and entrepreneurship
- Contributing to society
Employability should be understood as the capacity to create value over a lifetime, not just secure a job in the short term.
Conclusion
Employability metrics were introduced with good intentions: to ensure accountability, improve outcomes, and provide transparency.
However, in their current form, they fall short.
They:
- Oversimplify complex realities
- Ignore context
- Distort behaviour
- Undervalue diverse pathways
Most importantly, they fail to capture what truly matters: the long-term ability of graduates to navigate, contribute to, and shape an ever-changing world.
If universities are to fulfil their role in society, we must move beyond narrow metrics and embrace a richer, more nuanced understanding of employability.
Because the goal is not just to produce graduates who get jobs.
It is to develop individuals who can build careers, create opportunities, and drive the future of our economies.