Degree in Hand, ‘Unemployable’ on the CV: Who Failed India’s Graduate?

The student has passed. The graduate has failed.

Between those two verdicts lies a question that neither a university nor an employer can answer alone: how does someone clear years of examinations and emerge unfit for the work those years were supposed to prepare them for?

“Unemployable” is a crushing word to attach to a young person. It turns a rejection into an identity. For a family that has paid the fees, financed the accommodation and waited for the first salary, it also raises an uncomfortable question about what, exactly, the degree has certified.

The answer depends on who is doing the judging. A college may point to marks, projects and placement opportunities. An employer may look for communication, initiative and the ability to handle an unfamiliar problem. The graduate must somehow reconcile these expectations while finding someone willing to offer a first chance.

Shriyance Jain encounters that tension as both an educator and an employer. The vice president of COER University also draws on his experience hiring graduates at Texplas. In an interview with OPEN Digital, he resists treating employability as a permanent verdict.

“We focus on employability—because employability is something that can be continuously developed through education, training, exposure and experience,” he underlines.

That distinction matters. A skill can be taught. An unfamiliar process can be learnt. But someone has to take responsibility for the teaching—and someone has to pay for the time it takes.

WHO PAYS FOR THE FIRST CHANCE?

Jain draws the boundary at the difference between a foundation and a particular workplace.

A university, he argues, must develop subject knowledge, relevant skills, communication, problem-solving and the ability to adapt. An employer must then introduce the systems, processes and technologies specific to its business.

“I do not believe a university can or should prepare a student for every process, technology or working method of a particular company,” he says.

This is where the demand for a “job-ready” graduate deserves closer examination. Familiarity with a company’s internal systems cannot reasonably be the entry requirement for someone who has never worked there. Equally, a college cannot hand over a graduate without sound fundamentals and expect an employer to repair the education it has already charged for.

The difficult territory lies between those positions. How much preparation is enough? Which capabilities should a graduate demonstrate on day one? Which should develop under supervision?

Jain’s own experience offers a useful complication. He describes identifying students whose coding abilities were strong enough for them to train their peers. Some were engaged as coding trainers while still studying. A similar approach was taken with skills such as photography.

“Learning and working do not always have to happen sequentially,” he says.

A graduation date had not yet arrived. Demonstrable ability already had. Giving those students responsibility became part of their education.

THE ACCENT TEST

Competence can also be obscured by the way a candidate presents it.

Ask what a graduate lacks and “soft skills” can sound like a sufficiently precise answer. It deserves another question: which skills?

Listening carefully, explaining a technical choice, negotiating a disagreement and collaborating with colleagues are identifiable abilities. Fluency in English may be necessary for a particular role, but it does not establish all of them.

“A student may have limited English proficiency and yet be an excellent communicator,” says Jain. “Another may speak polished English but struggle to articulate an idea, listen to others or defend an argument.”

For a candidate from a smaller town or a different linguistic background, the distinction can determine whether an interview discovers ability or overlooks it.

“We sometimes mistake an accent, vocabulary or familiarity with corporate etiquette for competence,” he says.

The challenge for educators is to build clarity, confidence and the ability to participate without teaching students that their background is something to conceal. The corresponding challenge for recruiters is to define what communication the job actually requires and assess it consistently.

A confident answer deserves to be examined as closely as a hesitant one.

WHEN THE ASSIGNMENT CAN ANSWER BACK

Artificial intelligence makes the question of demonstrated ability harder to avoid.

A polished submission can no longer, by itself, settle whether a student understands the subject. That creates a problem for assessment even before the graduate reaches an interview.

“An assignment that can be completed simply by asking an AI tool to generate an answer is no longer a very effective assessment of learning,” says Jain.

One example in his responses is an MBA business simulation. Students make decisions on pricing, marketing, operations, finance and resource allocation. Subsequent rounds reveal the consequences.

The written submission is accompanied by reflection and oral explanation: why did the student make that choice? Which assumptions were used? What went wrong? Where did AI contribute?

“If AI suggested a strategy, they have to demonstrate that they understood it well enough to accept, modify or reject it,” he says.

The distinction is between producing a recommendation and taking responsibility for it. A student who can explain why a plausible suggestion would fail in a particular situation has demonstrated something a fluent assignment may conceal.

This also changes what the employer can ask to see. A degree records completion. A project, simulation or piece of work can reveal the decisions behind it—provided the candidate is asked to explain them.

THE ASTERISK AFTER SUCCESS

Families trying to judge an institution face a different assessment problem: interpreting its placement claims.

A percentage looks straightforward until its denominator is examined. Jain was asked about the “95% placements” figure displayed by his institution.

It refers, he explains, to students who registered for and actively participated in the placement process, rather than the entire graduating cohort. Other graduates may pursue further study, competitive examinations, entrepreneurship or family businesses.

That is a relevant distinction. It still leaves a prospective student needing to know how many graduates sought work, how many were eligible to participate, how many received offers and how many actually joined.

The same scrutiny belongs to salary claims. The highest package tells a family what happened at the exceptional end of the distribution. It cannot tell them what an ordinary graduate should expect.

Asked to put total fees and living costs alongside typical outcomes, Jain says the median starting salary exceeds the annual fee across programmes. His response does not provide the programme-level figures or a full calculation of study costs.

The comparison therefore remains incomplete. A family pays for several years of education, often with accommodation and other expenses. A starting salary must fund the graduate’s living costs and, where applicable, loan repayments. Even a comparison of annual salary with annual tuition cannot establish how quickly that investment will be recovered.

A useful account of educational value needs those ordinary numbers.

AMBITION HAS A HOUSEHOLD BUDGET

Entrepreneurship presents another test of how closely educational advice follows a student’s circumstances.

Building a business can be an exciting prospect. It can also postpone the income a family has been waiting for.

“I do not believe that telling every student to become an entrepreneur immediately after graduation is responsible advice,” says Jain. “Entrepreneurship should be an opportunity, not an expectation.”

For someone carrying immediate financial responsibilities, he generally recommends gaining professional experience first. Employment can teach the practical demands of customers, cash, people and execution while providing an income.

An incubation centre may offer space, mentorship or seed funding. Those forms of support need to be judged against the risk the student is actually taking. A place to work does not necessarily cover household expenses. Registering a company does not establish that customers will pay.

The advice has to begin with the person’s circumstances, rather than the appeal of calling another graduate a founder.

A DEGREE SHOULD SURVIVE ITS FIRST INTERVIEW

Responsibility also extends to the graduate. Jain’s employer perspective includes an emphasis on patience, discipline and staying with a difficult assignment long enough to develop depth.

But these expectations invite scrutiny too. When a young employee leaves, ambition alone may not explain the decision. Pay, supervision, working conditions and opportunities to learn also belong in that assessment.

The same principle applies across the journey from admission to employment: each participant’s performance has to be examined.

A college should be able to explain what its graduate can do. An employer should be able to explain what the job requires, how it assessed the candidate and what it is willing to teach. A graduate should be able to demonstrate learning and accept the work involved in developing further.

“Unemployable” settles none of those questions. It merely delivers the verdict to the person with the least power to contest it.

Before attaching it to a young person, the college that passed them and the employer that rejected them should be prepared to show their workings.