TRACER STUDY AND EMPLOYABILITY OF BULACAN

STATE UNIVERSITY, SARMIENTO CAMPUS

GRADUATE OF 2004-2011

Research Paper

Ma. Perpetua Arcilla-Serapio

March 2012
 ABSTRACT

A tracer study of the graduates of the Bulacan State University, Sarmiento Campus was done
to examine retrospective contribution of their education to their current work . To assess its
curriculum and the relevance of its output with the present condition traced its graduates. Where
they are employed and what are their perception about their job were accounted for. Employers
on the other hand also gave their assessment of the graduates. Variables studied are curriculum
taken, years it took them to finish the course, major field,
region where they came from, general weighted average (GWA), number of jobs
taken before the present employment, employer, the curriculum taken and the year
they graduated. The study showed that employer is particular with the graduates’ major field,
region where the they came from, GWA, the nature of the curriculum followed, the
number of jobs taken by the graduate before the present employment, and the year
they finish the course. More often, employers prefer specialists rather than
generalists. The employers find the graduates effective, efficient and cooperative.
Also, they find the graduates knowledgeable, dependable and resourceful. However,
many employers describe UPLB graduates as academically inclined, having a knowit-
all attitude although with assertive personality.
Both graduates and employers signify the need to include courses on
economics/management, communication and more social science in the curriculum
 CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

With the aim of accomplishing the Bulacan State University’s vision “to become a
recognized leader for excellence in instruction, research and extension services, a key player in
the education and formation of professionally competent, service-oriented, and productive
citizens, and a prime mover of the nation’s sustainable socioeconomic growth and development”,
it is deemed necessary to know the present employability condition of the graduates. The findings of
this study will be beneficial to both the institution and its graduates. With this study, the
institution can determine and show its effectiveness in molding highly competent graduates as an answer to
the increasing competition in the labor force. Likewise, this study can help assure the students that the school’s
services do not end on their graduation day, but until they are given a better chance to land on a
good job.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The study aimed to answer the general problem: H o w d o p r o f i l e r e l a t e t o

employability of graduate respondents in BSU-Sarmiento Campus
sp e c i f i c a l l y i t s o u g h t a n s w e r s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :

1. What is the profile of graduate respondents in terms of:

1.1. Age
1.2. Civil Status
1.3. Gender

2. What is the employability of graduates in terms of:

2.1. Length of time before landing on their first job
2.2. Nature of present employment
2.3. Job location
2.4. Monthly salary

3. Is there a significant relationship between profile and

employability of graduate respondents in BSU-Sarmiento
Campus?
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study aims to provide facts and information intended to make the institution realize
the employability rate of 2006-2010 graduates. This study further determines the effectiveness of
the programs as well as the whereabouts and the present situation of the graduates. The findings
of this study can help the institution in its curriculum making/re-evaluation to upgrade the skills
needed by its students in consonance with requirements of the industry, thus assuring the graduates
of higher chance of employment.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

RELEVANT THEORIES

Theoretical perspectives

Traditionally, the relations between education attainment and labour market outcomes,
have been studied by applying human capital theory (Becker, 1964; Schultz, 1961) or job market
signalling (screening) theory (Arrow, 1973; Spence, 1973). Although both theories imply a
positive relation between investment in education and labour market return, their explanations of
how education affects employment differ (Cai, 2011). Human capital theory argues that
education increases individuals‘ productivity, which consequently enhances job performance and
leads to higher salaries. However, in the case of international education this link is not always
that straightforward as the graduates might have to adjust their salary expectations upon
returning to their home country or miss out on some employment opportunities in the host
country due to necessary cultural and social integration.

In contrast, signalling theory argues that education only serves as a tool for job-seekers to
signal their inherent ability to employers. In other words, it is the innate ability not education
itself that increases productivity. For instance, it is assumed that ―job-seekers with a higher
education are presumably more adaptive, more motivated and have greater learning abilities‖
(Pavlin, S., 2010:3). Only very few studies deal with screening/signalling of international
education in the labour markets (Cai, 2011). Wiers-Jenssen (2008) discusses the signalling
effects of foreign education by arguing that a foreign education experience generally signals
certain country specific skills (e.g. mastery of a foreign language and intercultural competences)
and characteristics of job seekers to employers. The researcher asserts that foreign education‘s
signalling effect is weak, if it is less known by the employers. The practical example of such
weak signal would be the rather new joint degree diplomas of Erasmus Mundus graduates that
are not always understood by the employers. Therefore, we have included in our survey a
question concerning challenges with the international degree recognition in countries other than
the host ones.

Recognizing the positive impact of HE in general and international HE, in particular, on

the development of individuals‘ competences and employability, it yet remains unclear what
really matters in the recruitment process: the human capital shaped by the HE institutions, or the
inherent capabilities developed during the student life (Allen et al., 2009). Moreover, factors
external to HE, such as social background, gender, age, ethnic affiliation, career aspirations,
networks, the quality and availability of work experience; access to information; the peculiarities
of the job search behavior; and labour market conditions, are increasingly believed to be
affecting the employability of graduates (Pavlin, 2010; Krempkow & Wilke, 2009; Lindberg,
2008: 378; Harvey, 2001:102). These aspects are not reflected by either human capital or
signalling theory. In the cross-border context the list of influential external factors might be even
longer. For instance, we assume that the initial motivation to come to study abroad may
influence one‘s employment prospects. To overcome these gaps we have looked into the
definition of employability concept, the skills agenda, the network perspective, the ―push-pull
factors‖ model (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002); and have included a number of relevant questions on
the external variables in our survey (See the draft questionnaire in the Appendix 2)

Employability concept

There have been many attempts to define and measure employability as an indication of
quality of individual institutions as well as the social relevance of HE as a whole (Lindberg,
2008). The university rankings or national evaluations in some countries, for instance, use the
employment rates of institutions‘ graduates as one of the criteria (Harvey, 2001). Hence there is
a notion of ‗institutional employability‘ as the set of outcomes of the universities‘ implicit and
explicit measures to enable graduate employability. Another approach is to view employability
through the eyes of employers as the propensity of the graduate to exhibit the skills that
employers expect to be necessary for efficient functioning of their organization (Rothwell &
Arnold, 2007; Thijsen et al., 2008). However at this stage we are more interested in the
employability as an individual attribute involving the graduate‘s ability and skills to gain, retain
and (when necessary) find new fulfilling/satisfying work (Harvey, 2001; Hillage & Pollard,
1998). The key aspect in this definition is ―fulfilling/satisfying‖ as the employability is not the
same as actual employment, or the fact of getting any salaried job.

The concept of employability is closely linked to ‗professional success‘, which can be

described by a number of subjective and objective indicators such as: ‖a) the smoothness of the
transition from higher education to the labour market (duration of job search); b) income and
socio-economic status; c) a position appropriate to the level of educational attainment; d)
desirable employment conditions (independent, demanding and responsible work); and e) a high
degree of job satisfaction‖ (Pavlin, 2010:5). The reason for starting with individual level is that
the feedback on international graduates‘ success or challenges may later be used by HE
institutions to manage the quality of their programs and attract more international students,
which is high on the HE policy agenda in Finland. Following Harvey, 2001, and Crossman &
Clarke, 2010, we also recognize that employability cannot be a purely institutional achievement,
rather an outcome of the joint initiatives of the identified stakeholders including - students,
graduates, academics, program coordinators, project managers, employers, representatives of
relevant associations (e.g. AIESEC) and policy makers (See Figure 1 in Appendix 1). To sum it
up, the concept of employability breaks down to the following main constituents: ability to gain
employment – measured by the employment rates; objective and subjective job success factors,
and skills relevant for employers.

The skills agenda

The skills/ competences agenda is very prominent in the debates around the concept of
employability and will inform part of the study on the relevance of skills gained in Finnish HE
institutions for the world of work in terms of the associated expectations and tensions among
students/graduates and employers. While the employers tend to be generally happy with the
graduates‘ subject specific skills, they have been less satisfied with the generic or transferrable
skills (Yorke, 2006). Among the most important generic skills identified by various researchers
exploring the employers and graduates views are: analytical/research skills computer/ technology
skills interpersonal/teamwork skills communication skills, both verbal and written
leadership/problem-solving skills creative/innovative skills self-management life long learning
emotional intelligence (Hoo et al., 2009; Badillo-Amador et al., 2005; Shmarov & Fedyukin,
2004; Department of Education Science and Training, 2002).

This is in line with the paradigm of the ‗knowledge society‘ that emphasizes the
importance of flexibility, adaptability, entrepreneurialism, readiness, etc. to improve one‘s
probability for professional success (Lindberg, 2008; Brown and Hesketh, 2004; Chisholm,
1999). Yet, in the case of international education, the country specific human capital theory
suggests that additional skills might be useful such as the language and cultural skills and
professional skills adapted to national requirements (Støren& Wiers-Jenssen, 2010, p.31).
Besides these, the researchers (Garam, 2005; Salisbury et al., 2009, p. 120) argue that a broad
range of skills and traits can be developed during the period of study abroad, such as social or
life skills; a deeper understanding and respect for global issues, more favourable attitudes toward
other cultures, improved personal and professional self image, self-confidence, ability to handle
ambiguity and difficult situations, insight into their own value systems and overall maturity.

However, according to Holmes, (2001: 112), the skills agenda − so popular these days −
can be criticized for three reasons. First, the meaning of skill can be different in the discourse of
academics and employers. Second, the employers do not want ‗skills‘ per se, they rather need
the employees to perform efficiently and to possess certain attributes. Third, the ―skills agenda
provides little help in understanding the complexity of post-graduation career trajectories, for it
assumes that the process of gaining a job is simply a matter of matching skills required and skills
possessed. […Therefore,] what is also needed is a way of framing, in conceptual and theoretical
terms, the interactional processes by which a graduate and prospective employer engage with
each other, and the outcomes of such interactions.‖ (ibid.). In this perspective, the job assignment
model (Sattinger, 1993) focusing on job - skill/education level matches and mismatches can only
have a limited role in understanding the factors affecting employability.
 Allen& de Weert (2007:62) suggested analyzing the job-education (mis)matches
according to the adequacy of level and field of education using the following categories: ‗job at
a higher level than own education‘, ‗job at own level and within own field‘, ‗job at own level
but in different field‘, ‗job at lower tertiary level‘, ‗job below tertiary level‘. However, we felt
that it is better to have two separate questions concerning the correspondence of level and field
of HE obtained to the job (see Q 32, 33 of the survey).

Types of HE to work transition

The traditional beliefs in the rationality of the labor market in regulating the demand and
supply side have waned recently as more research was done on the transition process from HE to
work. The studies showed, for instance, that the specific dynamics of the transition could provide
the smart but less qualified graduates with better employment opportunities (Teichler, 2009).

Therefore, in order to understand the mechanisms behind a smooth transition from HE to

the world of work, it is not enough to simply identify the gap between the skills required by the
employers and skills possessed by the graduates. After taking a closer look to the transactions
between the stakeholders identified in Figure 1 it is also necessary to see how these transactions
and other variables affect the job search strategies adopted by the graduates and the resulting
types of transition from HE to the world of work. Lindberg (2008: 377) identifies the following
types of transition:

1) Standard or traditional, characterized by a short job search and substantial returns to

education in terms of wages and socio-economic prestige
2) Involuntary deviation from the standard featuring prolongation of job search and
lowered expectations about the quality of jobs and returning to studies as an
alternative to being unemployed.
3) Voluntary deviation from standard associated with return to studies after completing
the first degree in order to enhance career opportunities or acquire new skills for a
career change
4) Deviation from standard due to relative disadvantage characterized by a lack of
formal and/or informal connections with working life; misguided job search
strategies; becoming an ‗eternal‘ student.

Given the vulnerability of international students (who do not have all the social benefits
offered to the local students), we assume that they will use an array of coping strategies and
mainly fall in categories 2-4 featuring non-standard transition from HE to work if they are
willing to stay in a host country.

Network perspective

It is believed that the individuals‘ actions are not only determined by their personal
characteristics, but by their social connections, which may, for instance, filter their career
choices (See the psycho-social model of employability by Fugate et al., 2004; Dassen, 2010).
This statement is connected to the social capital metaphor explaining the competitive advantage
of certain people and organizations by the fact that they are better connected (Burt, 2000). The
importance of social networks for finding employment is well documented (Calvo-Armengol &
Jackson, 2003; Amuedo-Dorantes & Mundra, 2004). Granovetter (1973, 1983), for instance,
found in his study that more than 50% of jobs are obtained through informal contacts (or social
networks). And that the majority of those 50% obtained information on a vacancy through ‗weak
ties‘ with acquaintances rather than through strong ties with friends. The thesis of the ―strength
of weak ties‖ is partially explained by ―the fact that acquaintances move in social circles distinct
from those of your close friends. As a result, weak ties may offer inside information on
alternative job openings‖ (Amuedo-Dorantes & Mundra, 2004:5). The role of social networks in
securing a job may differ from country to country, but generally two questions help to clarify this
role at the individual level: (1) whether the person knew anybody in their current workplace
before accepting the job, and (2) whether they heard about the job from acquaintance or friend
(ibid.:4). The knowledge on the way international graduates acquire information in the job search
process may prompt necessary steps for universities and other involved actors to help make the
transition smoother, though organizing networking events, for instance. We have included a
couple of questions related to international graduates‘ social integration during their studies and
the pertaining challenges as well as the option ―I used personal connections‖ in the question
about job search techniques used.

RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Definition of Employability

Employability has been used as a performance indicator for higher education institutions (Smith
et al, 2000) and represents a form of work specific (pro) active adaptability that consists of three
dimensions: career identity, personal adaptability and social and human capital (Fugate et al, 2004). At
the same time, Knight and Yorke (2004) have put forward the four broad and interlocking components
of USEM account of employability:
 Understanding (of the subject discipline)
 Skillful practices in context
 Efficacy beliefs
 Metacognition

Nabi (2003) mentioned that employability is about graduates possessing an appropriate level of skills
and attributes, and being able to use them to gain and remain in appropriate employment. From a
human resource development view, employability is a concept that emerged through the 1990s along
with a growing perception among employees that they cannot count on their employers for long-term
employment. Employability is a promise to employees that they will have the skills to find new jobs
quickly if their jobs end unexpectedly (Baruch, 2001). Prior to this, Harvey (2001) has defined
employability in various ways from individual and institutional perspectives. Individual employability is
defined as graduates being able to demonstrate the attributes to obtain jobs. Commonly, institutional
employability relates to the employment rates of the university graduates. However, Harvey argued that
employment outcomes of graduates are not an indicator of institutional employability. He presented an
employability-development model shown in Figure 1. The model illustrated a multi-perspectives view of
employability with all related stake-holders.
 Higher
Education Graduate
Institutions

Employability Experience and

development extra-curricular
opportunities activity
Employer

Employability

Recruitment
procedures

Employment

Figure 1: A model of Employability-Development and Employment (Harvey, 2001)

Generic Attributes And Skills of Graduates

Knoblauch and German (1989) outlined few most highly sought after attributes by employers for
Cornell University Applied Economics and Business Management graduates. The attributes were
enthusiasm, self-starting ability, general ability, working with others, oral communication and
preparedness for the job. Sparks and Bradley (1994) also discovered that employers from hospitality
industry places greater emphasis upon the graduates’ practical skills, level of commitment and ability to
deliver high levels of service. They have conducted survey on 197 hotels managers working in hotels
comprising 75 rooms or more in Australia.

Nevertheless, in Clarke’s (1997) study based on 40 chief executives or managing directors from
manufacturing and services industries under the Industry and Parliament Trust’s Study Group on
Employability, United Kingdom, concluded that employers are actually looking for the graduates who
possess attributes of long life learning, flexibility and adaptability to changes as well as some generic
skills of communication, teamwork, initiative, problem solving and decision making.

After Clarke’s finding, Crosling and Ward (2002) carried out an extensive survey of employers of
Monash University business graduates confirmed that the significant role of oral communication in the
workplace. They further pointed that emphasis in university primarily on formal presentation is not an
adequate preparation for workplace oral communication. The most often used forms of oral
communication are informal work-related discussions, listening and following instructions and informal
conversations.
 Crebert et al (2004) presented the findings of Griffith Graduate Project. Under this project,
graduates were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the contributions the learning contexts of
university, work placement and post-graduation employment made to the development of their generic
skills. It was found that graduates recognized the university contribution towards generic skills
development and they valued the experience of job placement and subsequently in employment. The
findings identified the importance of teamwork, being given responsibility and collaborative learning as
main factors for developing generic skills. Graduate labor market is becoming increasingly diverse and
fragmented through changes in the design and structures of jobs. Jobs are becoming more demanding
through work intensification practices such as multi-skilling, using of information technology and other
employability skills such as social, communication and problem-solving skills (CSU 2000).

Besides studies from overseas supported that graduates generic attributes are required in the
job market, the local studies also conclude that the local graduates must have generic attributes to
acquire job in Malaysia. This is proven by an earlier press release by the Malaysian manufacturing and
service sectors expressing the view that most employers were unfavourably inclined to employing
graduates who did not have generic attributes (New Straits Time, 1998, cited in Quek 2005). Recently,
Quek (2005) conducted a case study on a group of graduate employers (n=35) in Malaysia. In the study,
the employers expressed the important of interpersonal skills, knowledge-acquiring skills, flexibility,
value-improving skills, practical orientation abilities and cognitive skills as major contributors toward
success in work performance. With all these attributes, Malaysian graduates will be more able to
transfer learning from the classrooms to the workplace for success in work performance.

Therefore, the higher education institutions are having tremendous challenges in developing
employability enhancing attributes and knowledge, and making graduates ready for market demand
(CSU 1998, cited in Nabi 2003). To achieve the objective, Johnston and Watson (2004) suggested that to
have an influential combination of forces in renovating curriculum and the interface between educators,
students and graduate employers which the higher education providers should shift from an academic-
led “supply” model, to an employer-led “demand” model. This is also supported by Mason’s et al study
(2003) which concluded to enhance graduates employability, students need work experience during
courses and employers need to involve in designing course and delivery.

To produce employability graduates, universities must initiate to integrate basic generic

attributes which are required by the employers and incorporate and effectively implement them in the
course work. For example, Curtin University of Technology, Curtin Business School (CBS) undertook a
Professional skills Project to compile feedback from representatives from 7 disciplines, employers,
students, the Centre for Educational Advancement (CEA), and the library to identify seven professional
skills and develop them in the form of learning outcome objectives : communication (divided into
writing, presenting and speaking out), computer literacy, information literacy, team working, decision
making, critical thinking including problem-solving, and ethical and inter-cultural dimensions (Harpe et
al 2000). Nijenrode University had also identified similar 5 general skills which are required for effective
functioning of managers such as communication skills, analytical and information-management skills,
problem-solving skills, decision-making skills and valuing and social interaction and leadership skills
(Everwijn, Bomers and Knubben, 1993).

It was reported in one of the researches (Bennett et al 1999) that employers were looking for
manpower that has the ability to think, learn and adapt. All these are attributes that form the generic
core competencies. If higher education is to meet the needs of the economy and the individual, it must
seek actively to develop these generic core competencies. At the same time, Robert Gordon University,
Aberdeen has developed a set of generic level learning outcomes templates which specify the levels that
students should attain in the four areas identified by Lord Dearing which are knowledge and
understanding, key skills, cognitive skills and subject-specific skills (Ellington, 1999). Furthermore, Barrie
(2001) indicates that the generic graduate attributes will directly relate the graduate outcomes to the
employability.

Students, employers and government bodies expect that undergraduate university degrees will
equip students, not only with the specific knowledge, skills and attributes of their field, but also with the
professional and personal attributes relevant to their field of study (Scoufis, 2000). Therefore, Curtin
University of Technology has developed nine Curtin Graduates Attributes shown in Figure 2.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Hypothesis

If there is a significant relationship between profile and level of employability of

graduate respondents?

Definition of Variable
 CHAPTER III

METHODS OF RESEARCH

Methods and Techniques of the Study

Population of the Study

Research Instruments

Gathering Data Procedure

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment

RESPONDENTS OF THE STUDY

The respondents of the study were composed of 712 graduates of Bulacan Polytechnic College from
different courses for the school year 2006-2010.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT AND TECHNIQUE

The researcher used a locally made questionnaire to gather vital information for the study. In
getting accurate information for the census, the questionnaire was designed in a way that the
respondents could easily understand what was being asked. Each of the respondents was required
to put a check mark on the answer representing his/her answer.

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

The researcher sought the help of the school administration together specifically the College Library
who handles the annual yearbook to get the addresses and contact numbers of the graduates. In
coordination with the class advisers and all the faculty members, the researcher asked for the cooperation of
the students, who served as the couriers of the research instruments. Specifically, the researcher
selected among presently enrolled students those living in the same/nearby barangays wherein the
respondents live. As such, an effective data gathering was ensured. The researcher started the
administration of the questionnaires during the1st week of January, 2009 and finished the
retrieval the instrument on used in the employability survey on March 27, 2009.

DEFINITION OF TERMS
AGE. This refers to the age of the respondent in terms of years and months when
the study is conducted.

CIVIL STATUS. This refers to the present status of the respondent whether the respondent is
single, married or separate

EMPLOYABILITY. It refers to the readiness of the graduates to apply the skills and knowledge
taught to them and their capability to match these with what the industry needs.

GENDER. This refers to the sex of the respondent whether the respondent is male or
female.

JOB LOCATION. It refers to the job market of the respondent’s employment whether
within the province of Bulacan, outside the province or outside the country

OCCUPATIONAL JOB TITLE. It refers to employment designation of the respondent such as

secretary, encoder, typist, welder, electrician, etc..

SALARY. This refers to monthly earnings of the respondent on his/her present job.

TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT. It refers to the nature of employment of the respondent, whether

he/she is a permanent, casual or contractual employee.

WAITING TIME. It refers to the number of weeks, months or years before the respondent
got his/her first job.

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Once all data were gathered, they were tallied, tabulated, and treated statistically. The
researcher used the percentage method as its statistical instrument in quantifying the findings. The number of
respondents, with similar answer to a given question, was divided by the total number of respondents.
After which, result was converted in percentage by multiplying it by one-hundred.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusions

From students‘ perspective, the employability factor is one of the key components
associated with the quality of education, while from the university administrators‘ perspective –
good employment rates of their graduates will help successfully market the educational
programs, build their reputation and raise the prestige. To see the specific added value the
Finnish higher education is providing, it is important to investigate both the employers‘ beliefs
with regard to the relevance of international graduates‘ skills and the graduates‘ perceptions of
what skills are needed for a successful career in a host or home country. As the international
graduates are considered to be more vulnerable as opposed to the local students (Walters, 2011),
we assume that a number of factors not related to their subject specific or even generic skills will
result in labor market disadvantage and preclude them from staying in Finland or result in some
type of deviation in HE to work transition. Hence, it is necessary to explore the ―push-pull‖
factors influencing the decisions to leave Finland and move to another (home?) country. Bearing
in mind the multifaceted nature of the ‗employability‘ concept, it should also be explored from
the point of view of other stakeholders (in addition to graduates and employers) through policy
analysis and by investigating the HEIs‘ strategies of responding to the changing labor market
demands (Teichler, 2009).

The previous studies stressed that in coming to Finland to study students want to start a
life here rather than just obtain a degree. On the positive note, there is an opportunity for them to
extend their residence permit for 6 months after graduation to look for a job. In addition, the EU
funded projects like Workplace Pirkanmaa and Valoa are aimed to help the international students
to enhance their employability or entrepreneurship skills, through job fairs and other networking
events; mentoring programs and awareness raising campaigns. Yet more joint efforts are
required, especially with the view of helping students with the Finnish language mastery,
networking with the potential employers and gaining the work experience – to overcome the
typical obstacles on the way to successful employment in Finland.

Questions for future research:

1) How do universities identify and measure the employability of their graduates?
2) What are the expectations, tensions, and best practices of the key actors involved in the
transition from international HE to the world of work?
3) What patterns of HE- to-work transition can be identified among the international graduates?
4) What are the factors affecting the international graduate employability from the point of view
of the identified stakeholders?
5) What are the ―push-pull‖ factors influencing the graduates‘ decisions to leave Finland and
move to home country or elsewhere?
6) What is the role of networking in the transition from international HE to work?

GENERAL SUMMARY

T a b l e 1 : N u m b e r o f R e s p o n d e n t s R a t e

Among the 712 total graduates of S.Y. 2006-2007, this study presented660 respondents with
remaining 52 individuals who are declared un-located. During the retrieval of census forms, the
following reasons justify why some graduates cannot be located.1.Some of the graduates
transferred to another place with no forwardingaddress;2.They are just renting the
place during their college years;3 . S o m e g r a d u a t e s w r o t e a w r o n g
a d d r e s s ; 4.Some of the graduates were house helpers and they went back to their
province

T a b l e 2 : E M P L O Y A B I L I T Y R A T E S

Table 2on the general summary shows the employability rates of 2007 graduates. Seventy-one
point twenty percent were employed
(71.14%),
seven point thirty (7.30%)are unlocated, sixteen point fifty seven (16.57%)unemployed and some
four point ninety three (4.93%) got married and opted not to work and are still studying.

S Y N T H E S I S

A P P E N D I X

Dear Graduate:
Good Day! Please complete this GTS questionnaire as accurately and frankly as possible by checking (√)
the box corresponding to your response. Your answer will be used for research purposes in order to
assess graduate employability and eventually improve the course offerings of your alma mater and
other universities/colleges in the Philippines. Your answers to this survey will be treated with strictest
confidentiality.

GRADUATE TRACER STUDY (GTS)

A.GENERAL INFORMATION

1.Name ______________________________________________________________________________
2. Permanent Address _____________________________________________________________
3. E-mail Address _________________________________________________________________
4. Telephone or Contact Numbers ____________________________________________________
5. Mobile Number ________________________________________________________________
6. Civil Status
[ ] Single [ ] Separated [ ] Widow or widower [ ] Married [ ] Single Parent
7. Sex
[ ] Male [ ] Female
8. Birthday _ _ /_ _ /_ _ _ _ (Month/Day/Year)
9. Region of Origin
[ ] Region 1 [ ] Region 5 [ ] Region 9 [ ] Region 13
[ ] Region 2 [ ] Region 6 [ ] Region 10 [ ] CAR
[ ] Region 3 [ ] Region 7 [ ] Region 11 [ ] ARMM
[ ] Region 4 [ ] Region 8 [ ] Region 9 [ ] CARAGA
[ ] NCR
10. Province __________________________________________________________________
11. Location of Residence
[ ] City [ ] Municipality

B. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

12. Educational Attainment (Baccalaureate Degree Only)

Degree(s) & Specialization College/University Year Graduated Honor(s)/Award(s)
Received

13. Professional Skills (Please specify)

14. Professional Examination(s) Passed

Name of Examination Date Taken Rating
15. Reason(s) for taking the course(s) or pursuing degree(s). You may check (√) more than one answer
Undergraduate/AB/BS/Graduate/MS/Ma/PhD
[ ] Good grades in the subject area
[ ] Good grades in high school
[ ] Influence of parents or relatives
[ ] Peer influence
[ ] Inspired by a role model
[ ] Strong passion for the profession
[ ] Prospect for immediate employment
[ ] Status or prestige of the profession
[ ] Availability of course offering in chosen institution
[ ] Prospect of career advancement
[ ] Affordable for the family
[ ] Prospect of attractive compensation
[ ] Opportunity for employment abroad
[ ] No particular choice or no better idea
Others, please specify _______________________________________________________________

C. TRAINING(S)/ADVANCE STUDIES ATTENDED AFTER COLLEGE

16a. Please list down all professional or work-related training program(s) including advance studies you
have attended after college. You may use extra sheet if needed.
Title of Training or Advance Study Duration and Name of Training
Credits Earned Institution/College/University

16b. What made you pursue advance studies?

[ ] For promotion
[ ] For professional development
[ ] Others, please specify ___________________________________________________________

D. EMPLOYMENT DATA
17. Are you presently employed?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Never employed
If NO or NEVER EMPLOYED proceed to Question 18
If YES proceed to question 19-23.
18. Please state reason(s) why you are not yet employed. you may check (√) more than one answer.
[ ] Advance or further study
[ ] Family concern and decided not to find a job
[ ] Health-related reason(s)
 [ ] Lack of work experience
[ ] No job opportunity
[ ] did not look for a job
Others reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
19. Present Employment Status
[ ] Regular or Permanent
[ ] Temporary
[ ] Casual
[ ] Contractual
[ ] Self-employed
[ ] Unemployed
If self-employed, what skills acquired in college were you able to apply in your work?
_________________________________________________________________________________
20. Present Occupation
______________________________________________________________________________
21. Name of Company or Organization including address.
______________________________________________________________________________
22. Place of work
[ ] Local
[ ] Abroad
23. Is this your first job after college?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
If YES proceed to Questions 24 and 25
If NO proceed to Questions 27 and 28
24. What are your reason(s) for staying on the job? You may check (√) more than one answer.
[ ] Salaries and Benefits [ ] Career challenge
[ ] Related to special skills [ ] Related to course of study
[ ] Proximity to residence [ ] Peer influence
[ ] Family influence
Other reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
Please proceed to Question 25
25. Is your first job related to the course you took up in college?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
If NO proceed to Question 26
26. What were check your reasons for accepting the job? You may check (√) more than one answer.
[ ] Salaries and Benefits [ ] Career challenge
[ ] Related to special skills [ ] Proximity to residence
Other reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
27. What were your reasons for changing job? You may check (√) more than one answer.
[ ] Salaries and Benefits [ ] Career challenge
[ ] Related to special skills [ ] Proximity to residence
Other reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
28. How long did you stay in your first job?
[ ] less than a month [ ] 1 year to less than 2 years
[ ] 1 to 6 months [ ] 2 years to less than 3 years
[ ] 7 to 11 months [ ] 3 years to less than 4 years
 Other reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
29. How did you find your first job?
[ ] Response to an advertisement
[ ] As walk-in applicant
[ ] Recommended by someone
[ ] Information from friends’ office
[ ] Arranged by school’s job placement officer
[ ] Family business
[ ] Job fair or public employment service
Other reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
30. How long did it take you to land your first job?
[ ] less than a month [ ] 1 year to less than 2 years
[ ] 1 to 6 months [ ] 2 years to less than 3 years
[ ] 7 to 11 months [ ] 3 years to less than 4 years
Other reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
31. Job Level Position
Job Level 31.1 First Job 31.2 Current or Present Job
Rank or clerical [ ] [ ]
Professional, Technical or Supervisory [ ] [ ]
Managerial or Executive [ ] [ ]
Self-employed [ ] [ ]

32. What is your initial gross monthly earning in your first job after college?
[ ] Below P5,000.00 [ ] P15,000.00 to less than P20,000.00
[ ] P5,000.00 to less than P10,000.00 [ ] P20,000.00 to less than P25,000.00
[ ] P10,000.00 to less than P15,000.00 [ ] P25,000.00 and above
33. Was the curriculum you had in college relevant to you first job?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
If NO please proceed to Question 35.
34. If YES what competencies learned in college did you find very useful in your first job? You may
check (√) more than one answer.
[ ] Communication Skills [ ] Human Relations skills [ ] Entrepreneurial skills
[ ] Information Technology skills [ ] Problem-solving skills [ ] Critical Thinking skills
Other reason(s), please specify _______________________________________________
35. List down suggestions to further improve your course curriculum.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much!!!

R E F E R E N C E S
References:
Allen, J. (ed.), Velden, R. K. W. (ed.), Svetlik, I., Pavlin, S., et al. (2009): Competencies and
early labour market careers of higher education graduates: report on the large-scale graduate
survey. [S. l.]: HEGESCO: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, dec. 2009.
Amuedo-Dorantes, C. & Mundra, K. (2004). Social Networks and Their Impact on the
Employment and Earnings of Mexican Immigrants. Manuscript. San Diego State University
Arrow, K. J. (1973). Higher education as a filter. Journal of Public Economics, 2, 193-216.
Badillo-Amador, L., García-Sánchez, A., & Vila, L.E. (2005). Mismatches in the Spanish Labor
Market: Education vs. Competence Match. International Advances in Economic Research
11:93–109
Bailly, F. (2008). The role of employers' beliefs in the evaluation of educational output. Journal
of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 959-968.
Brown, P. and Hesketh, A. (2004).The Mismanagement of Talent, Employability and Jobs in the
Knowledge Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Burt, R.S.(2000). The Network Structure of Social Capital. Pre-print for a Chapter in Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22. Edited by Sutton, R.I., & Staw, B.M. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press
Cai, Y., Hölttä, S., & Kivistö, J. (forthcoming). Finnish Higher Education Institutions as
Exporters of Education--Are They Ready? In S. Ahola & D. Hoffman (Eds.), CHRIF Year Book
2010.
Cai, Y. (2011). Overseas Finnish employers‘ perceptions of international graduates from Finnish
higher education —An investigation of employment prospects of Finnish educated Chinese
graduates in Finnish companies in China. Paper presented at EAIR 33rd Annual Forum in
Warsaw, Poland, 28-31 August 2011
Calvo-Armengol, A. & Jackson, M. O. (2004). ―Networks in Labor Market: Wage and
Employment Dynamics and Inequality‖. Manuscript. California Institute of Technology.
Chisholm, L. (1999). ‗‗From Systems to Networks: the Reconstruction of Youth Transitions in
Europe‘‘, in, HEINZ, W. ed. From Education to Work: Cross-National Perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 298–317.
CIMO (Center for International Mobility) official web-site. www.cimo.fi
Ciulinaru, D. (2010). Beyond studies: Struggles and Opportunities. Perspectives on International
Student‘s settlement in Finland. Valoa Report
Crossman, J.E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability:
stakeholder perceptions on the connection. Higher Education (2010) 59:599-613
Dassen, Adrie (2010) Networks: Structure and Action. Steering in and Steering by Policy
Networks. Enschede: CHEPS:UT.
Department of Education Science and Training. (2002). Employability skills for the future: A
report by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Business Council of
Australia for the Department of Education, Science and Training. Canberra.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. & Ashforth, B. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its
dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14-38.
Garam, I. (2003). Advanced and unusual: Finland as seen by international students and trainees.
CIMO Occasional paper 1:2003
Garam, I. (2005). Study on the relevance of international student mobility to work and
employment: Finnish employers' views on benefi ts of studying and work placements abroad
(English summary)
http://www.cimo.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/cimo/embeds/cimowwwstructure/1562
6_relevance_of_student_mobility_summary.pdf Retrieved on 5.09.2011
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). ―The Strength of Weak Ties.‖ American Journal of Sociology, 1973,
78:13, pp. 60-80.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological
Theory, Volume 1 (1983), pp. 201-233.
Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and Measuring Employability. Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 7,
2, 2001
Hillage, J. & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis,
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) Research Report no RR85 (London, DfEE).
Holmes, L. (2001). Reconsidering graduate employability: the ‗graduate identity‘ approach.
Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 7. no. 2
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using Mixed-Methods Sequential
Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.
Johansson, E. (2008). Does Finland Suffer from Brain Drain? Suhdanne, 2008:2, pp. 074-078.
The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
Kärki, J. (2005). If I had to pay I would require value for money: a study on Foreign degree
students at the universities of Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, Jyväskylä and Helsinki University of
Technology
Laine, L. & Kujanpää, A., (2008). Ulkomaalainen työntekijä työnantajan silmin. Opinnäytetyö.
Tutun ammatikorkeakoulu.
Lindberg, M.E. (2008). At the Frontier of Graduate Surveys. Assessing participation and
employability of graduates with master‘s degree in nine European countries
Majakulma, A. (2011). Enhancing the Employability of International Graduates during
Education – A Case Study based on Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences.
Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja, vsk. 13, nro. 2 (2011 )
Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G. (2002). ‗‗Push–pull‘‘ factors influencing international student
destination choice. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 82–90.
Official Statistics of Finland, (2011). Transition from school to further
education and work 2009. ISSN 1798-9469 (pdf)
OECD report, (2009). Recent changes in migration movements and policies (Country notes):
Finland. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/57/48343745.pdf Retrieved on 5.09.2011
Pavlin, S. (2010). Higher Education and Employability Issues. DECOWE Working Papers
Series.
Rothwell, A., & Arnold, J. (2007). Self-perceived employability development and validation of a
scale. Personnel Review, 36(1), 23–41.
Sattinger, M. (1993) Assignment models of the distribution of earnings, Journal
of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXI, pp. 831–880.
Shmarov, A., & Fedyukin, I. (2004). A Graduate for an employer. [Vypusknik dlya
rabotodatelya] A Sociological study by Analytical Center ―Expert‖
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.
Støren, L. A., & Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2010). Foreign diploma versus immigrant background:
Determinants of labour market success or failure? Journal of Studies in International Education,
14(1), 29-49
Söderquist, M. (2005). Ulkomaalaiset työnantajan silmin. http://myy.haaga-helia.fi/~tk-
hanke/Ulkomaalaiset%20tyonantajan%20silmin.pdf Retrieved on 5.09.2011
Teichler, U. (2009). Higher education and the world of work. Conceptual frameworks,
comparative perspectives, empirical findings. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Walters, C. (2011). International students – returning their investment. Australia‘s reform
program for international education. Going global, 2011.
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2008). Does higher education attained abroad lead to international jobs?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(2), 101-130
Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in Higher Education: What it is — What it is not. Higher
Education Academy, York.