Should universities promote employability?
Tristan McCowan
(UCL Institute of Education, London)
Published in Theory and Research in Education (2015), vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 267-285
Abstract
Employability is becoming increasingly central to the mission and functioning of universities,
spurred on by national and supranational agencies, and the demands of marketisation. This
article provides a response to the normative dimensions of the question, progressing through
four stages: first, there is a brief consideration of the meaning and manifestations of
employability, and the historical conditions underpinning its emergence; second, the question
is addressed of whether employability is a desirable societal and individual aim per se; third,
there is a discussion of the fundamental purpose of the university, drawing on the well-known
accounts of Newman and Collini, before – fourth – addressing the principal question of
whether and in what way employability might fit within that purpose. It is argued that
employability is a valid aim of universities only in so far as it is consistent with the central
purpose of the institution to foster human understanding through open-ended enquiry.
Further questions are discussed, namely whether other social institutions are better equipped
to promote employability, possible costs for the university, the ethical dimension, and
differences between public and private institutions.
Introduction
The University of Oxford has recently been placed first in the Global Employability Ranking1 an accolade that may or may not serve as a consolation for its rather less distinguished
showing of 10th on the Shanghai World Universities list. While elite universities may be less
depe de t o su h et i s the alue of thei deg ees ei g self-evide t , fo the e kids
o the lo k , e plo a ilit
ede tials ha e e o e e t al to su ess a d su i al.
Institutions such as Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, whose banner announces it as
Best UK u i e sit fo e plo e t o
a ket the sel es to their prospective customers
primarily on the basis of the ease with which their graduates will subsequently enter the job
market. Prospective students can also do their homework on the average graduate starting
salaries of universities – the UK ranking currently topped by the London School of Economics.
1
The ranking is conducted by Emerging Associates and Trendence, on the basis of a survey of employers in 20
countries gauging their views on the reputation of universities.
Universities, and higher education systems, are strongly tied into the logic and functioning of
the changing contemporary political economy. The connection expresses itself through the
practice of higher education (its management, admissions systems, teaching and learning etc)
as well as understandings of its aims and purpose. One of the most prominent aspects of the
changing conceptualisation of the contemporary university is its role in promoting
employability. For students, undertaking a higher education degree is framed -- largely, if not
exclusively -- in terms of becoming more employable. For universities, fulfilling this
employability enhancing role is framed as an obligation to society or nation, and (particularly
in cash-strapped times) a justification for considerable public expense.
Employability has been forcefully promoted by national governments, initially in Anglophone
countries – in the UK the notion received firm endorsement in the 1997 Dearing report - but
increasingly in other parts of the world (BIS 2011; British Council 2013; CHEC 2013; UNESCO
2012; Novoa 2007). These efforts have been spurred on by the support of supranational
agencies and networks such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD 2008a; 2008b), the World Bank (2010) and the European Higher Education Area
(Bologna Declaration 1999). Concrete expressions of this commitment at the institutional
level have emerged in the form of enhanced careers services, integration of skills
development within degree courses, introduction of standalone skills development courses,
increased opportunities for work placement, and increasing involvement of employers in
curricular design and delivery. These movements have occurred in the context of a changing
labour market in which -- with the possible exception of well-established professions such as
medicine and engineering -- generic skills have become as important to graduate recruiters
as subject-specific knowledge (Harvey 2000). As stated in the Dearing Report (1997):
To survive in the labour market of the future, workers will need new sets of
skills, to work across conventional boundaries and see connections between
processes, functions and disciplines and, in particular, to manage the
learning which will support their careers.
In an empirical sense, this trend is hard to deny (although there is debate over the extent to
which it constitutes a fundamental change in the purpose and function of the university). But
the normative question remains. Is this trend justified or desirable? Should in fact universities
have creating employable graduates as their primary aim, or even a subsidiary aim? As with
many questions in the contemporary world, the normative dimension is buried by the
appa e t i e ita ilit of i u sta es. The u de l i g uestio s of should a e ui kl
dismissed in the urgency of catching up with the world outside, and indeed, of ensuring the
very survival of the institution.
The constant assertions of inevitability may, or may not, be a deliberate attempt to quell
resistance and alternatives. Either way, institutions are faced with drifting or being swept
away by a current, with little thought for purposeful travel -- other than rowing in whichever
direction the current is taking them. Exploring the normative dimensions of this question is
worthwhile – e e if a defi iti e a s e
a ot e possi le o desi a le , o if o se sus
will not be reached. The anatomy of the arguments for and implications of the employability
agenda must be understood clearly, whether we decide to reject it on grounds firmer than
ingrained conservatism, or to embrace it without niggling guilt. In developing a conceptual
discussion of the issue, this article does not deny the importance of context -- in the genesis
of demands for employability, in the way it may manifest itself in institutions and in the kinds
of response that might be deemed appropriate -- but considers nevertheless that there is
worth in engagement with the political and epistemological principles underpinning those
more specific expressions of the trends.
This article, therefore, presents a response to the question of whether universities should
promote employability in their students. While not presuming to put forward a political and
epistemological position that would be acceptable to all, it presents a map of the conceptual
terrain on which the debates are located, and suggests some theoretical tools to aid analysis
of the place of employability within the functioning of the institution. In doing so, it engages
with the ideas of two prominent commentators on the idea of the university -- Cardinal
Newman in the 19th century, and in contemporary times, Stefan Collini -- whose ideas shed
light on the role of the institution and its connection to society.
But hat does should ea i “hould u i e sities p o ote e plo a ilit ? Co tai ed
within this question are conceptual understandings and judgements of value about both
employability and universities. The first question to be addressed is whether employability
should be promoted at all (whether in universities or anywhere else). This question involves
determining the origins and implications of employability in relation to the organisation of
society, and the fundamental moral and political principles of the good life, and of a just and
prosperous society. This article cannot, of course, adequately cover all of these questions –
for example, the relative merits of capitalist as opposed to other forms of social and economic
organisation – but the issues will be touched on briefly.
The second question is whether universities specifically should be promoting employability.
Included in this question is an empirical issue of whether universities in fact can promote
employability, and of whether other social institutions might be better equipped to serve this
purpose. But beyond the empirical aspect, lies the matter of the nature of the university itself,
whether employability is in keeping with its fundamental purpose, and the effect that its
prioritisation might have on the other functions of the institution.
This article will not make a firm distinction between universities and other higher education
institutions, though acknowledging the significant diversification of the sector in recent years.
An increasing number of post-secondary institutions are included under the umbrella of
highe edu atio , so e ith a issio a d ode of fu tio i g lea l disti t f o
traditional universities. For the purposes of this account, it will be assumed that - whether or
not they are research intensive - all higher education institutions aim to foster in students
hat Wi h
te s te h ologi al as opposed to te h i al k o ledge: that is, i
addition to putti g i effe t a od of theo eti al k o ledge i a pa ti ula o te t fo a
pa ti ula pu pose a alid ai fo
a
o atio al i stitutio s , stude ts pote tiall
e o e i o ato [s] i espe t of the k o ledge hi h underlies the development of new
te h i ue . I additio , hile the p o esses of o
e ialisatio affe t all aspe ts of
universities, this article will focus primarily on their teaching function, viewing employability
as a question of student development through university studies.
In expressing an argument that is broadly critical of (at least some) dominant conceptions of
employability in university, it is important to clarify two points from the outset: first, that links
between HE and work are not unique to the contemporary age, and second, that there is
nothing inherently objectionable in such a link. The first of these is a historical question. As
discussed further below, while there are some distinctive elements of contemporary
understandings and manifestations of employability, it is clear that at no point in history was
the university completely divorced from the realities of political economy, nor from the
requirements of preparing individuals for work. The second is a normative question. This
article is not presenting a view of HE -- or of education as a whole -- that sees practical
application as a sull i g of pu e a ade i e ui , o that sides e lusi el ith li e al as
opposed to o atio al edu atio . The point is not that universities should focus their efforts
away from work, but that attention is needed to the nature of the preparation for work that
u i e sities p o ide, a d its elatio ship ith the i stitutio s oade ai s.
What is employability?
While employability is often gauged through employment, the two concepts are clearly
distinct. Employability is a quality of the individual facilitating the gaining of employment, but
is not a guarantee of it: there are many external factors that will determine whether an
individual actually acquires employment, including the general availability of jobs, the
distribution of different types of job, potential discrimination in the job market, and a range
of othe fa ilitato s o o st ai ts M G ath
; Mo le
. Yo ke s
ofte ited
definition expresses these different elements of the core concept:
a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that
makes graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their
chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the
community and the economy.
There is a large body of literature discussing the kinds of employability qualities that
universities should be promoting (e.g. Hager & Holland 2006; Harvey 2000; Pegg et al. 2012;
Yorke & Knight 2006). Various forms of skill set have been promoted – t a sfe a le skills,
o e skills, ke skills – while variants of these sets of generic qualities have manifested
the sel es i the spe ifi atio of g aduate att i utes
pa ti ula u i e sities e.g. the
University of Melbourne2) and in the concept of graduateness (Steur et al. 2012) -- both of
which include employability, but also other attributes of a successful life. Critiques of the skills
agenda, questioning not only its narrowness, but also the very possibility of transferability of
skills from one domain to another (see Bridges 1993) have led to alternative approaches.
Holmes (2001; 2013), followed by others such as Hinchcliffe and Jolly (2011), have proposed
a g aduate ide tit app oa h, hi h a k o ledges the elatio al atu e of these att i utes,
as opposed to the pu po ted u o se a le tool-like e tities ithi the g aduate Hol es
2001: 113).
2
The University of Melbourne (2014) graduate attributes are as follows: academic distinction, active
citizenship and integrity and self-awareness.
Should anybody be promoting employability?
Employability is closely bound up with the recent developments in capitalist societies loosely
designated by the term eoli e alis . B
a of a ief p é is: si e the
s, atio s
(particularly high income ones) have moved from welfare systems underpinned by Keynesian
e o o i s a d a st o g i te e tio ist state, i easi gl to a ds eoli e al ideas of f eemarket systems, with the state reframed as regulator rather than provider, and public services
provided through quasi-markets with considerable private involvement. As part of this
trajectory, workers face increasing uncertainty, commonly have portfolio careers rather than
jobs for life, and instead of the state, are themselves held responsible for their own
employment outcomes, which can be improved through developing their own human capital
(Allais 2014; Brown, Lauder & Ashton 2011). Employability, therefore, becomes the obligation
of individuals in the contemporary economic landscape to ensure their own employment,
income and survival. Individuals must equip themselves with the attributes necessary to
respond to a rapidly changing employment market to allow themselves to maintain work and
transfer between jobs.
While debates about the link between the knowledge and skills of graduates and their
employment are not unique to the contemporary era, there are distinctive features of the
current conceptions of employability in relation to the university. First, contemporary
conceptions of employability are distinctive in their generic nature: that there is a range of
attributes that can aid graduates in the gaining and maintaining of a wide range of different
forms of employment, rather than a specific profession or trade. Second, the rise of
conceptions of the knowledge economy have meant that higher-order analytical skills are
perceived to be at a premium, thereby placing a value on higher education for increasing
proportions of the population. Third, there is a change of scale and intensity, with concerns
about employability and employment influencing almost all aspects of university life and
p ofou dl ha gi g stude ts a d a ade i s o eptions of the purposes of higher
education.
The process of individualisation of responsibility for employment outlined above can be
interpreted as an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the state. Instead of ensuring
opportunities and welfare for all, the state is -- in the name of fostering efficiency and
economic competitiveness -- allowing the wealthy to maintain their privileges, and passing
responsibility for disadvantage to the disadvantaged themselves. According to this view,
employability is a sleight of hand, convincing people that their own employment success or
failure does and should rest in their own hands, and thereby legitimising inequalities. (See
agai the slippage et ee e plo a ilit a d e plo e t - converting the former into
the latter depends on a range of macro-economic factors that are far beyond the reach of the
individual).
Endorsing the discourse of employability, therefore, would appear to be endorsing the
capitalist economic system. It is clearly beyond the scope of this article to present a definitive
argument against this form of economic system, or alternatively to defend it. Suffice it to say
that the system as currently arranged -- even with the considerable checks and softenings
provided by the vestiges of the welfare state -- leaves many without the opportunity to pursue
flourishing lives. Nevertheless, following Swift (2003), we need to reason both about what the
ules of the ga e should e, a d a out hat to do gi e the u e t ules. Fo the ti e
being at least, we are faced with liberal capitalist systems, and there is moral reasoning to be
undertaken in relation to the current context, as well as about how to change that underlying
system potentially in the future. To put it simply, if it is the case that currently individuals
require enhancement of their employability in order to gain and maintain employment, and
employment is essential to survival and flourishing, then those in a position of being able to
influence that employability should do so. Unavoidably, this course of action presents the
potential danger of reinforcing an unjust system through playing within the rules (and
consequently this argument may be rejected by those with a utopian bent).
There are clear individual benefits to employability - primarily, increasing one's chances of
gaining an income - but there may also be collective benefits, perhaps for the whole of society.
Some of the qualities associated with employability -- such as critical thinking, problem
solving, communication skills etc -- will make graduates more productive workers, and will
increase the productivity of the company or other workplace, and increase aggregate
economic activity. (This logic underpins classical human capital theory [e.g. Schultz 1961], in
seeing a link between investment in education and individual productivity, and thereby
earnings and macro-economic growth). Enhanced worker effectiveness may also bring noneconomic benefits to others in society, say in the case of local council officials providing a
better quality service to communities, or environmental scientists contributing to more
extensive protection of wildlife areas.
In summary, employability is part and parcel of the highly problematic contemporary
capitalist economic system. To support it may entail a reinforcement of that system.
Ne e theless, i the u e t o te t, lea i g i di iduals ithout e plo a ilit
ould
considerably diminish their life chances, and therefore there are moral obligations to support
othe s pu suit of it. I additio , att i utes of e plo a ilit a e ha e a i di idual s
productivity in the workplace and thereby provide benefits for society.
However, any promotion of employability needs to be qualified in relation to two provisos:
those of a potential zero-sum game, and ethical considerations.
1. Zero-sum game employability
Part of what comes under the umbrella of employability initiatives are forms of support for
students designed to help them in the process of obtaining a job, i.e. finding out information
about employers, filling in application forms and writing CVs, presenting oneself
appropriately, performing well in interview and so forth. Most importantly of all, students can
be facilitated in making contact with employers, developing their social networks, increasing
their familiarity with companies and individuals. Empirical research (e.g. Mason et al. 2006)
has shown the i po ta e of o k pla e e ts a d sa d i h t ai i g pla e e ts for gaining
employment subsequently, not only in terms of the skills gained but also through the contacts
developed.
These are qualities that enable an individual to obtain a job instead of somebody else. They
do not relate to improvements in the productivity of the individual, and while the
determination and initiative required in the competition for scarce employment
opportunities might be seen to be a proxy for the qualities needed within employment, the
kinds of the job application tips normally gained do not necessarily help the individual in her
subsequent work. Hence, they amount to a zero-sum game: in the context of scarce
opportunities, they enable those who are lucky enough to have had that exposure to
employability enhancement to gain advantage over others.
Zero-sum game employability is clearly of interest to the individuals involved, but does not
bring an aggregate benefit to society. In addition, as discussed below, it raises questions of
equity as regards those who do and do not have access to this kind of careers advice input.
(Indeed, there may be an argument instead for targeted provision in this area specifically to
equalise the chances of disadvantaged groups.) Employability initiatives that provide
individuals with positional advantage, therefore, but without enhancing their productivity,
have a weaker justification. They can be defended on the basis of the interests of individual
students, but not on the basis of those of society as a whole.
2. Unethical employability
Another area of concern is a ou d u ethi al o o pa fi st p a ti es i e plo e t. I a
competitive market-based economic system, corporations as well as individuals compete with
one another, and if we endorse the logic of capitalism, that competition in the aggregate will
make a society more productive and more efficient. However, it is undeniable that those
forms of competition also breed deception (both between companies, and of consumers -through misleading advertising etc), exploitation of workers, harmful impacts on local
communities and environmental destruction, to name a few. Certain qualities associated with
e plo a ilit a e ha e i di iduals apa it to o tai a d ai tai e plo e t, ut also
allow or even encourage them to contribute to practices that will be harmful to others.
Capacities for problem solving, communication, and so forth can just as easily be attributes
of a psychopath as of a saint. Employability, therefore, needs to be promoted within the
bounds of ethical action: the way one acts within employment should be guided not only by
the interests of one's direct employer, and one's own interests, but also the interests of others
in society.
The role of universities
There are, therefore, concerns about the promotion of employability generally speaking, and
at the very least certain caveats in doing so. Yet even if we could provide a full endorsement
of employability, it would still not necessarily follow that universities should be tasked with
promoting it. Consideration of the role of universities in employability must start from a
discussion of their broader purpose. In light of the dramatic changes facing the institution,
the uestio , What a e u i e sities fo ? has been posed by a number of commentators in
recent years, including public intellectuals such as Umberto Eco (2013) and Boaventura de
Sousa Santos (2004). In particular, the question has been eloquently addressed by Stefan
Collini (2012) in his book of that name, and this article broadly endorses the position
presented there. Nevertheless, some further discussion of the nature of the university as
institution and its possible purposes will be of use.
While institutions of higher learning have emerged in different forms around the world
through history, the contemporary institution of university has its roots in the establishment
of guilds of students and teachers in mediaeval Europe, first in Bologna and Paris in the 12th
century (Perkin 2007; Carpentier forthcoming). The early universities combined a broad
grounding in the key knowledge areas of the trivium (grammar, rhetoric and dialectic) and
the quadrivium (music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy), with a subsequent and more
specific formation in theology, law or medicine. While facing a range of challenges in their
relations with their host cities, and with the competing powers of Church and state, they
expanded in number and size through the following centuries until a decline in the 1700s, as
they became increasingly out of touch with the social and scientific developments of the
E lighte e t. ‘e i al of the i stitutio i the th e tu i pa t due to the Hu oldt s
model of the research university developed in Berlin in 1810), was accompanied by a
significant change in its orientation and functioning, moving away from Aristotelian
argumentation and towards scientific discovery and the incorporation of new forms of work
emerging in the Industrial Revolution, particularly engineering. Links with industry intensified
through the 20th century, along with a dramatic expansion of participation, leading again to
a broadening of the institution's purpose in relation to diverse areas of study (now
incorporating teaching, nursing and social work), and an array of different service functions
for society (Kerr 1963). In the early 21st century we are viewing an institution under intense
pressure both to further expand and to commercialise itself, facing either the prospect of
becoming a vibrant knowledge hub, or alternatively the quasi apocalyptic vision of
unbundling (Barber et al. 2013; Clark 1998; Wissema 2009).
The purposes of the university have, therefore, transited between transmitting a body of
knowledge for the core professions, fostering scientific enquiry for furthering the interests of
the nation-state, serving diverse societal interests -- community, industry, government -- and
driving economic growth through human capital formation and technological innovation.
Given this diversity of purposes and functions, we cannot, therefore, read off from history
what the aims of a university should be, as if by digging down through the layers and
discovering the true and original essence. Aviram (1992) also alerts us to the dangers of
identifying the core meaning of higher education through conceptual analysis. Nevertheless,
we can point to some features that are common to manifestations of the university. First like schools - they are institutions of teaching. Second - unlike schools - they are locations for
the production, discovery or development of knowledge. True, in the medieval university,
esea h as ot a featu e, ut the i stitutio s e e e e theless sites of s hola ship a d
development of interpretations of existing knowledge.
Collini frames this e t al ha a te isti as follo s: the go e i g pu pose [of u i e sities]
involves extending human understanding through open-e ded e ui
p. . We ould of
course provide more detail to the definition, but much of that extra detail would end up in
context specificity, or smuggling in of normative views. In the above statement we have an
expression of both the overarching aim (human understanding) and the primary means
(open-ended enquiry), although the latter can also be understood as an end in itself.
U de sta di g as a pu pose o tai s ithi it oth the tea hi g a d esea h ele e ts:
teaching and learning as the process of encouraging understanding in students, and research
or scholarship as a process of furthering the understanding of the researcher and of humanity.
Universities undoubtedly have other more specific functions and purposes, but as this
element appears broadly connected to the idea of a university, I will take this as its base
purpose.
In observing the changing nature of the university across time -- and indeed in relation to
place -- it can be seen that differences manifest themselves in relation to various dimensions
of the i stitutio s elatio ship ith k o ledge, enquiry and understanding. First, in terms of
the value that is given to knowledge: whether it is seen to have intrinsic worth, or alternatively
instrumental worth, and which kinds of instrumental value it might have. A second area
relates to the function of the university in relation to knowledge, whether it is engaged in
transmission, production or application, or a combination of the three. A third question
relates to the degree of porosity of the institution, in terms of both inward and outward
movement: the absorption of the ideas, individuals and purposes from outside of the
university, as well as sharing the fruits of scholarship with the broader society. While all of
these questions have some relevance for employability, for the purposes of this article I will
focus primarily on the first of these, relating to intrinsic and instrumental value.
Intrinsic and instrumental worth
Employability is customarily seen as an instrumental benefit of higher education, in that it is
external to the value of knowledge and understanding themselves - and associated processes
of enquiry, dialogue and debate. (Instrumental or extrinsic is here taken to mean that the
value of an activity resides outside itself, whereas intrinsic indicates that it has reached its
' esti g pla e a d as a sou e of alue i itself . “o should we discount it as an aim of
universities on that basis?
By far the best-known expression of the intrinsic value of university education – indeed
possibly the best-known work on the university of all time – is Ca di al Ne
a s The Idea of
a University Defined and Illustrated (1852). In this work, in which he defends a model of liberal
education in the establishment of a new Catholic university in Dublin, he asserts that:
I am asked what is the end of University Education, and of the Liberal or
Philosophical Knowledge which I conceive it to impart: I answer, that what I
have already said has been sufficient to show that it has a very tangible, real,
and sufficient end, though the end cannot be divided from that knowledge
itself. Knowledge is capable of being its own end. Such is the constitution of
the human mind, that any kind of knowledge, if it be really such, is its own
reward. (p.128)
Colli i s
o k -- while certainly sympathetic to Newman's concerns about excessive
instrumentalisation -- is in fact critical of the classic text. The two authors concur that
universities cannot make a person morally good - in Newman's conception, a good Catholic.
But Ne
a s lai that u i e sit stud ill i deed ake people i to the ideal of a fully
balanced, enlightened gentleman seems somewhat far-fetched for the contemporary writer.
For Collini, it is not clear why only university can fulfil this function, and whether a three-year
stint as an undergraduate can actually have such a transformative effect.
The poi t pe ti e t to ou dis ussio he e is that Colli i e asts Ne
a s ha dli e
opposition to any instrumental benefit. Instead, Collini presents a more nuanced view:
It is sometimes said that in universities and colleges knowledge is pursued
fo its o
sake , ut that a
is-describe the variety of purposes for
which different kinds of understanding may be sought. A better way to
characterise the intellectual life of universities may be to say that the drive
towards understanding can never accept an arbitrary stopping-point, and
critique may always in principle reveal that any currently accepted stoppingpoint is ultimately arbitrary. (p.55)
It is not, then, that the kinds of enquiry undertaken in universities can and should have no
instrumental benefit, but that if they are tied to specific, predefined forms of instrumental
benefit (either in their motivations, or in the parameters of their outcomes) then that enquiry
is undermined and impoverished. A further point made -- and one backed up through many
examples of scientific research through history -- is that it is hard to determine at a particular
point in time which knowledge is in fact useful, or will become so in the future. These central
points will be pursued further below.
In his commentary on The Idea of a University, Dunne (2006) also makes a refinement of
Ne
a 's defe e of the i t i si , oti g that, Ne
a is su el ight to oppose utilit as
the criterion of knowledge. But is he not mistaken, in turn, to make non-utilit its ite io ?
p.
. D a i g o Alisai Ma I t e, Du e a gues fo a e la gi g of the do ai of the
non-i st u e tal , a k o ledgi g the i te al goods of appa e tl i st u ental practices
– such as medicine or architecture – involving:
competencies proper to each practice – technical proficiencies in, for
example, draughtsmanship or diagnosis – and virtues of character – for
example, patience, temperance, courage or honesty – that dis ipli e o e s
desi es a d di e t o e s e e g a d atte tio so as to se e the de a ds of
particular practices. (p.426)
These reflections on the kinds of intrinsic value that may pertain to professional practices, in
addition to knowledge, are significant for discussions of employability. As will be discussed
further below, promotion of employability is commonly focused on the external rewards
rather than the intrinsically valuable practice of work contained to i Du e s o eptio .
In relation to the intrinsic or instrumental benefits of higher education, there are three
principal positions that can be taken:
1. Higher education3 should only have intrinsic value
2. Higher education can (additionally) have instrumental value, but only some
instrumental aims are valid
3. Higher education can foster any instrumental aim held by individuals or society
The first position is hard to sustain. It is entirely legitimate for learners, their teachers (and
others concerned with their education) to have instrumental aims for their learning -- in the
se se of othe oppo tu ities fo doi g a d ei g i “e s [1992] terms) that are opened
up by it. In addition, even learning motivated by intrinsic value will often have instrumental
e efit as a ki d of a ide tal positi e e te alit . What should e tai l e gua ded agai st
is a framing of higher education as only having instrumental benefit -- i.e. a view of the arts
and humanities as only having value in so far as they drive a country's media industry.
Instrumental aims are then valid in addition to intrinsic aims. Yet as indicated by Collini above,
we should not conceive of the instrumental value as entirely external to the intrinsic value:
the ki ds of e ui e gaged i
u i e sities ill atu all lead to useful out o es -though not in all cases, and not in predictable ways.
A rejection of the purely intrinsic view (1) does not necessarily lead us on to position 3, that
any aim is consequently legitimate. The market-based conception of higher education -- with
which the employability agenda is tightly bound -- assumes that universities should answer to
the demands of consumers (as discussed in Martin, forthcoming): whether in providing the
types of taught courses requested by students, the types of research requested by
corporations, and other forms of knowledge exchange requested by other groups in society.
While it is undoubtedly desirable for universities to be responsive to society, there are limits
to the demands that can and should be answered.
We can discriminate between aims on the basis of either their moral and political value, or on
their consistency with the fundamental purpose of the university, i.e. to develop human
understanding. There is not space here to provide a full account of the ethical dimension of
the university. Nevertheless, this article takes as a fundamental presupposition that all
teaching and learning (and research) have moral and political implications, whether or not
they are dealing explicitly with moral and political affairs. For sure, values are already strongly
formed by the time most students are within higher education, and their time within
university is limited -- he e Ne
a s a d Colli i s o e s a out the pote tial of
u i e sities to fo
good people. All the sa e, u i e sities a ha e at least so e i flue e
(see Trow 1976) – positive or negative – on i di iduals ethi al de elop e t, th ough the
fo al taught o po e ts, the
oade
a pus e i o e t a d the atu e of
relationships formed within the university community. This emphasis on the development of
character has been particularly strong in some contexts -- for example the elite universities in
England, and the liberal arts colleges in the USA (Perkin 2007) -- but, in more subtle forms, is
an inescapable aspect of higher education. Contemporary work on the ways universities can
promote (or not) commitment to social justice in graduates can be seen, for example in
Walke et al. s
a al sis of the de elop e t of p o-poo p ofessio als . As i Walke 's
o k, this a ti le is u de pi ed
a o eptio of ethi s e p essed th ough “e s
)
dual notions of agency and well-being, and hence by the university's role in promoting these
3
This article is addressing the teaching function of universities primarily, but similar arguments could apply to
research.
freedoms and achievements in individual students, as well as fostering in students a
commitment to ensuring the agency and well-being of others.
In terms of the second consideration (consistency with the fundamental purpose of the
university), the instrumental aims of universities should be fruits of the development of
human understanding, or constitutive of that development - in the latter case that the process
of developing understanding continues through the subsequent activity. So, for example, it is
legitimate for a university to hold the aim of forming graduates equipped to function in the
area of hospitality and tourism management, as long as the process of formation is
underpinned by enquiry (for example, into the complex positive and negative effects of
opening up a previously isolated region to tourism), and the open enquiry engaged in and
understanding gained continues into and informs the subsequent work.
Universities have intrinsic worth, then, but instrumental value should not be rejected, as long
as it is consistent with ethical principles and the fundamental purpose of furthering human
understanding, and as long as it emerges as an outgrowth of the intrinsically valuable enquiry
engaged in.
There are two important aspects of this question that this article will not be able to cover
fully. As discussed above, the first relates to ethical dimension of discriminating between aims
(either of teaching and research) that could be considered morally desirable or not. The
second relates to equality of opportunity. One aspect of the benefits conferred by universities
addressed by neither Newman nor Collini is positional advantage. (In fact, Colli i s a ou t
says little about equity and equality at all, manifested in higher education principally through
the question of access). In addition to intrinsic and instrumental value, education can be seen
to confer positional benefits, that is to say benefits for the individual relative to others in
society (Unterhalter & Brighouse 2007). We can classify this form of benefit as a species of
instrumental value, one relating to scarce and rivalrous goods, such as high-value
employment opportunities. Higher education is particularly influential in relation to positional
goods, and historically has acted as a key mechanism for maintenance and sometimes
intensification of elite privilege in relation to wealth and political power.
Employability provision across a higher education system (and possibly within a single
university as well) could be rejected on the basis that it unfairly prejudices some social groups
and individuals in relation to others. Sociological research (see Tomlinson 2012) has shown
that employability initiatives currently adopted by universities favour middle-class students.
The nature of the employability provision, as well as its distribution, would then be relevant
in terms of whether universities have a mitigating or exacerbating effect on socio-economic
inequalities. The dangers here are particularly acute in the context of scarce employment
opportunities alluded to in the discussion on zero-sum game employability above.
Can universities promote employability? And are they better placed to do so than other
institutions?
It is then at least permissible for universities to promote some variants of employability as
part of their instrumental aims. But is it in fact possible for them to do so, and indeed efficient
in terms of the range of alternative social organisations that might fulfil the function? These
questions are primarily empirical, but some brief considerations will be of use.
If we consider the list of generic attributes associated with employability -- written and oral
communication, critical thinking, team working, problem solving and so forth -- we can see
that none of these are exclusively the domain of higher education. All of these qualities can
and should be developed during school, and indeed in other spheres of life. That is not to say
that some at least of them cannot also be developed in university, but it is quite wrong to
attribute any failings in these areas necessarily with a failing of the university. Unfortunately,
the simple fact that university comes chronologically before the primary phase of full-time
employment leads people to the belief that it is the major or even the only influence on
employability.
Equally, there is no reason to believe that university can have no influence on these qualities.
Values are developed from early childhood, and it may be that major changes are unlikely
after reaching adulthood, but -- as discussed above -- even in this area some development is
possible. The areas that university can contribute to most strongly would appear to be
qualities such as: disciplinary knowledge through degree courses, useful for employability
most obviously in professional courses such as engineering, architecture etc; development of
critical thinking; analytical skills and interpretation of texts; higher-level written
communication; development of values associated with research and scholarship, what we
ight all the spi it of e ui ; a d the e pe ie e of li i g a d o ki g ith di e se othe s.
Nevertheless, there are aspects of employability that universities cannot meaningfully
contribute to. For most lines of work, job specific skills -- and knowledge of an applied,
practical rather than a general, theoretical nature -- can best, or perhaps can only be learned
from the employer, and in the workplace. As Maso et al.
:
state, The e a e
little to be gained from universities seeking to develop skills that are best acquired (or can
only be acquired) after sta ti g e plo e t athe tha efo eha d . Some personal and
work qualities - such as teamwork, responding effectively under pressure - may be enhanced
by simulations in the university but are best acquired through experiential learning.
Universities, therefore, can develop part of what is included in lists of employability
attributes, but much is best developed within the workplace -- and in that category can be
included the forms of work placements that are provided during a degree course, but are not
conducted within the university itself (such as an attachment at the headquarters of a
national hotel chain for students of Tourism). We might, in this regard, propose that degree
courses should be more porous and facilitate these forms of experiential learning beyond the
university gates to a greater extent. In addition, there are a variety of post-secondary
institutions of a vocational nature that may be better equipped at enhancing employability in
particular areas. These considerations are important as they guard against overreach in
relation to the potential of universities for promoting employability, as well as unfounded
expectations about the kinds of attributes that universities can develop.
Are there any costs?
Even if it can be shown that promoting employability is consistent with the purpose of the
university, and that it is possible for universities to do so, there may still be arguments against
it if it can be shown that there are associated costs. Promoting employability might, in this
way, detract from other activities undertaken by universities. There are two ways in which
such a negative effect might occur -- elati g to ua tit a d ualit , i a a e of
speaking. In the first, allocation of time and resources to fostering learning related to
employability would leave less time for other activities: a compulsory module on
e t ep e eu ial skills , fo e a ple, ould ea o e fe e
odules o
edie al Italia
poetry or quantum physics; resources spent on expanded careers services would mean a
smaller fund for library collections in demography and social work. This kind of trade-off
ould e a oided if the a ti ities i uestio e e do e-tailed , though su h a fusio ould
not be possible in all cases.
A second more elusive, and potentially more dangerous, prospect is that the incorporation of
employability might undermine the university's other functions in a qualitative sense.
According to this argument, orientation of course content to the needs of current employers
might encourage a change in relationship to knowledge among students (and possibly
academic staff), towards a valuing of learning only in so far as it can provide an immediate,
tangible and most probably economic benefit. Furthermore, the applied and concrete may
come to squeeze out the theoretical and abstract, in order to attend to the perceived needs
of employers. This process would parallel the movement brought about through
o te po a esea h fu di g a a ge e ts f o
asi o lue skies esea h to applied
research (often with intellectual property controlled by the funding corporation).
As discussed extensively by Collini, one of the primary characteristics of the activities of
u i e sities is that the a e ope -e ded . The ki ds of tea hi g a d esea h a ti ities
undertaken there are characterised by unpredictability, and indeed the impossibility of
predefining the outcomes of either in any exact sense is the source of their value. As Collini
states: I telle tual e ui is i itself u go e a le: the e is o p edi ti g he e thought
and analysis may lead when allowed to play freely o e al ost a topi p. . A esea h
study may take an unexpected course, and in deviating from its original purpose may make a
discovery considerably more valuable than that intended. Students may leave university
having developed in a personal, civic and professional sense in ways entirely unexpected but
nonetheless significant. It is not only that defining too closely the outcomes of these
processes is unlikely to succeed, but that such a predefinition can impoverish the process and
rob it of its generative potential (McCowan 2013).
Employability activities undertaken by universities would therefore need to guard against
such potential negative impacts, and external bodies concerned with the employability promoting potential of universities would have to accept the unpredictability of the process.
A business studies student may well emerge from university with substantial concerns about
the impact of multinational corporations on low-income countries and the natural
environment: such a perspective would prove problematic in a workplace in which
compliance and subordination of beliefs to the prosperity of the company were required.
While there may be occasions in all forms of work in which personal beliefs may be
subordinated to the objectives of one's employer or profession, the capacity for critical
reflection on one's work and for action in accordance with it, are essential attributes of a
graduate.
Final thoughts
While universities may be valued primarily for their intrinsic benefits, it is neither possible nor
desirable to avoid additional instrumental benefits. However, acceptance of this point does
not lead us inevitably to a consumer model in which universities simply respond to whatever
aims are brought to their door by individuals and society (akin to factories adapting their
machinery to respond to the changing demands for industrial products). Judgements can be
made on the desirability or coherence of different potential purposes of the university on the
basis of moral and political considerations, as well as those of furthering human
understanding.
Employability, therefore, should be subjected to this form of discernment. It can potentially
be justified both on the basis of individual and collective interests: in relation to the former,
the need for individuals to gain employment as a means of survival and sustenance, and the
role of meaningful work in human flourishing; in relation to the latter, the enhancement of
productivity and professional capacity that will benefit the whole of society. However, it is
hard to justify the promotion of employability attributes that lead merely to positional
advantage, or to prejudicial effects on others. Importantly, there is a danger that the
employability agenda will exacerbate the recent trends towards conceptualising higher
edu atio p i a il i te s of p i ate goods; oth the pu li goods a d the pu li good
dimensions of higher education need to be fully acknowledged (Marginson 2011).
Fu the o e, the e plo a ilit age da should ot e promoted to the extent that it
undermines the core function of university in fostering understanding. As argued above, the
instrumental value of universities should exist alongside and emerging from its intrinsic value,
rather than replacing it. Moreover, following Dewey (1964) and Oakeshott (1989), the
conventional view of aims-oriented activity (in this case, employability goals determining the
functionings of a university) can be seen as something of an illusion: a range of instrumental
benefits includi g e plo a ilit
a e e ge f o the u i e sit s o k, ut it is ot the
fo e that i gs the latte i to ei g. The u i e sit is ot a a hi e fo a hie i g a
pa ti ula pu pose o p odu i g a pa ti ula esult; it is a a e of hu a a ti it
(Oakeshott 1989: 96).
It is important to re-emphasise that this article is not arguing against connections with the
world of work or professional development in universities. Work is a fundamental part of
human life and a significant source of value, and universities should (as they have through the
centuries) form graduates who are equipped to function in specialised areas of employment.
Pete s
, i elatio to this poi t, akes a disti tio et ee
o k a d la ou
(drawing on Hannah Arendt), the former involving meaningful work involving skill leading to
a rewarding end-p odu t, a d the latte ha a te ised
Ma s alie atio , i ol i g little
skill, fostering little responsibility, with rewards that are entirely extrinsic. For Peters, while
edu atio should ot p epa e fo la ou at all, there is justification for work as an aim, as
lo g as it is ot just a o t ai i g , a d se es as a a i to the u de sta di g of
principles of a more general application and a focus for more general matters of human
o e
p.
. U de sta di gs of the ki ds of p ofessio al p epa atio that ight e
justified i u i e sities a e also aided Wi h s
disti tio efe ed to a o e et ee
the development of technological rather than merely technical knowledge, enabling
graduates to reflect critically on and shape their work environment, involving not just the
a ilit to appl theo eti al k o ledge fo a pa ti ula pu pose, ut the apa it to o t i ute
to the theoretical component of that appli a le k o ledge p. . Ou fo us the should ot
be on whether universities should prepare their students for work, but on the ways in which
they do so.
But what if the question were posed of whether universities should be obliged to promote
goals outside their core remit (fostering human understanding) if there were sufficient
societal interest? Why should universities stick to doing what they do best if there are other
pressing demands? For sure, in an extreme situation such as a food crisis, universities should
willingly turn over their grounds and human resources for agricultural production on a
temporary basis. However, the same argument does not apply to more general societal
demands, for two reasons. First, in terms of efficiency, there may well be other institutions
better equipped to do so: and, as discussed above, in the case of employability, many of the
proposed attributes are in fact more effectively or efficiently developed within the workplace
or more specialised forms of vocational training. Second, (and while there is not the space
here to cover the empirical evidence in full), the contribution of universities to societal
development and individual well-being in the long run is substantial - even if the exact nature
of the contribution is difficult to predict.
An important final question concerns whether the considerations for private universities
might be different from public universities in relation to these discussions. Very few
i stitutio s a ou d the o ld a e o i fa t pu el pu lic – in the sense of being both
funded through tax revenue and established or controlled by the state (as in the case of the
Brazilian and Argentinian state universities, for example). Most universities have some private
involvement (either in funding or provision), even if they are not fully private or for-profit. It
is important also to recall that state involvement in higher education is to a large extent a 20 th
e tu affai , a d that the ea l u i e sities e e also p i ate . But a e p i ate u i e sities,
on account of their financial or management ties to specific individuals or groups, a case
apart? Would they have a greater or distinct licence or obligation to promote employability?
While the lines of accountability in these cases are different, it does not appear that the above
arguments would no longer apply. In the case of the central aim of furthering human
understanding, for an institution that ceased to hold it as an aim, we could coherently say
that it no longer fits within the category of university. So, for example, a centre which
conducts research for a specific company, of an applied nature and whose findings are fed
into corporate product development rather than shared with the academic community,
would not normally be termed a university. The same would hold for a centre that trains
employees for a specific line of work without an element of open-ended enquiry or broader
i telle tual de elop e t M Do ald s Ha u ge U i e sit ot ithsta di g . I elatio to
teaching, a private university should have enquiry as its central feature just as much as a
public one. In relation to the ethical dimension, while private universities may not have direct
accountability to the tax-payer, they are not thereby excused all moral obligations towards
society. The private nature of the relationship between the student and the university justifies
promotion of unethical qualities no more than the private relationship between a client and
a lawyer would justify falsification of evidence. (Of course, these discussions are at a
normative level, and do not of course regiment what is happening descriptively. In practice,
what students in the new consumer systems are buying is indeed positional advantage, and
e ofte th ough ze o-su ga e e plo a ilit .
Universities, therefore, should promote employability - but only a particular version of it: one
consistent with – or emerging from – the aims of critical reflection and moral action. In this
way, the notion of employability might seem to collapse onto what has been termed
g aduate ess – that is to say, one of the qualities of a person emerging from the experience
of university is that she can gain and function effectively in employment, but that this
attribute does not dominate all others, and subordinate to itself the g aduate s othe oles as
a citizen of a polity or as a human being part of web of relationships, near and far.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Judith Suissa, Christopher Martin, Gabriel Goldmeier and two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.
References
Allais, S. (2014) Selling Out Education: National Qualifications Frameworks and the neglect of
knowledge, Rotterdam: Sense.
Aviram, A. (1992) The Nature of University Education Reconsidered (a response to Ronald
Ba ett s The Idea of Higher Education). Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26: 183–
200.
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming. Institute for Public Policy
Research, London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/anavalanche-is-coming-higher-education-and-the-revolution-ahead
BIS - Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2011). Supporting Graduate
Employability: HEI Practice in Other Countries: BIS Research Paper Number 40. London:
BIS.
Bologna Declaration (1999), The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999: Joint Declaration of the
European Ministers of Education, European Union, Brussels, available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/about/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf.
31/8/14
Accessed
B idges, D.,
T a sfe a le skills: a philosophi al pe spe ti e. Studies in Higher
Education, Vol.18. No.1, pp.43-51.
British Council (2013) Graduate Employability in the Middle East and North Africa: Post-Arab
Spring. Available at http://www.britishcouncil.org/employability_report.pdf. Accessed
31/8/14.
Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2011), The Global Auction. The Broken Promises of
Education, Jobs, and Incomes, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Ca pe tie , V. fo th o i g The histo i al e pa sio of Highe Edu atio i Eu ope: spa es,
shapes a d atio ales , i J. L. ‘u a d E.H. Ta u a eds The Oxford Handbook of The
History of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CHEC (2013). Pathways from University to Work. Wynberg: Cape Higher Education
Consortium.
Clark, B. R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: organisational pathways of
transformation (New York, Elsevier).
Collini, S. (2012) What are universities for? London: Penguin.
Dearing, R. (1997) The Dearing Report. (National Committee of Enquiry into Higher
Education). London: HMSO.
Dewey, J. (1964) The continuum of ends-means. In R. Archambault (Ed.) John Dewey on
Education: Selected Writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dunne, J. (2006) Ne
a No : ‘e-E a i i g the Co epts of Philosophi al a d Li e al i
the Idea of a U i e sit . British Journal of Educational Studies 54(4): 412–428.
Eco, U. (2013) Perché le università? Universitas 131. Available at http://www.disf.it/files/ecoperche-universita.pdf . Accessed 2/9/14.
Hager, P. & Holland, S. (Eds) (2006) Graduate attributes, learning and employability.
Dordrecht: Springer
Harvey, L. (2000) New realities: the relationship between higher education and employment.
Tertiary Education and Management, 6 (1), 3-17.
Hi hliffe, G. a d Joll , A.
G aduate ide tit a d e plo a ilit , British Educational
Research Journal 37(4): 563–584.
Hol es, L.
‘e o side i g g aduate e plo a ilit : the g aduate ide tit
Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 111–119.
app oa h,
Holmes, L. (2013), Realist and relational perspectives on graduate identity and employability:
a response to Hinchliffe and Jolly. British Educational Research Journal, 39: 1044–1059.
Kerr, C. (1963) The Uses of the University. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Martin, C. (forthcoming) Should Students Have to Borrow? Autonomy, Well Being and Student
Debt.
Marginson, S. (2011), 'Higher Education and Public Good', Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4):
411-33.
Mason, G., Williams, G., and Cranmer, S., (2006) Employability Skills Initiatives in Higher
Education: What Effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes?, National
Institute of Economic and Social Research.
McCowan, T. (2013) Education as a human right: principles for a universal entitlement to
learning. London: Bloomsbury.
McGrath, S. 2009 What is employability? Learning to support employability project paper 1.
School
of
Education,
University
of
Nottingham.
Available
at:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/shared/shared_uccer/epa_docs/what_is_employability
.pdf
Morley, L. (2001) Producing new workers: quality, equality and employability in higher
education. Quality in Higher Education, 7 (2), 131-138.
Newman, J. H. 1852/1947. The Idea of the university: defined and illustrated, London:
Longmans, Green and Co.
Novoa, A. (2007) The `right' education in Europe: When the obvious is not so obvious! Theory
and Research in Education, 5 (2), 143-151.
Oakeshott, M. (1989) The idea of a university. In T. Fuller (Ed.) The Voice of Liberal Learning:
Michael Oakeshott on Education (New Haven and London, Yale University Press), 95–
104.
OECD (2008a) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society: Volume 1: Special Features:
Governance, Funding and Quality, OECD Publishing.
OECD (2008b) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society: Volume 2: Special Features:
Equity, Innovation, Labour Market, Internationalisation, OECD Publishing
Pegg, A.,Waldock, J.; Hendy-Isaac, S. and Lawton, R. (2012) Pedagogy For Employability. York,
UK: Higher Education Academy.
Perkin, H. (2007) History of universities. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (eds), International
Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Peters, R. S. (1981) Essays on Educators. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Santos, B. S. (2004) A universidade do século XXI: para uma reforma democratic e
emancipatória da universidade. São Paulo: Cortez.
“ hultz, T. W.
. I est e t i hu a apital. The American Economic Review, 51 (1):
1–17.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Steur, J., Jansen, E., & Hofman, W. (2012). Graduateness: An empirical examination of the
formative function of university education. Higher Education, 64(6), 861–874.
Swift, A. (2003) How Not to Be A Hypocrite: School Choice for the Morally Perplexed Parent.
London: Routledge.
Tomlinson, M. (2012) Graduate employability: a review of conceptual and empirical themes.
Higher Education Policy, 25, 407-431.
Trow, M. (1976) Higher Education and Moral Development American Association of University
Professors Bulletin, 62 (1), 20-27.
UNESCO (2012) Graduate Employability in Asia. UNESCO: Bangkok.
University
of
Melbourne
(2014)
Melbourne
Graduates.
Available
at
http://learningandteaching.unimelb.edu.au/curriculum/graduates. Accessed 6/2/15.
Unterhalter, E. and Brighouse, H. (2007) Distribution of what for social justice in education?
The case of Education for All by 2015. In M. Walker and E. Unterhalter (Eds) Amartya
Sen's capability approach and social justice in education. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Walker, M., McLean, M., Dison, A., Peppin-Vaughan, R. (2009) South African universities and
human development: Towards a theorisation and operationalisation of professional
capabilities for poverty reduction. International Journal of Educational Development, 29
(6), 565-572.
Winch, C. (2006). Graduate attributes and changing conceptions of learning. In: P. Hager & S.
Holland. (Eds.). Graduate attributes, learning and employability. Dordrecht: Springer,
67-89.
Wissema, J.G. (2009) Towards the Third Generation University: Managing the University in
Transition. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
World Bank., (2010) Stepping Up Skills: For more Jobs and Productivity, Washington DC: World
Bank.
Yorke, M. (2004) Employability in higher education: what it is – what it is not, Learning and
Employability Guides (York, LTSN-ESECT), 1.
Yorke, M. and Knight, P. (2006) Embedding employability into the curriculum. York, Higher
Education Academy.