As someone who observes developments in international education through a political lens, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that we have reached the point where the sector’s claims about ‘employability’ no longer carry public credibility.
For years, higher education has wrapped itself in the technocratic language of “career readiness”, “graduate attributes” and “skills development”. Entire strategies, slogans and glossy brochures have been built around these ideas. Yet, the reality around us has shifted fast.
Reality check
In 2026, graduates are finding it harder to secure jobs. Employers are hiring fewer of them – not just because onboarding costs have risen sharply since the last Budget, but because many doubt whether graduates are as work‑ready as they need.
Competition is fierce. More graduates than ever hold very similar degrees. Our four‑tier classification system makes it harder for employers to distinguish between candidates with ostensibly identical outcomes. And the longstanding belief that a good degree leads to a good job is no longer holding up in a stagnating economy.
Distrust is growing
The public has noticed, and prospective students have noticed even more. People do not want vague rhetoric about employability; they want assurance that graduates will actually go on to secure meaningful work.
This is where the legitimacy challenge really bites. In my latest debate paper, written alongside Edward Venning and published by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), we argue that UK universities are rapidly losing public trust – not because higher education is no longer valued, but because people increasingly doubt the sector’s claims about its outcomes.
As a sector, universities continue making aspirational statements that no longer reflect the lived experiences of students and graduates. And in a recession, when a good education no longer reliably leads to good employment, those statements can come across as detached – and even insensitive to those struggling to make it onto the career ladder.
For home students, this is frustrating enough. But for international students – who may be paying several times more for their higher education – it is potentially explosive. When students invest that level of money and commitment in their futures, they do not need an 18‑month ‘game of chance’ after graduation. They need something tangible, structured and accountable. And universities need to find a way of providing this quickly because the sector’s social licence depends on it.
From rhetoric to results
Students’ expectations are clear. In return for their investment, they want real placements, real employer partnerships, real pathways into skilled work and real measures of outcomes – not just vague promises of employer links or symbolic interventions.
If we want to maintain the legitimacy of UK international education, in particular, then we must pivot from the theatre of employability to the delivery of employment, both in Britain and in graduates’ home labour markets. That requires confronting some uncomfortable truths about what universities can and cannot promise.
Universities should never guarantee outcomes they cannot control. Universities do not hire graduates; employers do. Labour markets move quickly and visa rules move even faster. But what universities can guarantee is the infrastructure that underpins successful outcomes. They can guarantee access to placements, employer networks, visa‑compliant opportunities, honest data, realistic expectations and proper guidance. What they guarantee must be transparent, and what they cannot guarantee must be explicit. When ambiguity remains, the reputational risks will grow.
Regions matter
The regional level is a good place to start when it comes to restoring legitimacy. A model that is locally anchored, employer‑led and measured by real outcomes is far more likely to stand up to scrutiny – especially when backed by mayoral authorities and employer intermediaries such as chambers of commerce, sector councils and major public anchor institutions.
Crucially, graduates – particularly those from overseas – do not have the luxury of time. Sector plans and growth strategies only add value if they convert into immediate, viable opportunities.
One model worth considering is a mayoral‑backed graduate employment accreditation scheme. In the spirit of the London Living Wage accreditation, it would recognise universities and employers who work together to create high‑quality, visa compliant and appropriately paid graduate roles aligned to local priorities. Mayoral authorities would set the standards, with employer bodies and public anchors providing oversight. Universities that build and sustain genuine placement and employment pipelines with local employers would receive formal recognition for their contribution to regional growth plans.
Such a scheme could be the difference between alignment in theory (employability) and alignment in practice (employment), giving graduates timely, tangible opportunities while strengthening public confidence in higher education.
The cost of inaction
Moving from a culture of employability support to employment delivery demands a whole‑sector shift – and the regions must be part of that shift too. When international students succeed – whether in Britain or back in their home countries – they strengthen cities, sectors and critical trading relationships. When they do not, international education becomes a political vulnerability.
The stakes are higher than ever for both our universities and the success of our nation. When students invest in us, we must invest in their outcomes. That is the future of the social contract around higher education. And the sector, and the regions that rely on it, ignore it at its peril.
