Abstract:
Globally, there’s a shift towards viewing employability as a central feature of what HEIs do, as evidenced by the publication of higher education rankings based on indicators of employability, such as those by QS and THE. Employability has become central to higher education policy globally, yet it remains a contested and poorly operationalized concept. This presentation synthesizes findings from a research program that examines both the conceptual foundations and empirical evidence underpinning employability in higher education.

 

We begin by examining the conceptual challenge. Employability has been criticized as a "buzzword"—polysemic, often ill-defined, and reduced to individual attributes while neglecting structural labour market conditions. A recent systematic review reveals that the evidence base is dominated by small-scale case studies and non-robust evaluations, with a notable gap in studies tracking actual labour market outcomes.

 

This weakness extends to the aggregate level. Using Monte Carlo simulations and global sensitivity analysis across 550 elite institutions worldwide, we demonstrate that employability metrics are ill-defined and that the assumed relationship between higher education costs and employability outcomes is largely a methodological artifact. The global correlation is negligible (r = 0.02), and methodological choices in indicator construction—not substantive cost differences—explain most variation in perceived institutional performance. Even within more homogeneous systems (Anglo-Saxon: r = 0.34; Continental European: r = 0.27), the relationship remains highly sensitive to measurement decisions. These findings challenge the validity of employability rankings that guide multi-billion-dollar investment decisions by students, institutions, and governments.

 

Against this backdrop of conceptual ambiguity and fragile aggregate evidence, we turn to micro-level analysis using 15 years of data from the Catalan Graduate Follow-Up Survey to assess the labour market effect of employability in higher education. Addressing selection bias through instrumental variable estimation—exploiting peer exposure to careers services—we document a causal wage premium of approximately 8.5% for graduates entering employment through university careers services. Crucially, heterogeneity analysis reveals that effects are strongest for women (15.7%) and graduates without prior work experience (17%), suggesting these services may help reduce labour market inequalities. We conclude with broader reflections on the policy implications. Drawing on an interdisciplinary framework integrating human capital theory, signalling, search theory, and positional competition, we argue that while university employability activities can deliver genuine returns for individuals—particularly disadvantaged groups—policymakers should approach aggregate employability metrics with considerable caution.