As universities in many countries face increasing pressure to demonstrate value, there is increased scrutiny of how they prepare graduates for the labour market.
Our latest research explores the difference in how graduate outcomes are currently measured and whether metrics accurately reflect national priorities for graduate outcomes. We compared the Australian Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS) instrument with its UK and EU counterparts to understand key points of difference.
We argue that this comparison matters; as the national metrics we choose reflect differing national priorities. Our research revealed three aspects currently missing from the AUS GOS for future consideration:
- Beyond the Classroom: The Working Student Experience
Thanks to the hard work of ACEN (now WIL Australia) colleagues, the GOS now has opt-in questions related to students work placements and internships. But we continue to miss other key aspects such as student volunteering and paid work experiences. This despite the growing number of students who work part-time, even full-time, while studying.
- The Wellbeing Factor
The GOS has long measures graduates’ estimated salaries and perceived capabilities. But we’re yet to include more holistic questions about whether graduates felt fulfilled in higher education, or whether universities prepared for the complex world they are now entering. Yet we know student success and the university experience is so much more than just employment, and other aspects of graduate jobs beyond earnings are equally important (e.g., satisfaction, perceiving one’s work as meaningful). - Who You know
Decades of research have evidenced the importance of social capital on graduate outcomes. Yet across all three instruments there were almost no questions related to this key dimension (e.g., related to networks among students and staff, i.e., with whom information is shared and by whom students feel supported, or the university’s relationships to external social networks, i.e., partnerships between the institution and employers). This not only fails to accurately measure the true contribution of the university experience, but it fails to motivate universities to provide for this much-needed support.
We can’t pretend that graduate outcomes indices are a fair or accurate reflection of the value that universities provide in preparing people for the workforce, unless we interrogate the methodology of the measurements. The EU focuses on study abroad and student mobility, demonstrating a commitment to sharing knowledge, which is not a priority in Australian graduate metrics.
Underemployment is often also hidden in GOS, with 31% underemployment in the UK, where graduates are employed, but not in jobs they trained for. Unlike the EU, Australia also does not consider how graduates found work, and where they started looking for it – leaving a gap in our comprehension of the graduate experience. We also need to consider graduate wellbeing if we are to build a sustainable higher education sector for the future.
Given the Accord provides a blueprint for restructuring the sector almost entirely built around growing graduate outcomes for the future workforce in Australia, more work is required to ensure GOS present a fair and insightful representation of the graduate experience.
For a full analysis, please refer to our Open Access Article.
A/Prof Franziska Lessky, University of Innsbruck, Adjunct Professor at Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success (ACSES) & Prof Mollie Dollinger, Curtin University