We Are Doing A Lot for Employability. But Are We Really Building Employability?

 

Its been over a decade since a lot of formal reporting about employability skills of students graduating out of Indian institutes is being published. Be it Skill India Report, Wheebox Employability report or Mercer-Mettle report along with tens of other reports .

And I must say yes… many Indian higher education institutions are doing many activities to build employability skills in students to bridge the gap between academia and the industry. This is being done in many innovative ways as well.

Industry collaborations in academia are on the rise. and some of the initiatives like Industry visits, Guest lectures by Industry professionals, Internships, Professional certifications. Aptitude training, Communication workshops. Personality development programmes. Clubs. Competitions, Placement preparation are common. Many institutes are even sending faculties to industries occasionally for getting exposed to industry needs. The list is getting longer every year.

And yet, when a student walks into an interview, the company is not looking at the list of activities conducted by the college.

It is looking at “that student”.

Can she communicate confidently?

Can he analyse a problem?

Can she apply what she has learnt?

Can he work with people?

Can she take ownership?

Can he learn?

Does she have the attitude required for the role?

And perhaps the most important question:

Can this person actually do the job?

That is where I think we have a larger problem.

Institutes know a lot about their students. But perhaps not enough about their employability.

Most institutions have reasonably organised information about a student's academic journey.

Marks/ CGPA, Subjects. Attendance. Certifications. Achievements. Participation in activities and so on..

But ask a different set of questions:

What are this student's strongest workplace competencies? Where are the gaps?

How good is this student at solving an unfamiliar or unstructured problem?

How well can the student communicate in a professional setting?

How does the student respond to pressure, ambiguity or disagreement?

Which kind of roles would suit this student?

What does this particular student need to work on before appearing for the next interview?

Suddenly, the answers are not so easy. This is not necessarily because institutions don't care.

I think it is largely because the system was never designed to capture this information systematically for every individual student.

And frankly, expecting a college to manually do all of this for hundreds or thousands of students is unrealistic.

The problem becomes even more interesting when we look at assessments.

Many institutions, particularly B-schools, do conduct psychometric, aptitude or employability assessments. That is a good thing. But an assessment is only a beginning.

A report can tell us:

“Your workplace aptitude needs improvement.” Fine.

Now what?

What exactly should the student do? What intervention is required?

How much improvement has happened? What should the institution do differently? And what happens to the report after it has been downloaded, printed or filed?

An assessment report that doesn't lead to action can easily become just another document that gets pushed into pile of docs in the cupboard.

The real journey should be:

Assess → Understand → Act → Improve → Reassess.

That is where the real value lies.

Are we confusing activity with development?

This is perhaps the uncomfortable part. A college conducts an Excel or Power BI programme for 300 students. But does every student need the same training?

A communication Skills workshop is conducted for everyone. But does every student have the same communication gap?

A certification is offered to all. But does every student want a career where that certification matters?

An industry expert delivers an inspiring session. But what happens to the student after the expert leaves?

An industry visit is organised. But what did the individual student actually learn from it?

We have become quite good at providing exposure. But what about converting exposure into individual capability. There is a difference.

"The calendar is not the capability."

This is perhaps the simplest way I can put it. A packed academic calendar can look impressive.

Twenty workshops. Thirty five guest lectures. Five industry visits. Twenty five  certifications. Two internships. And Several competitions.

But a student's employability does not improve simply because the calendar is full.

Activities are inputs. Employability is an outcome. And the two should not be confused.

There is another mismatch we rarely talk about.

Education is largely delivered in groups however Careers are built individually, Recruitment happens individually.

A college may have 500 students in a graduating batch. It can train all 500 together.

It can organise activities for all 500 together. It can bring companies to campus.

But when Company X Interviews Student A, it is not interviewing “the 500-student batch”.

It is interviewing Student A.

The reputation of the college may get the student into the room.

The student's own capability determines what happens next.

That is why institutional employability cannot stop at:

“What have we done for our students?”

It must also ask:

“What has each student become capable of doing?”

Placement numbers may be revealing less and hiding more.

We naturally celebrate placement numbers. And rightly so.

But perhaps we also need to ask some uncomfortable questions.

What about the students who were not selected? Why were they rejected?

Was the reason communication skill?

Problem-solving?

Technical knowledge?

Attitude?

Role mismatch?

Interview behaviour?

Something else?

And, importantly: Does the student know exactly why was he rejected?

A company may simply say:

“Student Fundamentals are not strong.” Or: “His Communication / presentation is not good.”

Or: “Not suitable for the role.”

That may be enough for the recruiter to move on. But it is almost useless to the student.

The student needs to know:

What exactly should I improve before the next opportunity?

Without that feedback loop, rejection becomes an event when It should  have become information.

Danger of making placement a definition of employability

When the pressure to show placement numbers becomes high, the student's own career aspirations sometimes get pushed into the background. I have seen many students appearing and getting selected in a role or function they never really wanted to  opt for..

Still A student may accept an offer because: “At least I got placed ” is a relief from compelling placement  pressure.

The institution records a placement. The company fills a position. Everyone appears happy.

Until three months later, the student realises:

“This isn't what I wanted to do.” And the company realises: “This isn't the person we actually needed.”

Placement is important. But the right placement is more meaningful than merely a placement.

And the challenge is greater outside the major education hubs.

In Pune, Mumbai, Bengaluru or Hyderabad, a student may have access to a relatively rich ecosystem of companies, internships, events and industry interactions. That ecosystem cannot simply be assumed in a smaller town.

When the college itself becomes the student's only gateway to industry, the student's opportunities are inevitably linked to the opportunities available to that institution.

That is a structural limitation. And technology gives us an opportunity to rethink it.

" The world of work is also changing faster than the academic calendar "

The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025 identifies skills gaps as the leading barrier to business transformation, cited by 63% of surveyed employers for the 2025–2030 period. It also reports that analytical thinking remains the most sought-after core skill, alongside resilience, flexibility, leadership and social influence.

Mercer's India's Graduate Skill Index 2025, based on data from more than one million students across 2,700+ campuses, reported overall employability of 42.6% among Indian graduates who apply for jobs. The report also highlights the importance employers place on critical thinking, communication and learning agility.

The Government of India's Ministry of Education itself has been emphasising stronger university-industry linkages, internships and employability-oriented education. Its 2024–25 annual report notes 76,638 industries registered on the Single Unified Internship Portal, offering around 54 lakh internships, and says more than 100 higher education institutions are offering apprenticeship/internship-embedded degree programmes.

So this is not about saying that institutions are doing nothing.

They are doing a lot. The question is whether we are doing the right things in the right sequence, for the right student, at the right time.

Perhaps the next evolution is from “Student Development” to “Individual Employability Development”.

I don't think the answer is to stop industry visits. Or stop guest lectures. Or stop certifications. Or stop generic training. All of these can have value.

But they need to sit inside a larger system.

A system that can answer:

Who is this student?

What does the student want to become?

What can the student currently do?

What does the student need to develop?

Which interventions will actually help?

Has the student improved?

Can the student demonstrate that improvement?

Which opportunities are relevant to this student?

That is a very different way of looking at employability.

---

We need to move from activity-based employability to evidence-based employability.

From: “We conducted 20 workshops.” to: “These were the competency gaps we identified.”

From: “Every student completed three certifications.” to: “This student developed these capabilities relevant to these roles.”

From: “We have 50 industry partners.” to: “Our students are continuously getting opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities to industry.”

From: “Our students are employable.” to: “We know where each student stands, what needs to improve and how we are helping them get there.”

That is a difficult proposition. But perhaps it is also a much more meaningful one.

The real question may therefore not be:

“How many employability initiatives are we conducting?”

It may be:

“Can we demonstrate that every student is becoming more employable?”

This requires a shift.

From activities to outcomes.

From groups to individuals.

From certificates to capabilities.

From exposure to application.

From assessment reports to action.

From placement statistics to career readiness.

And perhaps, most importantly,

From managing students as a batch to developing them as individuals.

I believe this is one of the larger challenges facing higher education today.

Not because institutions are unwilling to solve it. But because the scale, complexity and individual nature of the problem make it extremely difficult to solve through conventional institutional processes alone.

Technology can help. Industry can help. Faculty can help. Career professionals can help.

But ultimately, the system has to bring all of these together around one fundamental question:

“What does this particular young person need to become capable, confident and ready for the world of work?”

That, in my view, is where the next generation of employability development has to begin.

— Avinash Deshmukh

A Certified Career Coach and Employability skills trainer.

Founder, BOLDNET India Career Services Pvt. Ltd.