Graduate Employability in QS, THE and CYD Rankings: A Guide for Universities

Nearly half of all graduates — 48% — report feeling underprepared to enter employment in their chosen field upon completing their degree, according to the Cengage Group Graduate Employability Report 2025. This is not an incidental finding: it reflects precisely the systemic gap that international rankings have spent two consecutive cycles translating into a public metric. If you are responsible for the academic or employability strategy of a higher education institution, the indicator that has grown most in relative weight — and the one that most institutions continue to manage reactively — is graduate employment outcomes. This article sets out what QS, THE and CYD actually measure within that indicator, where the real gap lies according to the most recent data, and which concrete lever can move the needle before the next assessment cycle.

Why graduate employability has become the most strategic ranking indicator

For many years, universities concentrated their positioning efforts on research output, internationalisation and academic reputation. That was a rational choice: those indicators carried greater relative weight and dominated internal discussion. The 2025–2026 ranking cycle has changed that calculus.

The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 documents that 39% of the skills considered essential today will be outdated before 2030, and that analytical thinking, resilience and leadership — transferable, rather than technical, competencies — top the list of what employers are seeking and not finding. That global context has reached the ranking methodologists: pressure from governments, businesses and students for universities to account for the career destinations of their graduates is now structural, not cyclical.

The real weight of Employment Outcomes in QS and THE

In QS World University Rankings, the employability block accounts for up to 30% of the total score in the QS Graduate Employability Rankings — the edition most consulted by employers — and carries significant weight in the general edition through the Employer Reputation indicator. In Times Higher Education, the Industry Income & Knowledge Transfer pillar connects directly to an institution’s capacity to place graduates in the labour market. In both cases, the methodology penalises the absence of evidence: it is not sufficient for graduates to find employment; the institution must be able to demonstrate this with verifiable data.

What QS, THE and CYD actually measure on employability

The starting point for any effective response is a precise understanding of what is being measured. The three principal reference systems for European and Ibero-American institutions operate according to different logics, but share a clear convergence: graduate employability is no longer an implicit output of the educational process — it is an indicator with a published methodology and an explicit weighting.

According to QS’s official documentation on the Employment Outcomes Indicator, the five sub-indicators within the employability block are distributed as follows:

Spain’s CYD Foundation operates according to a different methodology, focused primarily on social security registration rates and alignment between qualification level and employment. Its data, however, carry the greatest weight in Spanish policy and media discourse. For ANECA accreditation and positioning with the relevant ministry, CYD reports are the de facto domestic reference. Institutions with European partnerships will also be aware that the UK’s Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) publishes comparable Graduate Outcomes data — a useful benchmark for institutions operating across the post-Brexit European landscape.

The gap that the data make plain

The data are uncomfortable for the sector. The CYD Foundation’s 2025 Young People’s Employability Report places the average social security registration rate at four years at 76.1% for public universities and 74.5% for private institutions — a smaller difference than the debate typically assumes — but with significant variation across disciplines and a structural problem in the Arts, Social Sciences and Services areas.

The challenge is not simply how many graduates are in work, but the quality of that work and the readiness with which they enter it. According to the Cengage Group Graduate Employability Report 2025, 48% of graduates acknowledge feeling underprepared to take up entry-level positions in their field, and 86% of employers report that newly qualified hires require additional training before they are effective from day one. That gap — perceived by graduates and hiring organisations alike — is precisely what the rankings are attempting to capture when they survey employers about institutional reputation.

The practical consequence for any institution seeking to improve its position is clear: it is not sufficient for graduates to find employment. Employers must perceive those graduates as better prepared than those from competing institutions, and that preparation must be documented in a verifiable form.

Why certifying soft skills moves the employability indicators

Here lies the connection that most ranking managers have yet to fully articulate. The external certification of transferable competencies is not a cosmetic addition to a student’s CV: it is a verifiable signal with a direct impact on three of QS’s five sub-indicators.

Employer Reputation improves when employers associate an institution’s graduates with competencies they recognise and value. A credential issued under a European standard aligned with ESCO and the European Qualifications Framework — visible on a graduate’s professional profile — makes that association tangible. EASEC’s programme accreditation enables institutions to signal to employers that their qualifications incorporate externally verified competencies, rather than self-declared ones.

Alumni Outcomes benefits because digital credentials persist over time and are traceable. A graduate who carries their certification throughout their professional career maintains their connection with the institution and generates the career trajectory data that rankings can quantify.

Graduate Employment Rate improves when graduates enter the labour market with a genuine competitive advantage in selection processes. The YouScience Workforce Report 2024 documents that candidates who present verifiable competency certifications have a notably higher probability of successfully completing recruitment processes in the twelve months following graduation, compared with equivalent profiles without external credentials.

How to act: steps for institutions ready to move this cycle

The decision window for the 2026–2027 academic year is open now. The three concrete levers below are presented in order of impact on ranking indicators.

1. Accredit programmes under a recognised European standard

The first step is institutional: the qualification itself must incorporate the certification of transferable competencies as part of its curricular design. This has a direct impact on Employer Reputation and Partnerships with Employers, because external accreditation is the most robust argument available in conversations with employers and in QS reputation surveys.

2. Certify each graduate individually

The second step is operational: every graduate should leave with a verifiable credential attesting to their soft skills. Individual student certification generates the evidence required to move the Graduate Employment Rate indicator and makes the graduate visible to the labour market from the outset.

3. Issue digital credentials recognised across Europe

The third step connects certification with the infrastructure for cross-border recognition. EASEC’s Europass digital credentials convert a certified competency into a portable asset, verifiable by employers in any country within the European space. This is particularly relevant in the context of the EU Council Recommendation on micro-credentials for lifelong learning, which establishes portability and verifiability as minimum requirements for any credential with value in the European labour market. For UK institutions maintaining European partnerships post-Brexit, this cross-border recognition carries practical weight.

The complete sequence — programme accreditation, student certification, Europass digital credential — converts an intangible asset (the quality of soft skills training) into measurable data that rankings can capture and employers can verify.

Frequently asked questions on graduate employability and university rankings

How much does the employability indicator count towards QS rankings?

In the QS Graduate Employability Rankings, the employability block determines 100% of the score. In the general QS World University Rankings, the Employer Reputation indicator carries a 15% weighting of the total score, making it one of the five principal criteria. The combined weight of employer reputation and alumni outcomes can account for up to 55% of the score in the dedicated employability edition.

What is the difference between QS, THE and CYD’s approach to employability?

QS and THE measure primarily employer perception and alumni career trajectories at a global scale. The CYD Foundation works with actual labour market insertion data within the Spanish context — social security registration rates, qualification-level alignment — and is the reference for national higher education policy debate and ANECA accreditation. The three sources are complementary: QS and THE are relevant to international positioning; CYD matters for domestic reputation and relations with government. Institutions operating in the UK context would add HESA’s Graduate Outcomes Survey as a fourth reference for benchmarking against the British market.

Can a mid-ranking university improve its position in employability rankings without significant investment?

Yes. Employability indicators are those that depend most on management decisions and least on infrastructure or research volume. Accrediting programmes under recognised European standards, certifying graduate competencies and issuing verifiable credentials are actions that require no investment in new infrastructure — they require institutional decision and a certification partner with recognition in the labour market.

Conclusion

University rankings have moved beyond being a thermometer of past reputation. They are now an instrument of accountability for the career futures of students. The graduate employability indicator is today the most actionable in the system: it depends less on decades of research output and more on decisions that can be taken within the current academic cycle.

The evidence is clear: employers do not differentiate between institutions when there are no verifiable signals to justify that differentiation. Certifying graduates’ transferable competencies under a European standard aligned with ESCO, EQF and Europass is the lever that converts perception into data, data into an indicator, and that indicator into a ranking position.

Institutions ready to act before the next assessment cycle can explore how EASEC for Higher Education supports that process — from programme accreditation to the graduate’s digital credential — at easec.eu/en/higher-education/.