Are universities passing the buck when it comes to job readiness?

In April I argued in University World News that universities must evolve into finishing schools for industry – education and training hubs where knowledge and workplace readiness are developed side by side. It was a call for institutions to move beyond simply delivering academic content and to embrace structured, multidisciplinary, real-world collaboration with employers.

At first glance, the United Kingdom’s Level 7 degree apprenticeships might look like an example of that model in action: masters-level academic study paired with substantial workplace learning. In theory, they produce graduates who can step seamlessly into professional roles with the skills and experience employers demand.

But, as Wonkhe, Times Higher Education and the Sutton Trust have all highlighted, the reality is more prosaic: Level 7 apprenticeships remain small in scale, skewed toward already advantaged participants, and raises the question – are universities building job-ready graduates themselves, or simply passing that responsibility to employers?

The numbers warrant caution. Apprenticeships at Levels 4-7 now account for around a third of all starts in England, but the true Level 7 segment is small and concentrated in management, health and professional services. Many places are taken by existing employees using the scheme for upskilling rather than by first-time postgraduates.

The Sutton Trust’s analysis shows learners from more affluent backgrounds are significantly over-represented. From January 2026, government funding for most Level 7 apprenticeships will be restricted to those under 22 (effectively capped at 21), care leavers under 25 or people with education, health and care plans (EHCP) – a move University Alliance’s Vanessa Wilson has called “bordering on the ridiculous”, given the obvious mismatch between postgraduate study and that age bracket.

The international picture

This tension between aspiration and delivery is not unique to the UK. In Australia, degree apprenticeships do not exist as a formalised framework, but similar debates swirl around ‘cadetship’ and ‘work-integrated learning’ models embedded in some masters programmes.

While Australia has been more consistent in integrating compulsory work placements in health and education, industry voices still complain that universities outsource too much of the employability agenda to employers.

In Canada, the cooperative education (co-op) system is well-established, with over 80 universities offering co-op masters programmes in engineering, business and IT. Yet here too, most opportunities are accessible primarily to domestic students and well-resourced faculties, leaving international postgraduates to rely on traditional, classroom-only study.

The Business/Higher Education Roundtable has warned that employers are increasingly doing the ‘last mile’ of graduate preparation themselves, particularly in tech, while universities act as credentialing bodies rather than skill developers.

Across Europe, Germany’s Duales Studium model is often celebrated as the gold standard of combining academic study with paid work placements – but participation at the masters level is rare, and, as in the UK, opportunities often favour those already inside professional networks.

In France, alternance contracts at postgraduate level are highly sought after but heavily regulated, limiting access for non-EU students. And in the Netherlands, government-funded ‘professional doctorates’ and applied masters are on the rise, but employers have voiced concerns that the academic and workplace elements remain too separate.

The United States has its own equivalent tensions. While the term ‘apprenticeship’ is more closely associated with skilled trades, recent years have seen growth in earn-and-learn masters pathways in healthcare, cybersecurity and education – many supported by state or federal funding.

However, these are often employer-driven and employer-controlled, with universities delivering a modular academic component. As in the UK, questions are being asked about whether universities are truly leading graduate preparation or validating what industry delivers.

Barriers for international students

Internationally, the structural problem is similar: the students who benefit most from work-integrated masters pathways are often those who already hold advantages, while large segments of the postgraduate population – especially international students – are excluded.

In the UK, more than 60% of full-time postgraduate enrolments are international, yet they cannot access apprenticeships. In Australia, tight visa restrictions limit the types of paid industry placements international students can take.

In Canada, while post-study work rights are generous, employer-led programmes often prioritise domestic hiring quotas. In the US, international graduates face visa and sponsorship hurdles that make participation in industry-embedded masters programmes extremely difficult.

Beneath the policy debate lies a deeper, cross-border question: who is doing the real work of making graduates job-ready? In all these systems, workplace-integrated students spend most of their time in employer environments.

Employers set the projects, provide mentoring and assess professional competencies. Universities act primarily as validators of the academic component. This mirrors the concern I raised in University World News: too many institutions are maintaining the status quo while relying on external partners to deliver the practical skills and industry experience that students and governments now expect.

There is another way. In my ‘finishing school’ model, employers come inside the university, not the other way around. Real-world projects happen in seminar rooms, laboratories and studios. Industry briefs are embedded into the curriculum, and co-taught by academics and practitioners.

Students across faculties work together to solve live problems – from designing a self-heating noodle pot to staging a theatre production as a commercial venture. These collaborations are assessed not only for academic merit but also for teamwork, leadership, commercial viability and sustainability. Employers see students in action before they graduate, creating a direct link between learning and labour market entry.

This approach could be adapted internationally. In Australia, embedding employer projects into masters programmes could supplement – rather than replace – work-integrated learning placements; in Canada, it could expand the co-op ethos into disciplines currently untouched; in Europe, it could integrate the academic and workplace components of Duales Studium or alternance into a single, university-led learning journey; and in the US, it could help ensure that earn-and-learn models serve all students, not just those already on an employer’s payroll.

Linking academic study and employability

Such a model would make employability integral to every programme – domestic or international – and keep universities at the centre of graduate preparation. It would address the concern, voiced in Wonkhe’s recent policy papers, that degree apprenticeships risk becoming siloed provision rather than catalysts for wider curriclar reform.

The potential for expansion is significant: in the UK, the apprenticeship levy generates over £3 billion (US$4 billion) a year; in Australia, the National Skills Agreement is funnelling billions into vocational-higher education partnerships; Canada’s Student Work Placement Program subsidises up to 75% of wages; and in the US, the Department of Labor is investing heavily in non-traditional apprenticeships.

Instead of showcasing a small, exclusive set of industry-embedded masters programmes as proof of relevance, universities everywhere could integrate work-integrated learning into all postgraduate provision. This would collapse the artificial divide between academic and professional learning and build the adaptability, collaborative skills and commercial awareness that AI-driven labour markets will demand.

If they embrace this challenge, universities will not need to point to a narrow set of programmes to prove their relevance. They will be visibly producing graduates who are both academically capable and professionally ready – in any country. If they do not, the perception that they are outsourcing graduate readiness to employers will stick, and calls for reform will grow louder.

In a climate where governments in the UK, Australia and Canada are openly questioning the value proposition of international education – with levies, visa caps and funding cuts all on the table – the sector should be doing everything it can to link academic study with the world of work and to demonstrate that it, not industry alone, is the engine of graduate employability.

Louise Nicol is the founder of alsocan and Asia Careers Group SDN BHD. Asia Careers Group assists universities in developing cost-effective employer engagement strategies and showcasing graduate outcomes at recruitment events.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.