Tag: Graduate

  • Graduate outcomes should present a bigger picture

    Graduate outcomes should present a bigger picture

    September marks the start of the next round of Graduate Outcomes data collection.

    For universities, that means weeks of phone calls, follow-up emails, and dashboards that will soon be populated with the data that underpins OfS regulation and league tables.

    For graduates, it means answering questions about where they are, what they’re doing, and how they see their work and study 15 months on.

    A snapshot

    Graduate Outcomes matters. It gives the sector a consistent data set, helps us understand broad labour market trends, and (whether we like it or not) has become one of the defining measures of “quality” in higher education. But it also risks narrowing our view of graduate success to a single snapshot. And by the time universities receive the data, it is closer to two years after a student graduates.

    In a sector that can feel slow to change, two years is still a long time. Whole programmes can be redesigned, new employability initiatives launched, employer engagement structures reshaped. Judging a university on what its graduates were doing two years ago is like judging a family on how it treated the eldest sibling – the rules may well have changed by the time the younger one comes along. Applicants are, in effect, applying to a university in the past, not to the one they will actually experience.

    The problem with 15 months

    The design of Graduate Outcomes reflects a balance between timeliness and comparability. Fifteen months was chosen to give graduates time to settle into work or further study, but not so long that recall bias takes over. The problem is that 15 months is still very early in most careers, and by the time results are published, almost two years have passed.

    For some graduates, that means they are captured at their most precarious: still interning, trying out different sectors, or working in roles that are a stepping stone rather than a destination. For others, it means they are invisible altogether, portfolio workers, freelancers, or those in international labour markets where the survey struggles to track them.

    And then there is the simple reality that universities cannot fully control the labour market. If vacancies are not there because of a recession, hiring freezes, or sector-specific shocks, outcomes data inevitably dips, no matter how much careers support is offered. To read Graduate Outcomes as a pure reflection of provider performance is to miss the economic context it sits within.

    The invisible graduates

    Graduate Outcomes also tells us little about some of the fastest-growing areas of provision. Apprentices, CPD learners, and in future those engaging through the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), all sit outside its remit. These learners are central to the way government imagines the future of higher education (and in many cases to how universities diversify their own provision) yet their outcomes are largely invisible in official datasets.

    At the same time, Graduate Outcomes remains prominent in league tables, where it can have reputational consequences far beyond its actual coverage. The risk is that universities are judged on an increasingly narrow slice of their student population while other important work goes unrecognised.

    Looking beyond the survey

    The good news is that we are not short of other measures.

    • Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data shows long-term earnings trajectories, reminding us that graduates often see their biggest salary uplift years into their careers, not at the start. An Institute for Fiscal Studies report highlighted how the biggest benefits of a degree are realised well beyond the first few years.
    • The Resolution Foundation’s Class of 2020 study argued that short-term measures risk masking the lifetime value of higher education.
    • Alumni engagement gives a richer picture of where graduates go, especially internationally. Universities that invest in tracer studies or ongoing alumni networks often uncover more diverse and positive stories than the survey can capture.
    • Skills data (whether through Careers Registration or employer feedback) highlights what students can do and how they can articulate it. That matters as much as a job title, particularly in a labour market where roles evolve quickly.
    • Case studies, student voice, and narratives of career confidence help us understand outcomes in ways metrics cannot.

    Together, these provide a more balanced picture: not to replace Graduate Outcomes, but to sit alongside it.

    Why it matters

    For universities, an over-reliance on Graduate Outcomes risks skewing resources. So much energy goes into chasing responses and optimising for a compliance metric, rather than supporting long-term student success.

    For policymakers, it risks reinforcing a short-term view of higher education. If the measure of quality is fixed at 15 months, providers will inevitably be incentivised to produce quick wins rather than lifelong skills.

    For applicants, it risks misrepresenting the real offer of a university. They make choices on a picture that is not just partial, but out of date.

    Graduate Outcomes is not the enemy. It provides valuable insights, especially at sector level. But it needs to be placed in an ecosystem of measures that includes long-term earnings (LEO), alumni networks, labour market intelligence, skills data, and qualitative student voice.

    That would allow universities to demonstrate their value across the full diversity of provision, from undergraduates to apprentices to CPD learners. It would also allow policymakers and applicants to see beyond a two-year-old snapshot of a 15-month window.

    Until we find ways to measure what success looks like five, ten or twenty years on, Graduate Outcomes risks telling us more about the past than the future of higher education.

    Source link

  • Therapy Dogs Boost Graduate Student Well-Being

    Therapy Dogs Boost Graduate Student Well-Being

    Time spent with animals can boost feelings of well-being for students at all levels.

    Laura Fay/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Therapy dogs are often touted as a way to give students a reprieve from busy academic schedules or remind them of their own pets at home, but a recent study from Chatham University found that engagement with therapy dogs can instill a sense of social connection for students at all levels.

    An occupational therapy student at Chatham who researched how weekly therapy dog interactions could impact graduate students in health science programs found that the encounters produced benefits for students’ social and emotional health.

    The background: Past research shows animal interventions can mitigate homesickness for first-year students who miss their pets and academic stress for nursing students. Students who participate in “dog office hours” also experience increased social connection and comfort. Shelter dogs can also motivate students’ physical well-being, as demonstrated by the University of South Carolina’s canine fitness course.

    Graduate students in health science programs, in particular, report high rates of anxiety, depression and stress, according to the study.

    Regardless of their program of study, graduate students also tend to be removed from general campus services and activities due to physical campus layouts, residing and working off campus, or a misalignment of schedules between resources and their responsibilities. Therefore, identifying services specifically for graduate students can improve their access and uptake.

    How it works: Twenty-five students were recruited to participate in the study, meeting weekly to engage in activities with a group of therapy dogs, including petting, playing with, brushing, holding and walking the animals. Students could interact with the dogs for up to two hours over the course of the seven weeks. Before and after each puppy playdate, participants completed pre- and post-test surveys to gauge their feelings and the effects of the animal intervention.

    Survey results showed students were less likely to report feeling stressed and more likely to say they felt happy after engaging with the dogs.

    “I’ve really enjoyed this experience,” one participant wrote. “I feel like this has positively impacted my mood and well-being overall. I always leave feeling more relaxed and happier.”

    In open-ended questions, students said the dogs made them feel happy, loved, calm, relaxed, motivated and connected. Many said they also appreciated the opportunity to engage with their peers, noting that the regular cadence allowed them to socialize and meet new people, including the therapy dogs’ owners. Students indicated they wanted the visits to continue in some way if possible.

    The average student spent around 30 minutes with the therapy dogs during the trial, and, if they had the opportunity, a majority said they would participate in therapy animal groups on campus three to four times per month.

    Other Comforting Canines

    Chatham University students aren’t the only graduate students learning to destress from dogs. Here are some other examples of animal-assisted interventions across the country:

    • At Virginia Tech, graduate students at the Innovation Campus receive love and cuddles from Allen, a therapy dog who is co-handled by Barbara Hoopes, the graduate school’s associate dean for the region.
    • The City University of New York’s School of Public Health has hosted a therapy dog visit from the Good Dog Foundation to encourage graduate learners to relax and take a break during their week.
    • The University of Cincinnati featured therapy dogs at their Graduate Student Appreciation Week in April, honoring the hard work students do and helping them break their usual routines.

    Source link

  • Trump Administration’s Higher Education Policies Drive Sharp Decline in College Graduate Support

    Trump Administration’s Higher Education Policies Drive Sharp Decline in College Graduate Support

    The Trump administration’s aggressive stance toward higher education institutions is contributing to a precipitous drop in support among college-educated voters, with new polling data revealing the president’s approval rating among graduates has fallen to historic lows.

    President Donald J. TrumpAccording to Gallup polling, Trump’s approval rating among college graduates plummeted from 34% in June to just 28% by August, with disapproval climbing to 70%. This represents a concerning trend for Republicans as they look toward the 2026 midterm elections, particularly given the growing influence of college-educated voters in key suburban swing districts.

    The administration’s education policies have taken aim at what Trump characterizes as liberal bias and antisemitism on college campuses. Harvard University has faced the most severe federal intervention, with the White House canceling approximately $100 million in federal contracts and freezing $3.2 billion in research funding. The administration has also moved to block international student enrollment and threatened to revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status while demanding sweeping reforms to admissions processes and curricular oversight.

    Similar measures have been enacted against Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University over issues ranging from pro-Palestinian campus activism to policies regarding transgender athletes in women’s sports. Harvard officials have characterized these interventions as an unprecedented assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

    The crackdown has generated significant campus unrest and drawn comparisons to Cold War-era loyalty investigations, raising questions about the federal government’s appropriate role in higher education governance.

    The polling data reflects broader dissatisfaction with the administration’s educational approach. Only 26% of college graduates approve of Trump’s handling of education policy, while 71% disapprove. A separate AP-NORC survey from May found that 56% of Americans nationwide disapprove of the president’s higher education agenda.

    However, the policies resonate strongly within Trump’s Republican base, with roughly 80% of Republicans approving his higher education approach—a higher approval rate than his economic policies garner. About 60% of Republicans express significant concern about perceived liberal bias on college campuses, aligning with the administration’s framing of universities as ideologically compromised institutions.

    The Republican coalition shows some internal division on enforcement mechanisms, with approximately half supporting federal funding cuts for non-compliant institutions while a quarter oppose such measures and another quarter remain undecided.

    While political controversies dominate headlines, economic concerns remain the primary driver of public opinion on higher education. Sixty percent of Americans express deep concern about college costs, a bipartisan worry that transcends ideological divisions around campus politics.

    Current data from the College Board and Bankrate show average annual costs of $29,910 for in-state public university students, $49,080 for out-of-state students, and approximately $61,990 for private nonprofit institutions when including room, board, and additional expenses. Financial aid reduces these figures to average net prices of $20,800 at public universities and $36,150 at private colleges.

    These costs reflect decades of sustained increases. EducationData.org reports that public in-state college costs have risen from $2,489 in 1963 to $89,556 in 2022-23 (adjusted for inflation). Over the past decade alone, in-state public tuition has increased by nearly 58%, while out-of-state and private tuition have risen by 30% and 27% respectively.

    The economic pressures extend beyond college costs to post-graduation employment prospects. While overall unemployment among adults with bachelor’s degrees remains low at 2.3%, recent graduates face significant challenges. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that only 69.6% of bachelor’s degree recipients aged 20-29 were employed in late 2024, with unemployment among 23-27-year-olds reaching nearly 6%—substantially above the 4.2% national average.

    These employment difficulties contribute to broader economic anxiety, with 39% of college graduates describing national economic conditions as “poor” and 64% reporting job search struggles.

    The confluence of political and economic pressures creates a challenging landscape for Republicans heading into the 2026 midterms. College-educated voters represent a growing and increasingly decisive demographic, particularly in suburban areas that often determine control of swing seats.

     

    Source link

  • Peer Mentors Help Students Navigate Health Graduate Programs

    Peer Mentors Help Students Navigate Health Graduate Programs

    As a first-year student at Emory University, Leia Marshall walked into the Pathways Center to receive advice on her career goals.

    She was a neuroscience and behavioral biology major who thought she might go to medical school. But after meeting with a peer mentor, Marshall realized she was more interested in optometry. “I didn’t really know a lot about the prehealth track. I didn’t really know if I wanted to do medicine at all,” she said. “Getting to speak to a peer mentor really affected the way that I saw my trajectory through my time at Emory and onwards.”

    Emory opened the Pathways Center in August 2022, uniting five different student-facing offices: career services, prehealth advising, undergraduate research, national scholarships and fellowships, and experiential learning, said Branden Grimmett, associate dean of the center.

    “It brings together what were existing functions but are now streamlined to make it easier for students to access,” Grimmett said.

    The pre–health science peer mentor program engages hundreds of students each year through office hours, advising appointments, club events and other engagements, helping undergraduates navigate their time at Emory and beyond in health science programs.

    The background: Prehealth advising has been a fixture at Emory for 20 years, led by a team of staff advisers and 30 peer mentors. The office helps students know the options available to them within health professions and that they’re meeting degree requirements to enter these programs. A majority of Emory’s prehealth majors are considering medicine, but others hope to study veterinary medicine, dentistry or optometry, like Marshall.

    How it works: The pre–health science mentors are paid student employees, earning approximately $15 an hour. The ideal applicant is a rising junior or senior who has a passion for helping others, Grimmett said.

    Mentors also serve on one of four subcommittees—connect, prepare, explore and apply—representing different phases of the graduate school process.

    Mentors are recruited for the role in the spring and complete a written application as well as an interview process. Once hired, students participate in a daylong training alongside other student employees in the Pathways Center. Mentors also receive touch-up training in monthly team meetings with their supervisors, Grimmett said.

    Peer mentors host office hours in the Pathways Center and advertise their services through digital marketing, including a dedicated Instagram account and weekly newsletter.

    Peer-to-peer engagement: Marshall became a peer mentor her junior year and is giving the same advice and support to her classmates that she received. In a typical day, she said she’ll host office hours, meeting with dozens of students and offering insight, resources and advice.

    “Sometimes students are coming in looking for general advice on their schedule for the year or what classes to take,” she said. “A lot of the time, we have students come in and ask about how to get involved with research or find clinical opportunities in Atlanta or on campus, so it really ranges and varies.”

    Sometimes Marshall’s job is just to be there for the student and listen to their concerns.

    “Once I met with a student who came in and she was really nervous about this feeling that she wasn’t doing enough,” Marshall said. “There’s this kind of impostor phenomenon that you’re not involved in enough extracurriculars, you’re not doing enough to set you up for success.”

    Marshall is able to relate to these students and help them reflect on their experiences.

    “That’s been one of my favorite parts of being a peer mentor: getting to help students recognize their strengths and guide them through things that I’ve been through myself,” she said.

    In addition to assisting their classmates, peer mentors walk away with résumé experience and better career discernment, Grimmett said. “Often our students learn a lot about their own path as they’re in dialogue with other students. It’s a full circle for many of our peer mentors.”

    “It’s funny to think about the fact that our role is to help others, but it really helps all of us as peer mentors as well,” Marshall said. “We learn to connect with a variety of students, and I think it’s been really valuable for me to connect with the advisers myself and get to know them better.”

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    This article has been updated to correct the spelling of Branden Grimmett’s name.



    Source link

  • 4 Initiatives for Graduate Student Success

    4 Initiatives for Graduate Student Success

    Colleges and universities are increasingly devoting resources to improving graduate student well-being.

    Ivant Weng Wai/E+/Getty Images

    Graduate student success has been a growing priority for institutions of higher education; national data points to a lower return on investment for some programs, leaving students saddled with debt. Nationally, only 58 percent of students who enter graduate programs complete their degree within six years.

    The elimination of Grad PLUS loans, included in the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, may further impede students’ ability to pay for graduate degrees, threatening enrollment and persistence in some programs.

    Graduate students can also struggle with basic needs insecurity; 12.2 percent of students pursuing a graduate degree experience food insecurity and 4.6 experience homelessness, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics.

    Inside Higher Ed compiled four examples of institutions that are devoting resources toward boosting graduate students’ financial and personal well-being.

    1. Texas Christian University: Suits for M.B.A. Students

    Campus leaders at Texas Christian University’s Neeley School of Business created a program to provide M.B.A. students with free professional clothes, helping low-income enrollees dress for success.

    Through a partnership with suit maker Reveal Suits, eligible students receive a custom suit with a TCU-branded lining that includes their name. Thanks to donations, they can also receive shoes and a shirt and tie if needed.

    To receive a suit, students submit an application detailing their career goals and a brief statement of financial need, which university leaders use to select recipients.

    By the Numbers

    Master’s of business administration degrees are among the most popular graduate programs in the U.S.; over 205,000 students earned an M.B.A. in 2021–22, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. However, affordability remains a top barrier to students looking to advance their careers.

    Nearly half of students say the cost of an M.B.A. program is one of the top barriers to their pursuit of additional education, according to the 2025 GMAC Prospective Students survey.

    The survey also found that the average candidate plans to fund their degree using more financial aid and less support from their parents, compared to pre-pandemic.

    1. Wichita State University: Mental Health Course

    To emphasize the importance of well-being to executive M.B.A. students, Wichita State University faculty designed a mandatory course that teaches wellness as a leadership skill.

    The course, Mental Wellness as a Business Strategy, launched in fall 2024 and focuses on integrating mental health initiatives into company culture as a way to gain a competitive advantage. Students learn to build psychologically safe teams, incorporate mental health policies into leadership practices and drive business success using well-being.

    1. California State University, Fullerton: Mentorship and Education

    Project upGRADS, short for Utilizing and Promoting Graduate Resources and Access for Disadvantaged Students, provides advising, mentorship and scholarships to students enrolled at CSUF. The program has supported nearly 7,000 students from all levels of higher education since 2019; Excelencia in Education recently recognized it as a model of innovative support for Latino students, according to a university press release.

    The program provides information about the benefits of graduate school, how to navigate the admissions and financial aid processes, and the advantages of participating in faculty mentorship and professional networking.

    Through Project upGRADS, graduate students can ask to be matched with a faculty member who provides support for research, career development and overcoming impostor syndrome. Students can also opt into GRAD 700, a Canvas community that offers deadlines and guidelines for thesis writing in addition to a workshop calendar and upcoming events database.

    1. Ohio State University: Mental Health Resources

    In 2024, Ohio State University bolstered on-campus and online mental health resources for graduate students.

    The university invested in training peer mental health ambassadors, providing teletherapy services and developing online mental health modules for self-paced learning and preventative care.

    Ohio State also extended on-campus services to ensure students who need after-hours care on the weekends or evenings can continue to receive support.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Graduate Outcomes, 2022-23 graduating year

    Graduate Outcomes, 2022-23 graduating year

    The headline numbers from this year’s graduate outcomes data – which represents the activities and experiences of the cohort that graduated in 2022-23 around 15 months after graduation look, on the face of it, disappointing.

    There’s a bunch of things to bear in mind before we join the chorus claiming to perceive the end of graduate employment as a benefit of higher education due to some mixture (dilute to preference) of generative AI, the skills revolution, and wokeness.

    We are coming off an exceptional year both for graduate numbers and graduate recruitment – as the pandemic shock dissipates numbers will be returning to normal: viewed in isolation this looks like failure. It isn’t.

    But we’ve something even more fundamental to think about first.

    Before we start

    We’re currently living in a world in which HESA’s Graduate Outcomes data represents the UK’s only comprehensive official statistics dealing with employment.

    If you’ve not been following the travails of the ONS Labour Force Survey (the July overview is just out) large parts of the reported results are currently designated “official statistics in development” and thus not really usable for policy purposes – the response rate is currently around 20 per cent after some very hard work by the transformation team, having been hovering in the mid-teens for a good while.

    Because this is Wonkhe we’re going to do things properly and start with looking at response rates and sample quality for Graduate Outcomes, so strap in. We’ll get to graduate activities in a bit. But this stuff is important.

    Response rates and sample quality

    Declining survey response rates are a huge problem all over the place – and one that should concern anyone who uses survey data to make policy or support the delivery of services. If you are reading or drawing any actionable conclusions from a survey you should have the response rate and sample quality front and centre.

    The overall completion rate for the 2022-23 cohort for Graduate Outcomes was 35 per cent, which you can bump up to 39 per cent if you include partial completions (when someone started on the form but gave up half-way through). This is down substantially from 48 per cent fully completing in 2019-20, 43 per cent in 2020-21, and 40 per cent in 2021-22.

    There’s a lot of variation underneath that: but provider, level of previous study (undergraduate responses are stronger than postgraduate responses), and permanent address all have an impact. If you are wondering about sampling errors (and you’d be right to be at these response rates!) work done by HESA and others assures us that there has been no evidence of a problem outside of very small sub-samples.

    Here’s a plot of the provider level variation. I’ve included a filter to let you remove very small providers from the view based on the number of graduates for the year in question – by default you see nothing with less than 250 graduates.

    [Full screen]

    What do graduates do?

    As above, the headlines are slightly disappointing – 88 per cent of graduates from 2022-23 who responded to the survey reported that they were in work or further study, a single percentage point drop on last year. The 59 per cent in full-time employment is down from 61 per cent last year, while the proportion in unemployment is up a percentage point.

    However, if you believe that (on top of the general economic malaise) that generative AI is rendering entry level graduate jobs obsolete (a theme I will return to) you will be pleasantly surprised by how well employment is holding up. The graduate job market is difficult, but there is no evidence that it is out of the ordinary for this part of the economic cycle. Indeed, as Charlie Ball notes, we don’t see the counter-cyclical growth in further study that would suggest a full-blown downturn.

    There are factors that influence graduate activities – and we see a huge variation by provider. I’ve also included a filter here to let you investigate the impact of age: older graduates (particularly those who studied at a postgraduate level) are more likely to return to previous employment, which flatters the numbers for those who recruit more mature students.

    [Full screen]

    One thing to note in this chart is that the bar graph at the bottom shows proportions of all graduates, not the proportions of graduates with known destinations as we see at the top. I’ve done this to help put these results into context: though the sample may be representative it is not (as is frequently suggested) really a population level finding. The huge grey box at the top of each bar represents graduates that have not completed the survey.

    A lot of the time we focus on graduates in full-time employment and/or further study – this alternative plot looks at this by provider and subject. It’s genuinely fascinating: if you or someone you know is thinking about undergraduate law with a view to progressing a career there are some big surprises!

    [Full screen]

    Again, this chart shows the proportion of graduates with a known destination (ie those who responded to the Graduate Outcomes survey in some way), while the size filter refers to the total number of graduates.

    Industrial patterns

    There’s been a year-on-year decline in the proportion of graduates from UG courses in paid employment in professional services – that is the destination of just 11.92 per cent of them this year, the lowest on record. Industries that have seen growth include public administration, wholesale and retail, and health and social care.

    There’s been a two percentage point drop in the proportion of PG level graduates working in education – a lot of this could realistically put down to higher education providers recruiting fewer early-career staff. This is a huge concern, as it means a lot of very capable potential academics are not getting the first jobs they need to keep them in the sector.

    And if you’ve an eye on the impact of generative AI on early career employment, you’d be advised to keep an eye on the information and communication sector – currently machine generated slop is somehow deemed acceptable for many industrial applications (and indeed employment applications themselves, a whole other can of worms: AI has wrecked the usual application processes of most large graduate employers) in PR, media, and journalism. The proportion of recent undergraduates in paid employment in the sector has fallen from nearly 8 per cent in 2020-21 to just 4.86 per cent over the last two years. Again, this should be of national concern – the UK punches well above its weight in these sectors, and if we are not bringing in talented new professionals to gain experience and enhance profiles then we will lose that edge.

    [Full screen]

    To be clear, there is limited evidence that AI is taking anyone’s jobs, and you would be advised to take the rather breathless media coverage with a very large pinch of salt.

    Under occupation

    Providers in England will have an eye on the proportion of those in employment in the top three SOC codes, as this is a key part of the Office for Students progression measure. Here’s a handy chart to get you started with that, showing by default providers with 250 or more graduates in employment, and sorted by the proportion in the top three SOC categories (broadly managers and directors, professionals, and associate professionals).

    [Full screen]

    This is not a direct proxy for a “graduate job”, but it seems to be what the government and sector have defaulted to using instead of getting into the weeds of job descriptions. Again, you can see huge differences across the sector – but do remember subject mix and the likely areas in which graduates are working (along with the pre-existing social capital of said graduates) will have an impact on this. Maybe one day OfS will control for these factors in regulatory measures – we can but hope.

    Here’s a plot of how a bunch of other personal characteristics (age of graduates, ethnicity, disability, sex) can affect graduate activities, alongside information on deprivation, parental education, and socio-economic class for undergraduates. The idea of higher education somehow levelling out structural inequalities in the employment market completely was a fashionable stick to beat the sector with under the last government.

    [Full screen]

    [Full screen]

    Everything else

    That’s a lot of charts and a lot of information to scratch the surface of what’s in the updated graduate outcomes tables. I had hoped to see the HESA “quality of work” measure join the collection – maybe next year – so I will do a proxy version of that at some point over the summer. There’s also data on wellbeing which looks interesting, and a bunch of stuff on salaries which really doesn’t (even though it is better than LEO in that it reflects salaries rather than the more nebulous “earnings”) There’s information on the impact of degree classifications on activity, and more detail around the impact of subjects.

    Look out for more – but do bear in mind the caveats above.

    Source link

  • Raising the Bar: A Graduate Design Engineer’s Path in Engineering

    Raising the Bar: A Graduate Design Engineer’s Path in Engineering

    • By Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris, Professor of Public & Industry Understanding of Capability Driven Design in the School of Mechanical Engineering, and Engagement Champion for the EPSRC EDI Hub+ at the University of Leeds.

    International Women in Engineering Day, Monday 23 June 2025, provides an essential platform to celebrate the contributions of women designers and engineers while also highlighting persistent gender disparities in the profession. In 2021, only 16.5% of engineers in the UK were women, a figure that underscores the continued need for structural reform and targeted support for women pursuing careers in STEM disciplines.

    Preparing the next generation of female international design engineers requires more than the delivery of technical content. It necessitates a systemic, institution-wide approach that equips graduates with the attributes, knowledge, resources, skills, and confidence to navigate a professional landscape that is rapidly changing and, in many cases, still being defined for future careers. The increasing global demand for roles in areas like sustainable product design, AI-integrated manufacturing, inclusive user interface systems, and human-centred engineering is underpinned by the foundational importance of STEM, making the empowerment of women designers and engineers in these fields crucial for driving innovation and achieving sustainable development goals. These emerging sectors demand not only technical competence but also a blend of creativity, emotional intelligence, and social awareness that diverse females in STEM demonstrate.

    Holistic Support: Design Engineering as Ecosystem

    The development of a graduate designer and engineer can be likened to nurturing a tree within a complex ecosystem. While academic performance remains important, the capacity to thrive in uncertain, transdisciplinary, and innovation-driven contexts depends upon institutional ecosystems that foster global awareness, adaptability, collaboration, and resilience.

    Universities play a vital role as critical enablers and a resource. This extends beyond curricula to the people, processes, and environments that scaffold student growth, from technical staff and personal tutors to administrative teams and peer mentors. The university must therefore shift its conceptualisation of employability from curriculum-contained instruction to community-wide responsibility.

    Barriers and Micro-inequities

    For female design and engineering graduates, these ecosystems are even more consequential. While overt discrimination may be declining, micro-barriers, such as imposter syndrome, limited visibility of role models, cultural dissonance and inaccessible resources, continue to affect women disproportionately. The intersectionality of race, disability, and socioeconomic status further compounds these challenges.

    Support mechanisms such as inclusive wellbeing services, financial assistance schemes, mentoring networks, and accessible technical environments serve as critical interventions. These do not merely reduce dropout risk; they transform educational experiences and enhance graduate outcomes.

    Beyond KSA: Towards the ACRES Model

    Traditional employability frameworks such as the KSA model (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities) focus primarily on individual traits. While helpful, such models risk overlooking the social, ethical, and emotional dimensions necessary for future engineering practice. In response, I propose the ACRES framework — a holistic model centred on:

    • A – Adaptability: Developing the capacity to respond flexibly to change
    • C – Collaboration: Cultivating skills in teamwork and interdisciplinary cooperation.
    • R – Resilience: Building psychological robustness through reflective learning
    • E – Empathy: Encouraging emotional intelligence through inclusive design challenges
    • S – Social Responsibility: Engaging students with ethical, civic, and sustainability issues.

    These attributes are more than ideals; they represent the design specifications for the modern engineer.

    Educational Practice in Action

    Design engineering programmes across the UK are embedding these competencies through interdisciplinary projects, challenge-based learning, studio-based learning, sustainability modules, and community-based partnerships. At the University of Leeds, in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, for example, students engage in industry-informed design briefs, receive feedback from career mentors, and co-produce portfolios that reflect both technical ability and human-centred thinking.

    Such practices are not incidental, they are fundamental. The preparation of women designers and engineers is a collective act; it is the result of intentional, inclusive, and collaborative university cultures that nurture talent through both “seen and unseen” interventions.

    The university must function not only as a centre of instruction but as a dynamic support system, enabling intersectionality such as first-generation, women, disabled, and underrepresented female students to flourish in STEM to become graduates. When we invest in raising future-ready women designer and engineers, we are not merely producing graduates, we are shaping leaders, changemakers, and innovators for careers that, in many cases, are yet to be invented.

    Source link

  • Subject-level insights on graduate activity

    Subject-level insights on graduate activity

    We know a lot about what graduates earn.

    Earnings data—especially at subject level—has become key to debates about the value of higher education.

    But we know far less about how graduates themselves experience their early careers. Until now, subject-level data on graduate job quality—how meaningful their work is, how well it aligns with their goals, and whether it uses their university-acquired skills—has been missing from the policy debate.

    My new study (co-authored with Fiona Christie and Tracy Scurry and published in Studies in Higher Education) aims to fill this gap. Drawing on responses from the 2018-19 graduation cohort in the national Graduate Outcomes survey, we provide the first nationally representative, subject-level analysis of these subjective graduate outcomes.

    What we find has important implications for how we define successful outcomes from higher education—and how we support students in making informed choices about what subject to study.

    What graduates tell us

    The Graduate Outcomes survey includes a set of questions—introduced by HESA in 2017—designed to capture core dimensions of graduate job quality. Respondents are asked (around 15 months after graduation) whether they:

    • find their work meaningful
    • feel it aligns with their future plans
    • believe they are using the skills acquired at university

    These indicators were developed in part to address the over-reliance on income as a measure of graduate success. They reflect a growing international awareness that economic outcomes alone offer a limited picture of the value of education—in line with the OECD’s Beyond GDP agenda, the ILO’s emphasis on decent work, and the UK’s Taylor Review focus on job quality.

    Subject-level insights

    Our analysis shows that most UK graduates report positive early-career experiences, regardless of subject. Across the sample, 86 per cent said their work felt meaningful, 78 per cent felt on track with their careers, and 66 per cent reported using their degree-level skills.

    These patterns generally hold across disciplines, though clear differences emerge. The chart below shows the raw, unadjusted proportion of graduates who report positive outcomes. Graduates from vocational fields—such as medicine, subjects allied to medicine, veterinary science, and education—tend to report particularly strong outcomes. For instance, medicine and dentistry graduates were 12 percentage points more likely than average to say their work was meaningful, and over 30 points more likely to report using the skills they acquired at university.

    However, the results also challenge the narrative that generalist or academic degrees are inherently low value. As you can see, most subject areas—including history, languages, and the creative arts, often targeted in these debates—show strong subjective outcomes across the three dimensions. Only one field, history and philosophy, fell slightly below the 50 per cent threshold on the skills utilisation measure. But even here, graduates still reported relatively high levels of meaningful work and career alignment.

    Once we adjusted for background characteristics—such as social class, gender, prior attainment, and institutional differences—many of the remaining gaps between vocational and generalist subjects narrowed and were no longer statistically significant.

    This chart shows the raw proportion of 2018-19 graduates who agree or strongly agree that their current work is meaningful, on track and using skills, by field of study (N = 67,722)

    Employment in a highly skilled occupation—used by the Office for Students (OfS) as a key regulatory benchmark—was not a reliable predictor of positive outcomes. This finding aligns with previous HESA research and raises important questions about the appropriateness of using occupational classification as a proxy for graduate success at the subject level.

    Rethinking what we measure and value

    These insights arrive at a time when the OfS is placing greater emphasis on regulating equality of opportunity and ensuring the provision of “full, frank, and fair information” to students. If students are to make informed choices, they need access to subject-level data that reflects more than salary, occupational status, or postgraduate progression. Our findings suggest that subjective outcomes—how graduates feel about their work—should be part of that conversation.

    For policymakers, our findings highlight the risks of relying on blunt outcome metrics—particularly earnings and occupational classifications—as indicators of course value. Our data show that graduates from a wide range of subjects—including those often labelled as “low value”—frequently go on to report meaningful work shortly after graduation that aligns with their future plans and makes use of the skills they developed at university.

    And while job quality matters, universities should not be held solely accountable for outcomes shaped by employers and labour market structures. Metrics and league tables that tie institutional performance too closely to job quality risk misrepresenting what higher education can influence. A more productive step would be to expand the Graduate Outcomes survey to include a wider range of job quality indicators—such as autonomy, flexibility, and progression—offering a fuller picture of early career graduate success.

    A richer understanding

    Our work offers the first nationally representative, subject-level insight into how UK graduates evaluate job quality in the early stages of their careers. In doing so, it adds a missing piece to the value debate—one grounded not just in earnings or employment status, but in graduates’ own sense of meaning, purpose, and skill use.

    If we are serious about understanding what graduates take from their university experience, it’s time to move beyond salary alone—and to listen more carefully to what graduates themselves are telling us.

    DK notes: Though the analysis that Brophy et al have done (employing listwise deletion, examining UK domiciled first degree graduates only) enhances our understanding of undergraduate progression and goes beyond what is publicly available, I couldn’t resist plotting the HESA public data in a similar way, as it may be of interest to readers:

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • Trends in Hiring, 2025 Graduate Readiness for the Workforce

    Trends in Hiring, 2025 Graduate Readiness for the Workforce

    The Class of 2025 is prioritizing location, job stability and benefits when considering their first job postgraduation.

    SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images 

    Commencement season brings excitement to college campuses as community members look to celebrate the accomplishments of the graduating class and usher them into their next chapter of life.

    The Class of 2025, however, is gearing up to enter a challenging environment, whether that’s a competitive application cycle for gaining admission to graduate school or a tighter job market compared to previous years.

    Inside Higher Ed compiled 25 data points regarding the Class of 2025 and the workforce they will enter, including levels of career preparedness, challenges in the workplace and the value of higher education in reaching career goals.

    1. Over half of seniors feel pessimistic about starting their careers because they worry about a competitive job market and a lack of job security.
    2. Seventy-eight percent of students rank job stability as a “very important” attribute in potential employers, followed by a healthy workplace culture.
    3. Eighty-eight percent of college juniors and seniors believe their coursework is adequately preparing them for entry-level roles in their chosen fields.
    4. Eight out of 10 soon-to-be graduates plan to start work within three months of graduating.
    5. Hiring for college graduates is down 16 percent compared to last year, and 44 percent below 2022 levels.
    1. Starting salaries are up 3.8 percent year over year, outpacing inflation’s growth of 2.4 percent, as of March.
    2. Seventy-nine percent of young adults say health benefits are a “high” or “very high” priority for them when considering a job opportunity.
    3. Desired location is a top priority for 73 percent of 2025 graduates in deciding which jobs to apply for, followed by job stability (70 percent). Over two-thirds said they’re looking for a job near their family.
    4. If they choose to relocate for work, cost of living is the most pressing issue for new graduates (90 percent), followed by a diverse and tolerant community (64 percent). Ninety-eight percent of young adults say cost of living is their No. 1 money stressor, as well.
    5. Flexibility remains key for graduates, with 43 percent looking for hybrid work, defined as being on-site for two or three days a week. Forty-four percent cited the ability to work from home as an important benefit, and over half want more than two weeks of vacation or paid time off in their first year of work.
    1. Roughly half of entry-level job postings employers plan to create will be hybrid, and about 45 percent will be for fully in-person roles.
    2. Engineering students are expected to be the highest paid of all the majors pursued by the class of 2025, earning an average of $78,731 this year.
    3. Recent college graduates who participated in experiential learning while in college earn on average $59,059, compared to their peers without internships, who earn an average of $44,048.
    4. As of last fall, only half of first-generation students in the Class of 2025 had completed an internship, compared to 66 percent of their peers.
    5. About 12 percent of students have not participated in an internship and do not expect to do so before finishing their degree—lower than the average of 35 percent of workers who enter the workforce without an internship or other relevant work experience.
    1. Ninety-eight percent of employers say their organization is struggling to find talent, but nearly 90 percent say they avoid hiring recent grads—in part, as 60 percent noted, because they lack real-world experience.
    2. One-third of hiring managers say recent graduates lack a strong work ethic, and one in four say graduates are underprepared for interviews.
    3. Over half (57 percent) of HR departments expect to increase spending on training and development in the year ahead.
    4. As of March, nearly 6 percent of recent graduates (ages 22 to 27 who hold a bachelor’s degree or higher) were unemployed, compared with 2.7 percent of all college graduates. The unemployment rate for all young workers (ages 22 to 27) is approximately 7 percent.
    5. Twenty-five percent of young adults are struggling to find jobs in their intended career fields; 62 percent aren’t employed in the career they intended to pursue after graduation.
    6. Nearly 90 percent of students chose their major with a specific job or career path in mind.
    7. Finding purposeful work is critical to Gen Z’s job satisfaction, and more than half say meaningful work is important when evaluating a potential employer.
    8. One-quarter of young adults already have a side hustle, and 37 percent of Gen Z want to start a side hustle.
    9. Ninety-seven percent of human resources leaders say it’s important that new hires have a foundational understanding of business and technology, including in such areas as artificial intelligence, data analytics and IT.
    10. Gen Y and Gen Z workers are more likely than their older peers to worry they will lose their job or their job will be eliminated by generative AI.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Why Timing Matters: Enhancing Graduate Recruitment Strategies with Prompt Communication

    Why Timing Matters: Enhancing Graduate Recruitment Strategies with Prompt Communication

    Graduate enrollment is more competitive than ever. As an admissions leader, you’re not just striving to hit enrollment targets––you’re also navigating the complex needs of prospects who are balancing careers, families, and other responsibilities. It’s no small task. 

    Our recent collaboration with UPCEA confirmed something many of us already suspected: Timely, meaningful communication is the key to standing out in a crowded market. 

    To dig deeper, we enlisted Kate Monteiro, associate director of communication strategy at Collegis Education, to share her perspective on why prompt, responsive interactions matter. Her insights reveal how intentional communication builds trust and drives results. 

    3 key benefits of effective, early communication 

    “Plans and interests can change as quickly as they develop,” Monteiro explains. “Capitalizing on a prospective student’s excitement early can help you keep their momentum going — and dramatically improve their likelihood of enrolling.” 

    From that very first touchpoint, graduate students are evaluating your institution. Are you responsive? Are you supportive? These early interactions set the tone for how they perceive your school will engage with them once they are enrolled – and this can make or break their decision. Here’s why they matter so much: 

    1. Making a strong first impression 

    Your first interaction says a lot. A quick, thoughtful response shows students that their time and interest matter. “Quick responses instill confidence,” Monteiro shares. “They signal that your institution is organized, efficient, and genuinely cares—all of which are qualities students associate with the experience they’ll have if they enroll.” 

    2. Alleviating anxiety and uncertainty 

    Navigating graduate admissions can be overwhelming, especially for students juggling applications to multiple institutions. A delayed response could be viewed as a red flag by students who feel overlooked or unworthy of attention. 

    On the flip side, timely and helpful communication reassures students that they’re a priority. That sense of trust could be the difference between a completed application and a missed opportunity. 

    3. Setting the tone for future interactions 

    “Students notice when there’s a lack of responsiveness,” Monteiro cautions. “If their early experiences are stressful or unclear, they’ll assume that’s what they can expect moving forward.” 

    Consistency is key. A reliable, nurturing communication strategy not only establishes trust but encourages forward momentum toward enrollment. 

    The data on communication preferences 

    If you’re wondering just how much communication matters, numbers tell the story. A 2023 Ruffalo Noel Levitz study found that 65% of enrolled students identified personalized attention as a critical factor in choosing their school. 

    And when it comes to how students want to connect, the data from our survey with UPCEA confirms that email is the clear favorite for all stages. Email was reported as preferred by 47% of students for initial inquiries, 67% for follow-ups, 74% when approaching application, and 69% for application decision notifications.  

    “Email provides a professional yet low-pressure way to engage,” Monteiro adds. “It’s also something students can reference later, which helps minimize miscommunication or misunderstanding.” 

    This data emphasizes a key takeaway: Schools that respond quickly and deliberately, particularly through the channels students prefer, are the most likely to earn trust and secure enrollments. 

    5 strategies to master timely communication 

    A thoughtful approach to communication doesn’t just make a good impression—it sets your team up for long-term success. Here are five strategies to help you get there: 

    1. Develop a structured outreach plan 

    Without a clear communication plan, students can easily fall through the cracks. Monteiro often sees institutions struggle here: “A lot of schools don’t have an outlined communication plan or fail to hold their staff accountable to it. By having a clear and structured plan, you ensure students receive the outreach they need at the right time.” 

    Your outreach plan should have a strategic mix of emails, calls, and texts, with pre-written templates, clear timelines, and designated responsibilities outlined for your team. This ensures consistent, proactive communication with prospective students throughout the funnel. 

    2. Leverage technology 

    Technology is your ally in timely communication, but its effectiveness depends on the strength of your data foundation. CRM systems, AI chatbots, and automated workflows streamline outreach while keeping things personal—provided your data is accurate and well-organized. 

    Automated emails can deliver the communication students prefer, and chatbots can address frequently asked questions 24/7, ensuring students get quick answers—even outside standard business hours. However, without a solid data infrastructure, these tools may fall short. While not a replacement for human connection, they can provide efficient support when and where students need it most—if your data house is in order. 

    3. Foster collaboration across teams 

    Admissions, marketing, and academic teams all play a role in student outreach. Monteiro highlights the disconnect she often sees: “Each team assumes the other is responsible. But ultimately, prospective students are everyone’s responsibility.” 

    Breaking down silos between teams ensures consistent messaging and a seamless student experience. 

    4. Use data to inform strategies 

    Data can reveal what’s working in your current graduate recruitment strategies—and what isn’t. For example, if students are engaging more with email than phone calls, it might be time to shift your focus toward crafting compelling email campaigns. Data can also provide insights into how long students typically take to move through the admissions funnel, allowing teams to optimize communication frequency, timing, and format. 

    5. Balance speed with personalization 

    Quick responses powered by automation are essential, but it’s the personal touch that leaves a lasting impression. Pairing automated emails with personalized follow-ups—whether by phone, text, or email—ensures your outreach feels both efficient and authentic. 

    Level up your graduate recruitment strategies 

    Improving communication isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s a need-to-have for institutions looking to thrive in today’s competitive graduate market. With a structured plan, the right tools, and data-driven insights, you can build trust and guide more students to enrollment. 

    “Our Collegis Enrollment Specialists hear it all the time from the students at our partner institutions: The level of support and responsiveness is what ultimately compels them to move forward.” 

    – Kate Monteiro, Associate Director of Communication Strategy

    To learn more about how Collegis Education can help enhance your graduate recruitment strategies, explore our Enrollment and Recruitment Services page. For more actionable insights on engaging and enrolling graduate students, request your copy of the report below.

    Optimize Your Enrollment Funnel

    Get the latest on graduate student enrollment trends. Download the full report now.

    Source link