Tag: Graduate

  • Green skills, graduate competencies, and championing subject diversity – it’s time to join up some agendas 

    Green skills, graduate competencies, and championing subject diversity – it’s time to join up some agendas 

    Author:
    Rebecca Collins and Santiago Poeira Ribeiro

    Published:

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Rebecca Collins, Director, Sustainability and Environment Research and Knowledge Exchange Institute, University of Chester and Santiago Poeira Ribeiro, student in Natural Sciences (Physics), University of Chester. 

    UK universities are currently grappling with a perfect storm of disruptors: financial challenges, ambivalence from national policymakers, and, increasingly, from prospective students as they question what a university education really offers them. At the same time, the employment landscape is weathering its own storms, including those driven by accelerating technological change (particularly AI), concerns about skills deficits, geopolitical turbulence, and equivocation about whether or not this net zero business is here to stay.  UK Government response to these challenges has most recently taken the form of Skills England’s analysis of the skills requirement across ten priority sectors and the promise of a new industrial strategy from 2026-27 that connects these requirements to reforms of the higher education system.  

    It is in this context that a strangely paradoxical scenario is playing out.  On the one hand are claims that the UK does not have the necessary skills for a ‘green transition’ to net zero – what are increasingly being described as ‘green skills’.  (Notwithstanding the current national political ambivalence about net zero, most sectors of the UK economy have long since recognised the necessary direction of travel and know they need an appropriately knowledgeable and skilled workforce to accelerate action.) On the other is a higher education sector beset by the contraction or closure of subject areas perceived by some political and industrial leaders as insufficiently relevant to our collective economic future, ‘green’ or otherwise. However, for many years now, UK higher education has cultivated students’ green skills through its commitment to education for sustainable development (EfSD), widely recognised as essential knowledge for graduates entering the workforce. Indeed, climate literacy training is now often embedded in university curricula, as well as becoming increasingly normalised as a core, if not mandatory, training requirement across a range of industry sectors. Whilst what EfSD looks like at different universities varies, the majority of institutions demonstrate some degree of engagement with this agenda across all subject areas, with some making it a flagship institutional policy.   

    UK higher education thus seems to be quite good already at cultivating green skills for graduates, and across a wide range of subject areas. How, then, does this map onto the very varied definitions of green skills that have emerged from different sectors? The proliferation of reports concerned with this topic has not (yet) resulted in a clear, unified definition. Rather, this tends to be determined by who is doing the defining. Considering the different definitions and concepts prioritised by different institutions, we propose that these intersecting concerns can ultimately be distilled into three main types of green skill: 

    1. Technical skills: particularly those needed to accelerate decarbonisation; concentration of this need in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, utilities and infrastructure.  
    1. Green-enabling skills: otherwise known as soft or transferable skills, including systems thinking, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, adaptability. 
    1. Values-based skills: such as environmental awareness, climate justice, democratic engagement, cultural sensitivity. 

    Whilst definition 1 skews towards STEM subjects (as well as forms of technical expertise developed through other forms of learning, such as apprenticeships or vocational training), definitions 2 and 3 are within the purview of many other subjects commonly studied at undergraduate level, particularly within the arts, humanities and social sciences.   

    It is a timely moment to be reflecting on the relationship between how skills deficit narratives are framed by some corners of industry and government, and how universities position their offer in response. It feels like every academic in UK higher education has a story about recent, current or imminent institution-wide curriculum transformation. Whilst the rationales presented for these varies, one of the stronger narratives concerns ensuring students develop competencies that are fit for the future, respond directly to regional, national or global skills needs, and give students the vocabulary to articulate how the former meets the latter. As such, curriculum transformation presents an opportunity to think about how universities frame their offer, not just to prospective students but equally to the sectors those students might move into as skilled graduates.   

    Further, whilst driven by a range of factors, curriculum transformation presents the opportunity to articulate the role of all subjects studied in higher education, and all types of higher education providers, to contribute to the skills needed for an economy resilient to the socio-political shocks that will inevitably be invoked by environmental crises. There is a role for university leaders to be much bolder in articulating the value of all subjects – STEM and the arts, humanities, social sciences, and everything in between – and the green skills they cultivate. Now is the moment to consider how the promise of higher education might speak to or work with other agendas concerned with ensuring environmentally and socially sustainable and inclusive economies, regionally, nationally and globally. University leaders have a central role to play in advocating for a national higher education system where diversity – of student, skill and subject area – is not just celebrated as a buzzword but is demonstrated to be an essential part of a thriving, resilient and sustainable society.  

    Source link

  • Graduate apprenticeships are failing to scale in Scotland – here’s why

    Graduate apprenticeships are failing to scale in Scotland – here’s why

    This HEPI blog was authored by Elaine Jackson, Lecturer in Business and Management at the University of the West of Scotland.

    Imagine earning a full salary while studying for your degree, graduating debt-free, and having a guaranteed job at the end. This isn’t fantasy, it’s exactly what graduate apprenticeships offer. Yet these programmes represent just 8% of Scotland’s university intake, despite employers desperately needing skilled workers in the very sectors where apprenticeships thrive.

    The story of what’s possible starts with people like Donna. Through her graduate apprenticeship with a Local Authority, she delivered a project that secured £280,000 in funding and earned recognition as a nominee for the 2025 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) excellence awards. Her success demonstrates the transformative potential of combining work and study but it also highlights a troubling question: if graduate apprenticeships work so well, why aren’t there more of them?

    Graduate apprenticeships (GAs), also known as Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) in the UK, represent a specific model of work-based learning where the apprentice is an employee who is simultaneously studying for a full undergraduate or master’s degree. These programmes typically last three to six years, with apprentices spending approximately 20% of their time studying and 80% working.

    The scale challenge reveals a deeper problem

    The numbers reveal a stark reality. Since these programmes launched in 2017, only 37,000 Scots have enrolled in Foundation and Graduate Apprenticeships combined across all years combined. To put that in perspective, 16,340 Scottish 18-year-olds accepted traditional university places in just 2024 alone. Graduate apprenticeships are growing alongside regular university degrees, offering an alternative pathway rather than replacing traditional routes, but they’re growing far too slowly.

    This slow growth becomes even more puzzling when we consider the demand. Skills Development Scotland reports that social work faces a 9.3% vacancy rate, while engineering, digital technology, healthcare, and business management show similar patterns of unmet need. These are exactly the sectors where graduate apprenticeships are proving most successful, yet only 1,378 new opportunities are projected for 2024-25 across all Scottish universities.

    So, what would realistic growth look like? Based on current university capacity, documented employer partnerships, and persistent skills shortages, Scotland could reasonably support 2,000-2,500 new apprentices each year, nearly doubling current numbers. This figure accounts for genuine employer capacity to provide meaningful workplace learning, not just any company willing to take on apprentices. It represents growth that the system could absorb without compromising quality.

    But three fundamental barriers prevent this expansion from happening and understanding them reveals why good intentions alone aren’t enough to scale successful programmes.

    Why growth remains elusive: Three critical barriers

    The first barrier is financial, and it’s more complex than simply needing more money. Graduate apprenticeships cost significantly more to deliver than traditional degrees, yet they’re funded as if they were the same thing. Think about how a typical university lecture works: one professor teaches 200 students in a hall, students complete assignments independently, and most learning happens through individual study. Now consider how apprenticeships work: Glasgow Caledonian University provides one-to-one mentoring and three-way liaison between each student, their employer, and university staff throughout the entire programme. Class sizes on these programmes are typically 15-35 students, not 200, and every apprentice needs dedicated support to balance work and study successfully.

    This intensive approach works, apprentices like Donna achieve remarkable outcomes. But it is expensive. Evidence from England’s apprenticeship system shows funding ranges from £1,500 to £27,000 depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring the higher amounts. Yet Scottish universities, already facing a £4,000 to £7,000 funding gap per student, receive the same amount whether they’re delivering a large lecture or providing intensive one-to-one support. This creates a perverse incentive: the better the apprenticeship programme, the more money the university loses.

    The second barrier involves employer readiness, and here Scotland faces a fundamental difference from countries where apprenticeships work at scale. In Germany and Switzerland, companies must meet standardised quality criteria before they can take on apprentices. They need qualified supervisors, structured learning programmes, and formal assessment processes. This ensures every apprentice receives genuine training, not just a work placement.

    Scotland takes a different approach: any employer can participate without meeting specific training standards. While this sounds more flexible, it creates wildly inconsistent experiences. Some employers, like those partnering with the University of the West of Scotland, provide excellent mentoring and career development. Others treat apprentices more like temporary staff, offering limited learning opportunities. This inconsistency doesn’t just harm individual apprentices, it undermines confidence in the entire system, making other employers hesitant to participate and students uncertain about programme quality.

    The third barrier is bureaucratic complexity that would frustrate even the most determined institutions. Universities wanting to create new apprenticeship programmes must navigate approval processes across Skills Development Scotland, degree-awarding bodies, and professional accreditation requirements. The Scottish Funding Council’s guidance spans multiple pages covering compliance requirements across 14 different subject areas. When universities are already struggling financially, investing scarce resources in complex approval processes for programmes that may not even cover their costs becomes increasingly difficult to justify.

    These barriers explain why graduate apprenticeships remain promising but small-scale, despite clear demand from both employers and students. Early evidence suggests positive retention outcomes among graduate apprentice cohorts, though comprehensive longitudinal data is still emerging given the programmes’ recent introduction. This contrasts with broader patterns where Scotland faces challenges retaining skilled graduates, particularly in STEM fields where migration to other regions for career opportunities remains a persistent concern.

    The investment case

    The solutions are straightforward, though not simple to implement. First, funding must reflect delivery reality. Universities need premium funding of 125-135% of standard degree rates to cover the intensive support that makes apprenticeships effective. Given that Scottish universities already receive £2,020 less per student than English institutions, this investment would address both general underfunding and apprenticeship-specific costs.

    Second, Scotland should build employer capacity systematically rather than simply recruiting more participants. This means developing quality standards for workplace learning, supporting successful employers to mentor others, and focusing on sustainable growth rather than rapid expansion that compromises quality.

    Third, approval processes need streamlining. Rather than navigating multiple agencies with overlapping requirements, universities should face consolidated processes that maintain quality while reducing bureaucratic barriers to innovation.

    The investment required, approximately £20-35 million annually to reach 2,000-2,500 starts, is significant but justified. Graduate apprenticeships address multiple policy priorities simultaneously: reducing student debt, developing skills where shortages are most acute, and retaining talent in Scotland rather than losing graduates to other regions.

    Funding viability: A realistic investment in Scotland’s economic future

    The question of funding viability deserves a data-driven response. The proposed £20-35 million annual investment represents just 0.03-0.06% of Scotland’s £59.7 billion public budget—smaller than typical annual budget variations. Scotland already invests £185 million annually in apprenticeships, making this 11-19% increase both modest and strategically targeted.

    A phased expansion demonstrates fiscal responsibility while addressing urgent skills gaps. Starting with £15 million (expanding from 1,200 to 1,500 graduate apprentices), scaling to £25 million by year three (2,000 apprentices), and reaching £35 million by year five (2,500 apprentices) aligns expansion with demonstrated employer capacity while allowing quality oversight.

    This investment timeline is economically viable because Scotland’s economy is projected to achieve 1.7% growth by 2027. Based on Scottish Fiscal Commission projections of economic growth averaging 1.5% over the implementation period, the apprenticeship investment would represent less than 1% of projected economic expansion—a sustainable allocation that directly addresses the 9.3% vacancy rate in social work and similar shortages across engineering and digital sectors.

    International benchmarking supports this scale. England’s apprenticeship system spends £1,500-27,000 per apprentice depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring higher investments. Scotland’s proposed £14,000-20,000 per graduate apprentice (including university premium funding) sits within this proven range while delivering superior outcomes through integrated workplace learning.

    The return on investment is compelling: each graduate apprentice avoids approximately £15,000 in student debt compared to the Scottish average, while earning during their studies and contributing immediately to productivity. Graduate apprentices also avoid the debt burden that affects traditional students, providing a genuine alternative to debt-financed higher education.

    Rather than adopting loan models that would undermine the fundamental “earn while learning” proposition, Scotland should view this as infrastructure investment—comparable to the £150 million being invested in offshore wind manufacturing. Both create sustainable employment, address skills shortages, and position Scotland competitively in growth sectors. Analysis of successful apprenticeship systems consistently shows that sustainable models rely on public investment rather than employer or student financing.

    The choice is strategic, not fiscal. Scotland can afford this investment; the question is whether it can afford not to make it when facing documented skills shortages in sectors critical to economic growth and the net-zero transition.

    Conclusion

    The choice facing Scottish policymakers is ultimately about ambition and fiscal realism. The evidence shows what works, the economic case is compelling, and the investment is demonstrably affordable through phased implementation. Scotland can accept that graduate apprenticeships remain a valuable but limited option, or it can make a modest, strategic investment to unlock their transformative potential for addressing skills shortages and retaining talent. Now it’s time to scale what works.

    Source link

  • 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

  • About to graduate and feeling anxious

    About to graduate and feeling anxious

    Have you just finished your exams and not feeling as good as you had expected? I have been struck by the number of finalists I interview who describe the experience of completing their exams as an anti-climax. Particularly so for those who are still looking for a job or don’t know what to do next. ‘I still don’t know what I want to do and I’m feeling quite anxious about it…’ is a common theme.

    Not having a career aim probably didn’t feel like such an important issue in your first year, with the next 3-4 years of a degree stretched out tantalisingly in front of you. Your approach to choosing a career may have consisted of convincing yourself that, ‘I’ll know when I know…it will just happen…something will turn up.’ These thoughts may have occurred to you if you were struggling to identify a future career path and wanted to put career decisions to the back of your mind. You may now be considering employment for the first time as up to this point, there was a certain inevitability and expectation that you would go to university.

    But now reality has hit, you are about to graduate. If making this transition is unsettling and causing unexpected anxiety, consider the following to adopt a more helpful perspective.

    Recognise your achievement

    Take some time to reflect on your success. There may have been challenges and setbacks which have required determination to overcome. This resilience is an employability skill highly valued by all employers. You have been awarded a degree from the University of Warwick, an institution with an international reputation ranked 69th out of over 1500 universities in the QS world rankings. Warwick is also currently the 6th most targeted university by graduate recruiters in the UK. All of this makes you highly employable

    You will develop a new structure

    If the lack of lectures and assignments has created a void, you will develop a new working pattern in your career. This may be with a high-profile employer where you are on a graduate programme with a workplace mentor to guide and coach you. You will develop a new circle of friends, many of whom may also be recent graduates providing mutual support during the early stages of your career. You can also keep in touch with your university peers by registering as an alumni with the University of Warwick. Linked In can also be useful in this respect. Alumni can become useful business contacts in the future as well as providing advice to help you develop your career

    The anticipation of starting your career

    Finding that first job will be highly motivating. The opportunity to use the skills developed on your degree and perhaps apply your subject knowledge in the workplace will be an exciting challenge. Your learning and intellectual curiosity will not just stop after graduation, just used in a different environment and context.

    If you haven’t got a job or decided what to do next, here are some approaches to consider:

    • Take control The variety of choices you have (the majority of graduate employers do not even specify a degree discipline) may feel overwhelming. It may be tempting to sit and wait for something to happen. This strategy could prove to be frustrating and ultimately ineffective though. Far better to take the initiative, be proactive and you will start to feel like you have a sense of direction. However small or insignificant that first step feels, it may be the beginning of formulating your plan. So set some realistic and manageable targets – create that Linked In profile, apply for some volunteering, enrol on a short course to develop a new skill, join a temping agency, for example. If nothing else research career options with your degree , do any of them motivate you? Reflect on your values and motivations to begin matching yourself to the potential opportunities
    • The first job doesn’t define the rest of your career. Don’t feel under pressure to find that ‘dream’ job immediately. Compromise, be pragmatic and accept that the first step in your career may be an opportunity to learn about yourself and the world of work. Maybe this experience will help you to find that ideal job later in your career as you develop a sense of what really matters to you
    • Could a longer term strategy work for you? Ask yourself if you are ready to commit to your career or would a work placement/graduate internship help you identify where your motivation and passion really lies?
    • Don’t be afraid to take a risk. A creative director in the advertising industry, Paul Arden once said, ‘better to regret what you have done than what you haven’t.’ If the first graduate job isn’t right for you think about how valuable the experience will be in developing your self-awareness. It will also add to your skill set and provide further evidence of your employability to future employers.
    • Seek careers advice Remember that you can use Warwick’s careers service for up to two years after graduation. Impartial careers advice and guidance may help you to make your decision more confidently.

    You are not alone, lots of other finalists are still finding it difficult to choose and find a career. Reflect on what an enjoyable and rewarding experience university has hopefully been. And look forward to the next stage of your career.

    Originally published by Ray Ryan

    Revised by Student Opportunity in 2025

    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