Employment Outcomes of Science Graduates in Australia: Implications for Choice and Diversity in the...

MALCOLM ANDERSON, CRAIG McINNIS AND ROBYN HARTLEY

EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES OF SCIENCE GRADUATES INAUSTRALIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR CHOICE AND DIVERSITY IN

THE CURRICULUM

ABSTRACT. In this paper, we compare employment outcomes of science graduates inAustralia with information about survey respondents’ courses of study to determine thenature and extent of employment-curriculum match (or mismatch). Outcomes of studentpreferences are also explored to see which course structures – specifically generalistor specialist – are more successful than others. Six different measures of employment-curriculum matching are used to argue that mismatching is likely to be minimal. The papersuggests implications for the structure of undergraduate science degrees.

Worldwide, there is concern about whether the higher education sectoris providing graduates with the requisite skills and knowledge to matchemployment needs. The relationship between higher education andemployment is increasingly problematic, new tensions are emerging, andnew perspectives are required (Teichler 2000). There is also a concernthat universities might be overly responsive to the perceived demands ofemployers, and that the goals of a broader undergraduate curriculum mightbe lost as a consequence. It is acknowledged that the level of mismatchwill vary between different countries, for different disciplines, occupa-tions and professions, and also over time (allowing for the expansions andcontractions of normal economic cycles).

This study is more narrowly conceived, looking at science graduatesin one country, Australia. The study from which the data is drawn wascommissioned by the Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS),as part of a broader programme to counter declining student enrolmentsin the sciences, and also to position science education in universities atthe forefront of a renewed national effort to provide research and innov-ative solutions for the knowledge economy. Nevertheless, some resultsmight be applicable for wider generalisation. Science and technology is adynamic and ever-changing field. The difficulty in predicting the directionof scientific advance, and the economic opportunities that arise in areasof that advance, as driven by market demand, increasingly challenge thecapabilities and flexibilities of science education agencies. Bottlenecks(most notably the shortage of information technology professionals inan increasingly computer-dependent society) may not be as severe as

Tertiary Education and Management 9: 61–76, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

62 MALCOM ANDERSON ET AL.

expected because some students opt for risk-averse strategies in coursechoices, that is, avoiding specialist degrees where employment opportunitymay evaporate upon graduation.

Hence, the views and employment experiences of science graduatesover the past decade assist in determining the extent to which theysense their education is matched with their employment and employ-ment opportunities. While an under-supply of suitable graduates is morelikely to be detected from the complaints of industry and research bodies,over-supply will be voiced most loudly by the graduates themselves.

The primary aim of this paper is to compare employment outcomesand the nature of science graduates’ current work with survey informationabout the courses of study taken by respondents. The emphasis is on thenature and extent of curriculum-employment matching (or mismatching),considered from the perspective of the graduates themselves. Six differentmeasures of matching are used, and they indicate that mismatching is likelyto be minimal.

Secondly, we assess the outcomes of student preferences to infer whichcourse structures are more successful than others. Another way to conceiveof this is to examine which rational (or purposeful) study choices andstrategies pay off, and which do not. Specifically, this relates to thegeneralist versus specialist strategy of degree structures. In view of bothoutcomes and student strategies, the paper suggests implications for thestructure of undergraduate science degrees. By ‘rational’, we realise thatthe motivations behind student course choices are many and varied, andthat students also make these choices with many limitations of knowledge,often on the basis of immediate opportunity.

THE SURVEY

This study utilises survey responses from approximately 1235 graduates ofsix Australian universities, specifically, those who completed their under-graduate science degree during the last decade of the twentieth century. Forthe most part, the sample analysed in this paper is restricted to employedrespondents who had not completed (or who were not in the processof completing) a postgraduate course since their undergraduate sciencedegree (n = 497). According to a common convention, this group willbe termed undergraduate science graduates. In some analyses, we havefurther reduced the sample to full-time workers (n = 440). The employ-ment outcomes of postgraduates is a separate issue, and, while discussedin passing, is not directly addressed. The primary concern with this paperis to assess the undergraduate science degree – as a final and sole qualific-

EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES OF SCIENCE GRADUATES IN AUSTRALIA 63

ation – in preparing graduates for personally satisfying, industry-matchedemployment.

Besides basic demographic information (age, gender, schooling etc.),respondents were asked to give details of their study and work historyover the period 1990 to 2000, including activities such as spells of unem-ployment and casual work, and periods of time taken off for familyresponsibilities or extended travel. Since the proportion of male respond-ents fell well short of what was expected, results have been weighted infavour of males by a factor of 2.2. Other information sought includedtype of course completed within the science degree (pass, honours ordouble/combined), main areas of study, whether their science course wastheir first preference option or not, and whether their enrolment load wasfull or part time. Respondents were also asked to self-define their courseof study as to whether it was concentrated on one or more major areasof study, or whether it could be defined as broad and ‘generalist’; and alsowhether they defined their degree as less flexible around a tightly organisedand understood discipline, or whether their course had room for optionsand electives.

In addition, information on current employment was also requestedpertaining to occupation; main tasks and duties; type of employer organ-isation – and whether it could be described as a ‘science-based unit’(or organisation); and the extent to which the respondent’s job could beclassified as a desired career position or not.

Responses to some eighty-nine Likert scale items were also sought.These covered general interest in science and science careers, job satis-faction and associated benefits, generic attributes gained during the under-graduate course and their importance in current employment, the specificusefulness and value of the ‘science degree to their current employment’,and, where applicable, reasons for undertaking further (postgraduate)study. Finally, respondents were asked to estimate the contribution oftheir undergraduate course in both obtaining their current (or most recent)employment, and the extent to which these courses were related to thatemployment.

MEASURING THE EXTENT OF MATCHING

Several methods of measuring the degree of matching were employed.Respondents were asked to indicate if their current employment estab-lishment (organisation/department/unit) could be described as ‘definitelyscience-based’, ‘broadly science-based’ or ‘not science-related’. Thisgives a self-defined measure of whether graduates perceive themselves


working in a science environment, regardless of whether the work they dois any way related to the establishment. This measure, of course, does notaccount for those who may be using their science skills in an organisationthat could not be thought of as ‘scientific’ – and such a measure wouldalso falsely identify any totally unrelated employment (such as a cleaningjob) in a scientific establishment. It should also be noted that some sciencegraduates – those from computer science and psychology, for example –do not categorise their work or their workplace as ‘scientific’, in the sameway as those working in the physical and biological sciences.

Job descriptions provided by respondents were classified by theresearch team as to whether these stated occupations were ‘core’ science(or IT) related or not (for example, ‘biologist’, ‘physicist’, ‘secondaryschool science teacher’, ‘science journalist’, ‘programmer’, ‘softwareengineer’ etc). We followed the Australian Standard Classification ofOccupation guide (ABS Cat no. 1220.0, 1997) utilised by the AustralianBureau of Statistics (as also used in the Australian Census). In some sense,this measure captures the likely track or career path of a ‘normal’ science(or IT) based profession. This means that the nature of work implied bythe profession for which a graduate was hired (‘scientist’, ‘biologist’, etc.)will be ‘scientific’ and related to training at a later stage even if not atthe earliest stages of a career track. Since the questionnaire also soughtemployment history over the past decade (or at least since graduation),this enabled us to track longitudinal development of individual careerprogressions.

Respondents indicated the extent to which their undergraduate degreeassisted in obtaining their current position. Here we were interested inthose who indicated that their undergraduate qualification was either‘essential’ or contributed a ‘great deal’ to them obtaining their presentposition. Respondents also indicated the extent to which they believedtheir degree was related to their current job. This measure usually summedthe responses ‘directly related’ and ‘somewhat related’ in relation to theextent their degree was related to the job. In addition, a group of four Likertquestions probed the extent to which respondents felt their scientific skillsand abilities were valued, used, and recognised in their position, (and byimplication, also by their employer).

Finally, we exploited a definition of ‘matching’ from the respondent’sperspective: namely, the extent to which one’s job was a ‘desired careerposition’ (or ‘stepping stone’ to such a position). This definition, lessconcerned with the institutional and economic measurement of matching,assumes that graduates have been making rational choices about educa-tional qualifications in the quest to arrive at what they hope will be a


satisfactory career. In other words, we are assuming that respondentsspecifically chose a science oriented qualification because it was the waythey wished to arrive at a contented career outcome.

MISMATCH AND THE LABOUR MARKET

Is it to be expected that all science graduates will want to work in a careerrelated to their undergraduate training? A few preliminary considerationsneed to be addressed before this assumption is granted. First, a sizeableproportion (about 27%) of entrants to an undergraduate science qualifica-tion did not obtain their first course preference.2 It must be noted, however,that the career outcomes and job satisfaction levels in the group that didscience as their first-preference was indistinguishable from those whodid not. Nevertheless, when we analyse a separate group of respondents(those who are currently engaged in some postgraduate study; n = 169),we find that the proportion who did not gain their first course preferencerises to 39%. In other words, there is a good proportion of graduates whoare not evidently interested in immediate career satisfaction because theyhave plans for further study – quite possibly study related to their originaland first preference. In fact, of those respondents who had since gone onto complete further science study, some 13% had undertaken a secondscience-related bachelor degree.

A second consideration concerns the fact that some students did nothave their hearts decidedly set on a science career in the first place. Itis true that a high proportion of undergraduate-only full-time workersreported that they were ‘genuinely interested in science’ (when asked to‘think back to the choice you made to pursue your undergraduate sciencedegree’) – some 87% in fact. Nevertheless, some respondents volunteeredthat their science course was ‘just something to do while I decided myfuture’ (nearly one in five), and only 65% ‘chose this course becauseI specifically wanted to work in a science-based profession’ (19% wereundecided and 18% in disagreement).3

Thirdly, we should expect that interests and aspirations can changeduring and subsequent to the undergraduate degree – and this may bereflected in the choice of employment, and the possibility that suchemployment exhibits less relevance to the original training. This is mostclearly indicated in the figures for another important group within thesurvey sample, namely, those who have since pursued a non-science quali-fication (one quarter of all respondents in the survey: n = 309); of those, forexample, just under 40% have gone on to study for a business qualification,nearly 16% arts, 15% education, and so on.


The important point is that not all of these graduates pursued non-science-related post-graduate qualifications because they were frustratedby their science-based work. In fact, just over a third commenced a non-science qualification because they were ‘bored or tired’ with what theywere doing previously, but the sample was split more evenly when asked ifthey chose this qualification because ‘my science qualification was leadingme nowhere’ (45% agreeing; 41% disagreeing) or because they ‘could notsee a future in science’ (41% agreeing; 45% disagreeing). In other words,perhaps half of those pursuing a non-science qualification were freely andhappily enticed into new directions. More telling is the proportion of non-science qualification holders who were ‘interested in this area of study fortheir own sake’ (just under three quarters).

However, even though there is an expectation that some of the respond-ents who had not yet gone on to any postgraduate course will do so (andaround one third of these could be expected to choose a non-science post-graduate course – and most doing so for reasons of intrinsic interest),there is still evidence that some undergraduate science graduates have hadchanges in interests and aspirations. Only 65% in this group, for example,maintained that ‘if I had my time over again, I would still have done ascience degree’ (while nearly one in five disagreed).

Fourthly, there is another important reason for mismatching which callsfor comment. While there is good evidence of some shortage of suitablescience-based jobs (especially in particular fields of study within science),it appears there is also the possibility that opportunities for economicand social advancement present themselves in areas less connected with arespondents’ undergraduate course. This is particularly the case for high-salary, high-demand industries such as information technology, which havebeen drawing graduates from wide backgrounds other than the computerscience field of study. In fact, around 8% of full-time undergraduatescience graduates who have not included computer science in their studiesindicated they were working in an IT-related occupation. Interestingly,this proportion rises the longer the period elapsed since graduation: whileonly 5% of one to three year out (non-computer science) graduates wereworking in IT, this rises to nine percent for those four to six years out and12% for those seven to ten years out.

The salary disparity between ‘core’ science graduates and computerscience graduates in the Australian sample is quite startling, and so itshould be no surprise that relatively few in the latter category feel any needto pursue postgraduate qualifications (just 34% as against 59% for ‘core’science). Neither is it surprising that ‘core science’ graduates leave theirfield for IT when the average gross salary4 for the latter is around 70%


higher than those of the former. For early graduates – those who finishedbetween 1990 and 1993, those in IT are earning around 90% more.

Again, while it must be stressed that many leave science-based careersbecause of limited opportunities, it is clear that some have neverthelessfound themselves in high salary brackets, and espouse few regrets aboutthe career change choice. In other words, ‘non-matching’ is a product bothof relatively low salaries in science (salaries which appear to ‘plateau’ aftera few years) and golden opportunities in other industries – particularly highdemand areas such as IT.

A final consideration (and related to the first point, above) is that theremay be an understanding that for some science careers, an undergraduatequalification is not enough. Indeed, it is true that those who do continueonto a postgraduate science qualification (a separate group in the survey;n = 417) have a much higher rate of postgraduate study-work matching.However, there may be a proportion of undergraduate science graduateswho – for various life stage reasons – find themselves ‘caught’ in themiddle (perhaps interrupted by family priorities – or even the need tosave for future study), having completed only the first part (the under-graduate stage) of a training which really requires a postgraduate ‘finisher’.In fact, 32% of the entire sample had completed some kind of postgraduatescience qualification (and more indicated they had begun but were yetto complete). Among those who had graduated between 1990 and 1993,the proportion having completed a postgraduate science qualification risesdramatically (to nearly 43%), an indication that more recent graduates willundoubtedly pursue further science study at a later stage. This phenomenonrepresents a mismatch by default: it is not a direct deficiency in curriculumdesign.

RESULTS: THE OVERALL CURRICULUM-EMPLOYMENT MATCH

All of the measurement criteria of match-mismatch were highly correlatedwith one another. In Chi-square tests of independence, the four Likertitems which measured the extent to which skills and abilities were used,valued or recognised, together with the five other items, were tested forcorrelation. All nine items were statistically significant (at the 0.05 level)with respect to each of the other items. This result infers that the items arebroadly uni-dimensional, and implies that most mismatched respondentsrevealed their predicament according to several (and in rare cases, all)criteria.

The data that follow reports the overall raw results for each of thesix matching criterion. Figures are given for all employed ‘undergraduate


TABLE I

Matching study and work: Core science graduates(excluding computer science graduates)

Working FT PT

Is your organisation science based? n = 391 (%) n = 339 (%) n = 52 (%)

Science based 42 42 41

Broadly science based 30 31 23

Not science based 28 27 36

Occupation group Working FT PT

(researcher defined) n = 396 (%) n = 346 (%) n = 50 (%)

Science-related occupation 53 55 43

Information technology occupation 7 8 2

Other occupation 39 37 56

Note: Because proportions are rounded off, totals may not add to 100%.

only’ responses (that is, only those who have not proceeded to any post-graduate study), with breakdowns for those in full-time and those inpart-time employment. Certain valuable aspects of the study – such asthe different career trajectories of those who went on to postgraduatestudy vis-à-vis those who did not – as well as the outcomes for sciencegraduates who pursued science-based postgraduate study, in comparisonto those who sought postgraduate non-science qualifications, also raiseimplications for curriculum design. These, however, must be held overfor further research. Except for brief comparison purposes, we have alsolargely restricted our analysis to graduates in ‘core science’ areas: thusComputer Science graduates have been excluded from these tabulations.

Table I shows some 42% of all working respondents were employedin a ‘science-based’ organisation, with almost another third attached toan organisation ‘broadly science based’. Even the result for part-timers ispositive given that 64% are generally working in science. On the basisof ‘researcher-defined’ science occupation, it was found that nearly two-thirds of all full-time workers were found in an occupation traditionallyassociated with Science or Information Technology.

Even more positive is the result (Table II) showing that 77% of allworking respondents reported their undergraduate science degree was‘essential’ or assisted ‘a great deal’ in gaining their current position,while around the same proportion, 78%, recorded that their undergraduatescience degree was either ‘directly related’ or ‘somewhat related’ tocurrent employment. The disparity of this result from the ‘occupation


TABLE II

Match with present position

Extent undergraduate science degree

contributed to obtaining present Working FT PT

position n = 384 (%) n = 335 (%) n = 49 (%)

Essential 45 47 29

Great deal 32 32 32

Not at all 23 21 38

Extent undergraduate science Working FT PT

degree is related to present position? n = 398 (%) n = 345 (%) n = 53 (%)

Directly related 40 41 36

Somewhat related 38 39 33

Not related 22 20 32


group’ measure discussed above (where 61% of all working respondentsreported their occupation as either Science or IT), possibly implies thatmany graduates are working in ‘science-based’ careers which have nottraditionally been recognised as ‘Science’ per se.

The situation for part-time employees was slightly poorer, though two-thirds responded that their employment is positively related to their degreesubject matter (Table II).

Similarly, the Likert items shown in Table III indicated good agreementwith the propositions that a respondent’s job ‘gives me the chance to usethe skills and abilities acquired in my undergraduate degree’ (61% of full-time workers agreeing – though just half of the part-time workers agreed).A similar response was reported to the proposition that ‘my employervalues my scientific knowledge and skills’. Only 29% of respondentsagreed with the proposition that ‘my science skills are not being recog-nised in my job’ (with 30% of full-time working respondents agreeing),together with a very small 16% who agreed with the notion that they were‘frustrated that my science skills are not being used in my job’. Clearlyfrustration is not strong: for part-time workers the frustration level wasjust as low (17%).

Finally, very few full-time employed science graduates (just under11%) described their job in terms of an ‘interim job not leading to a careerposition’ (Table IV). As would be expected, this figure rises considerably,though not surprisingly, for part-time respondents (41%).


TABLE III

Match of skills and abilities with present position(% strongly agree or agree)

Extent to which skills and abilities

were used in the position; and Working FT PT

valued or recognised by employer n = 397 (%) n = 344 (%) n = 52 (%)

My job gives me the chance to use the 60 61 50skills and abilities acquired in myundergraduate science degree

My employer values my scientific 62 63 54knowledge and skills

I feel my science skills are not being 29 30 22recognised in my current job

I feel frustrated that my science skills 16 16 17are not being used in my job


TABLE IV

Perception of current career position

Working FT PT

Career position n = 394 (%) n = 342 (%) n = 52 (%)

Desired career position 38 41 21

Stepping stone to a desired career position 47 49 38

Interim job not leading to a career position 14 11 41


DEMOGRAPHIC ASPECTS OF MATCHING AND MISMATCHING

The absence of matching disparities between various demographic groupsis in itself quite significant. Briefly, there are no great differences betweenmales and females, in the nature of schooling (Government, Independentor Catholic), or between those who chose science as their first course pref-erence and those who originally wanted another course. Neither was thereany differences due to the geographic locale of respondents (metropolitan,regional and rural). The sample size for overseas nationals was too smallto meaningfully compare with Australian respondents.


The major differences in matching, however, centre on: full-timeworkers versus part-time workers (which is to be expected, and isdiscussed only in passing); area of study; and time since graduation. Theseare discussed briefly below. Other important factors, not discussed include:level of undergraduate course (pass or honours) and age at graduation(mature age students versus those directly out of school). There were alsoconsiderable differences between graduates of the six institutions whichparticipated in the study, a phenomenon probably more connected withfield of study and level of study.

Areas of study

One of the most dramatic differences among full-time employed graduatesshows up between those who included computer science in their course andthose who did not. Since computer science graduates rarely conceptualisetheir work as ‘science’, the majority (55%) reported themselves as workingfor non-science based organisations while the greater majority of thosewho took ‘core’ science areas of study were working in more science-based areas (only 27% of these were not with a ‘science based’ employer).Likewise, virtually no computer science graduates indicated an occupationgroup that could be classified as ‘scientific’ – more than four in five wereemployed as IT employees. While only 15% of full-time employed gradu-ates were found in (researcher defined) occupations outside IT or science,the comparable figure for core science graduates was more than twice asmany (37%).

The extent that work was reported as being unrelated to study wasjust as noteworthy – 6% for computer science graduates, yet 20% forthe others. More than three in five computer science respondents sawtheir work as ‘directly related’ to studies as opposed to just over two infive of every ‘core science’ graduate. Likewise, the opportunities to useundergraduate science skills and abilities in the position – 77% (computerscience graduates) versus 61% (others). While just over half of ‘corescience’ graduates disagreed with the proposition that their ‘skills andabilities are not being recognised’ in their current job, the correspondingproportion for IT graduates was close to 80%. Perhaps most striking of allis the extent to which computer science graduates believe themselves tobe well and truly in a ‘desired career position’ – 65%, while only 41% of‘core science’ graduates could say the same.

The proportion of respondents who agreed that their skills and abilitieswere actually put to use in their jobs and their perception of desirablecareer positions is charted in Figure 1 for eight areas of study. Six of theserefer to courses confined to one major discipline area within the sciences,


Figure 1. Proportion of full-time working respondents who agreed that their job “givesme the chance to use the skills and abilities acquired in my undergraduate training” chartedwith the proportion who indicated their position either was (or was a stepping stone to) ‘adesired career position’ n = 440.

and two others for those who took majors from more than one area(life science and physical/chemical sciences; and life science/biomedicalsciences). Since sample sizes for some of these individual major areasof study are quite small, not too much should be made of their relativepositions in the chart. But it is clear that there are important differencesaccording to disciplines within science. Satisfactory outcomes are clearfor graduates of computer science and medical science; graduates in themathematical sciences and life science are probably the least satisfactoryin a relative sense.

Time since graduation

Just as interesting are the disparities in matching over time. More recentgraduates (those finishing between 1997 and 1999) report a significantlyhigher degree of curriculum-employment matching than earlier graduates(those completing their undergraduate course between 1990 and 1996).The longer a graduate has been in the workforce, the less likely arethey to be working in a science-based organisation, or a science-relatedoccupation. Their original degree is less related to their work and they


believe the obtaining of their position is less dependent upon their originalscience qualification. Similarly, they sense that their undergraduate sciencetraining is less valued, recognised, or used in their current position. Onlyone in five recently graduated respondents (excluding computer sciencegraduates) were not working in a science-based environment, only one inten did not need their qualification to obtain their job, only 15% reportedthat their work was unrelated to training – the same proportion indicatedsome frustration that their science skills were not being used in their job.However, those who had graduated seven to ten years out were far moresatisfied that their present job is a desired career position (52%) as againstonly 31% for one to three-year out graduates.

Course structure: Generalist-specialist

Finally, we looked at the way respondents structured their courses. Firstly,we wanted to see if there was any great difference in matching outcomesbetween those who kept to one integrated science field, a ‘single-focus’,(such as computer science, life sciences, mathematical sciences, biomed-ical sciences or the physical and chemical sciences) and those who splittheir major course of study across at least two of these major fields (‘multi-focus’). Even if a respondent took a range of disparate subjects withinone broadly integrated science field (such as botany and zoology withinthe life sciences), we have defined this as ‘single-focus’. The single-focuscourse strategy, all other things being equal, appears to attract a morefavourable appreciation of acquired skills in employment, while at thesame time, revealing a slightly higher than average proportion strugglingin an ‘interim job not leading to a career position’.

The questionnaire also asked respondents to describe their course interms of whether it was mainly concentrated in one major area of study, ortwo areas, or could be best described as ‘generalist’. These self-definitionsrevealed a wide variety of divergence between individual courses, and werevery hard to interpret. However those who reported their course as ‘gener-alist’ correlated inversely with the tendency that their ‘scientific knowledgeand skills’ would be valued by their employer. Those who concentratedon one area of study were also more likely to find employment wheretheir skills were recognised than their ‘generalist’ counterparts. Those whotook a course best identified as ‘two area’ were more likely to adapt toworking in IT, even though information technology was not part of theirundergraduate training.

A second self-definition item – regarding whether a respondents’ coursewas tightly-structured or free with options and electives revealed thattightly-structured courses tended to favour a respondent gaining a recog-


nisably ‘scientific’ occupation, and meant they were marginally less likelyto find themselves in an ‘interim job not leading to a career position’.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking the six different ways of measuring curriculum-employment matchas a whole, it is clear that the degree of overall matching could beregarded as quite satisfactory. Given the variety of tasks needed in posi-tions demanding science graduates, it is fair to say that universities are, atthe very least, expected to provide graduates with the expertise to obtaina science job, to ensure that skills are broadly related to the potentiallydiverse needs of prospective employers, and presumably, equip graduatesto work in a science-based environment. The majority of respondentsin our survey – given the variety of ways to measure the curriculum-employment match – appear to be working in jobs for which they havebeen equipped by their undergraduate science qualification. By and large,their expectations are not too far removed from the reality of their jobs.

Overall, the degree of curriculum-employment matching – with theexception of desired career position – is very high for new graduates. Thisresult implies that training appears to become less relevant as time elapsessince graduation – and raises the question as to whether the undergraduatescience degree needs to be geared to preparing graduates for (possiblymore) advanced tasks – or even science managerial-level tasks – whichgraduates should reasonably be expected to encounter and master withinten years of graduation.

While some caution should be exercised for the same breakdown forcomputer science graduates (due to much smaller sample sizes – around30 in 1990–1993 group; 24 in 1994–9196; and 28 for 1997–1999), thepicture of high matching for recent graduates is fairly assured. 96% of themost recent cohort were working in IT, more than half said their qualifica-tion was essential for the position, nearly three-quarters reported that theirstudy was directly relevant to their work, and 90% thought that employersrecognised their acquired skills and abilities.

We noted in our report for the ACDS that while science education inAustralian universities shares some of the problems faced by other fieldsof study in responding to the shift to knowledge-based economies, thereare also some issues unique to science (McInnis, Hartley & Anderson2001, p. 9). The role of the curriculum as an organisational device seemsto have escaped the attention of universities as they strain to maintainsome control over the structure of the undergraduate degree while offeringgreater flexibility for students on every front (McInnis 2001). The extent


to which schools of science should shape their curriculum towards moregeneral foundations, or to encourage vocational specialisation, is at theheart of their current concerns. Much of the thinking in this regard is beingdriven by a recent and growing demand to respond to employer satisfac-tion with graduate employees, and the pressure is matched by governmentexpectations that universities will give greater attention to the genericskills acquired by undergraduates across all fields of study. Universitiesin Australia are heavily engaged in identifying generic skills that theirgraduates need, and redesigning the curriculum and approaches to teachingand learning to enhance those skills. The deficiencies of graduates mostcommonly cited by employers include the lack of communication skills,poor interpersonal skills, and a lack of business practice. The capacity ofgraduates for independent and critical thinking is of great importance toemployers (ACNeilsen 2000).

The declining numbers of high performing students interested inscience, and the trend for science graduates to move into information tech-nology is putting pressure on the design and delivery of science courses toaccommodate student preferences which has the potential to weaken thecoherence and foundational capacities of general science degrees. Broaderpolicy issues have been raised about this outcome as a consequence ofthe modularisation of the curriculum (Gallagher 2001). Since graduateswho took a science degree concentrated on one area of study are morelikely to use the course skills they acquired in their work, it is tempting forscience schools to shape the curriculum to meet this vocational orientation.Indeed, graduates who agreed that their undergraduate degree was ‘tightlystructured with limited subject options’ also tended to use their university-acquired skills in the workplace (McInnis, Hartley & Anderson 2001,p. 52). However, by being overly-responsive to the demand of students forthe production of immediate work-related skills, and their tendency to ratetheir courses more positively in the early period of employment, scienceschools run the risk of under-emphasising the diversity of employmentopportunities and demands and the need for adaptability and flexibility inone of the most rapidly changing fields of endeavour. Over-systematising,controlling and monitoring student options in science degrees has thepotential to reduce the capacity for long-term adaptability in the worldof work.

NOTES

1. This paper draws on the results of a national survey commisioned by the AustralianCouncil of Deans of Science (McInnis, Anderson & Hartley 2001).


2. A survey of first year students in 1999 (McInnis, James & Hartley 2000) indicated that44% of science students did not get their first choice preference on entering university.

3. While their recollections about their earlier views may be coloured to some extentby subsequent experiences, it is extremely interesting that while 78% of high andmoderately-matched respondents reported that they originally wanted to work in ascience-based profession, this proportion drops to a low 48% among those acutelymismatched (‘mismatch’ is here defind as those currently not working in a recognis-ably science or IT profession and who reported that their jobs did not give them ‘thechance to use the skills and abilities acquired’ in their undergraduate science degrees).It is also suggestive that 65% of the high and moderately-matched reported that theywere originally ‘always clear about [their] reasons for studying science’ comparedwith only 47% for low-matched respondents.

4. The questionaire actually asked respondents for their income – ‘approximate grossincome (annual)’. We assume that most would estimate for salary, since ‘income’ is acommon euphemism for salary.

REFERENCES

ACNeilsen Research Services (2000). Employer Satisfaction with Graduate Skills. EIPReport, DETYA. Canberra: Australian Government Publisher.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997). Australian Standard Classification of Occupation(ABS Cat. No. 1220.0), 2nd Edn.

Gallagher, M. (2001). Lifelong Learning: Demand and Supply Issues – Some Questionsfor Research, Business/Higher Education Roundtable Conference on Lifelong Learning,Sydney July 24.

McInnis, C. (2001). Signs of Disengagement? The changing Undergraduate Experience inAustralian Universities. Inaugural Professorial Lecture, Faculty of Education, Universityof Melbourne.

McInnis, C., Hartley R. & Anderson, M. (2001). What Did You Do With Your ScienceDegree? A National Study of Employment Outcomes for Science Degree Holders, 1990–2000, A Study Commissioned by the Australian Council of Deans of Science, CSHE,Melbourne.

McInnis, C., James, R. & Hartley, R. (2000). Trends in the First Year Experience. Canberra:DETYA Higher Education Division.

Teichler, U. (2000). New Perspectives of the Relationships Between Higher Education andEmployment, Tertiary Education and Management 6(2), 79–92.

Centre for the Study of Higher EducationUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleVictoria 3052E-mail: [email protected]

Employment Outcomes of Science Graduates in Australia: Implications for Choice and Diversity in the...

Documents

Transcript of Employment Outcomes of Science Graduates in Australia: Implications for Choice and Diversity in the...