27
Beyond Graduation: the survey

A follow-up to the AGS Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Beyond Graduation:the survey

Page 2: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

A follow-up to the AGS Three years out◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents)◦ Three years after the AGS◦ AGS respondents only◦ Same reference date

Five years out◦ Pilot in 2011◦ 2009 BGS pilot respondents contacted

What is the BGS?

Page 3: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Collects three years of outcomes data◦ Employment status and specifics◦ Study status◦ Tenure

Plus◦OSI and GSS◦ Course retrospective◦Workplace relevance◦ Employability skills

What is the BGS?

Page 4: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Conducted in June/July

34 institutions participated

Total of 11,807 usable responses received

◦matched back to AGS response

Participating institutions received

◦ Summary reports

◦ Data files

BGS 2011 – three years out

Page 5: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Conducted in October

Pilot only

BGS 2009 follow-up

◦ AGS 2006 follow-up

Total of over 2,000 usable responses received

◦ matched back to AGS response

Preliminary analysis only

Will help to form 2012 instrument

BGS 2011 – five years out pilot

Page 6: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

2008 (%) 2011 (%)

Full-time employment? 83.2 92.8

Males 83.9 93.8

Females 82.8 92.2

Employment Outcomes? (Bach)

Page 7: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

2008 (%) 2011 (%)

Full-time employment? 83.5 92.5

Part-time employment 11.1 4.2

Graduates not working 5.8 3.0

Employment Outcomes? (Bach)

Page 8: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

2008 (%) 2011 (%)

Managers 5.9 11.1

Professionals 72.2 73.8

Technicians and trades workers 3.6 2.3

Community and personal service workers 4.8 3.7

Clerical and administrative workers 10.7 8.1

Other occupations 2.8 0.9

TOTAL 100 100

Broad Occupation Type (Bach)

Page 9: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Self-rated employability skills (H/VH)

83.2

86.3

92.2

92.2

93.1

93.4

93.5

93.7

58.9

57.7

81.8

64.8

70.0

74.1

72.0

63.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Technology

Initiative and enterprise

Learning

Planning and organising

Communication

Teamwork

Problem solving

Self-management

%

2008 2011

9

Page 10: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

General outcomes (Bach)

2008 (%) 2011 (%)

Avail FT employment 73.6 80.3

Full-time study 16.5 9.9

In part-time or seeking PT work only

7.1 7.2

Unavailable 2.8 2.6

Page 11: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Main Act – not in Empl or FStud

5.6

49.1

13.9

19.4

12.0

4.8

9.5

19.0

61.9

4.8

0 20 40 60 80

Voluntary work

Parenting

Home duties

Travelling

Focusing on a health issue

%

Males Females

Page 12: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Salaries?Median Salary 2008 2011

Bachelors $47,000 $66,000

Postgraduates $65,800 $85,000

Page 13: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Salaries?Bachelors 2007 ($,’000) 2010 ($’000) % Growth

Natural and physical sciences 47.0 65.0 38.3

Information technology 50.0 75.0 50.0

Engineering and related 55.0 76.0 38.2

Architecture and building 45.0 65.0 44.4

Agriculture and environment 45.0 65.0 44.4

Health 45.3 67.0 47.9

Education 48.0 63.0 31.3

Management and commerce 47.0 70.0 48.9

Society and culture 46.2 66.0 42.9

Creative arts 40.0 55.0 37.5

All fields 47.0 66.0 40.4

Page 14: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Fieldwork beginning mid July 38 institutions participating Working with ◦ Research Performance and Analysis Team from Innovation

HDR graduates◦Office for Women from Department of Families, Housing,

Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Gender pay equality

Participating institutions in December to receive◦ Summary reports◦ Data files

BGS 2012

Page 15: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Beyond Graduation:the employers

Page 16: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Takes a closer look at graduate recruiters

Running since 2005

Graduate recruitment practices and trends, including:

◦ Intake numbers and quality / satisfaction

◦ Recruitment techniques

◦ Preferred graduate attributes

◦ Retention

◦ International graduates

The Graduate Outlook Survey

Page 17: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Conducted in August each year

Over 500 graduate employers responded in 2011

◦ Variety of industries

◦ Employer sizes

Online only

Full report and industry reports distributed free

The Graduate Outlook Survey

Page 18: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Would have recruited more graduates if a higher number of appropriate candidates had been available, 2005-11

33.3%

42.5%

64.5%

46.8%

21.6%

27.1% 27.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 19

Page 19: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Proportion of employers who had difficulty sourcing graduates – discipline, 2009-11

Other

Mathematics/Statistics

Sciences (excluding Earth Sciences)

Resource Engineering /Earth Sciences

Accounting

Health/Social Sciences

Business and Economics

Other Engineering

Information Technology

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

9.2%

2.5%

3.3%

4.2%

5.0%

10.0%

11.7%

16.7%

30.0%

12.3%

4.1%

5.5%

18.1%

12.3%

11.0%

19.2%

15.1%

19.2%

12.9%

2.4%

3.5%

25.9%

7.1%

11.8%

22.4%

14.1%

18.8%

2009 2010 2011

Page 20: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Proportion of employers who recruited international graduates, 2005-11 (%)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

15.7%

20.7%

24.1%

35.3%

20.5%19.0%

30.8%

Page 21: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Employers who recruited international graduates, by employer size (%)

1 - 19 employees 20 - 99 employees 100 - 500 employees More than 500 employees0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

22.2%

12.3%

17.3%

48.1%

Recruited international graduates

Page 22: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Mature Age Postgraduate degree0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

15.6%

38.0%

10.8%

34.6%1-500 employees More than 500 employees

Table 2: Why employers did not recruit mature age graduates, 2011 (%)

Proportion of graduate intake constituted by mature age

Why did not recruit mature age %No suitable candidate 55.6%No applications received 27.8%Too experienced for graduate position 7.4%

Other 9.3%

Page 23: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Methods used to promote graduate program, by organisation size, 2011 (%)

16.4%

26.2%

37.4%

58.9%

75.2%

71.0%

74.3%

93.9%

12.9%

14.7%

19.6%

20.2%

37.4%

57.1%

59.5%

73.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Newspaper advertising

Other websites (e.g. Facebook, Linkedin)

Graduate recruitment handbooks

University careers fairs

Employment websites (e.g. SEEK, CareerOne)

University careers services

Your organisation's website

1-500 employees More than 500 employees

24

Page 24: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Effectiveness of social media sites in engaging graduates, 2011 (%)

Effectiveness of social media sites Somewhat/Quite/Very effective

Quite/Very effective

Facebook 81.1% 41.1%

YouTube 77.8% 29.6%

LinkedIn 74.4% 28.2%

Twitter 66.7% 18.5%

Page 25: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Most important selection criteria when recruiting graduates, 2009-11 (Rank)

Selection Criteria 2009 2010 2011

Interpersonal and communication skills (written and oral) 1 1 1

Passion/Knowledge of industry/Drive/Commitment/Attitude 2 2 2

Critical reasoning and analytical skills/Problem solving/Lateral thinking/Technical skills

3 3 3

Calibre of academic results 4 4 4

Work experience 6 6 5

Cultural alignment / Values fit 7 5 6

Teamwork skills 5 7 7

Emotional intelligence (incl. self-awareness, strength of character, confidence, motivation)

8 8 8

Leadership skills 9 9 9

Activities (incl. intra and extra curricular) 10 10 10

Page 26: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Median costs to recruit a graduate, by industry, 2011

Industry Group Median total cost Median per capita cost

Government/Defence/Health $50,000 $3,350

Construction/Mining/Engineering $30,000 $1,500

Accounting/Finance related $12,500 $1,800

Communication/Technology/Utilities $10,000 $2,000

Legal/Professional services $10,000 $2,000

Manufacturing $10,000 $3,350

Page 27: A follow-up to the AGS  Three years out ◦ First piloted in 2009 (2006 AGS respondents) ◦ Three years after the AGS ◦ AGS respondents only ◦ Same reference

Graduate cohort still employed with the organisation one, three and five years after their commencement, 2011 (%)

Still employed after 1 year Still employed after 3 years Still employed after 5 years0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

79.3%

61.0%

44.2%