WEEKEND READING: Is it time for a Graduate Excellence Framework?

Join HEPI and Unite Students for a webinar on Wednesday 24 June 2026, from 11am to 12pm, marking the launch of the fifth annual Unite Students’ Applicant Index 2026. Drawing on one of the sector’s most comprehensive surveys of university applicants, the session will explore new insights into prospective students’ finances, wellbeing, resilience, learning, employment and preparedness for university, helping institutions understand what to expect from the next cohort arriving this autumn. Register now.

This blog was kindly authored by Gianina Harvey-Brewin, Dean of Continuing Education at the University of Roehampton.

Graduate outcomes have become one of the defining measures of success in higher education. From league tables to regulation, the issue of where graduates end up, whether in professional employment or further study, is increasingly used as a proxy for institutional quality.

This is understandable. Students, policymakers and the public all want to know whether higher education leads to meaningful opportunity. This is particularly acute for students who will carry the financial consequences of that decision for years to come. The Office for Students has reinforced this through its focus on progression outcomes, placing them at the heart of regulatory scrutiny.

But there is a growing mismatch at the centre of this model.

Graduate Outcomes is being treated as a measure of university performance. In reality, it is something else entirely. It is a lagging indicator of a fragmented education system.

The survey captures graduate activity 15 months after completion. By that point, the opportunity for universities to intervene is diminshed and the factors shaping outcomes have largely played out. A graduate’s destination reflects not only their university experience, but everything that came before and much that sits beyond it. School attainment, subject choice, social capital, geography and labour market conditions all play a role.

Universities play a crucial role, but they do not control the system in which those outcomes are formed.

If that is the case, the question is not whether Graduate Outcomes should be removed, but whether it is being asked to do too much on its own.

A case for a Graduate Excellence Framework

Higher education already recognises that complex activities require more than a single metric. The Teaching Excellence Framework, Research Excellence Framework and Knowledge Exchange Framework each combine multiple indicators to build a more complete picture of performance.

Graduate success, by contrast, is largely assessed through one.

There is a case for a more balanced approach. A Graduate Excellence Framework (GEF) would bring together outcomes with indicators of how those outcomes are created. It would not replace Graduate Outcomes, but would place it in context.

At its core, a Graduate Excellence Framework shifts attention from simply asking what happened to understanding how it happened.

What would a Graduate Excellence Framework measure?

A GEF could bring together outcomes and four core dimensions, each contributing to a fuller understanding of how graduate success is formed.

Outcomes (what happened)

Graduate Outcomes would remain an important component, capturing employment and further study. However, it would be interpreted as part of a wider picture rather than a standalone judgement.

This could include progression into professional or highly skilled roles and variation in outcomes across student groups.

Positioning (access to opportunity)

Are students able to access meaningful opportunities during their studies, such as placements, internships, live projects and employer networks?

This could be evidenced through the proportion of students undertaking work-based learning or employer-linked activity, levels of employer engagement within programmes, and access to opportunities across different student groups.

Access to opportunity is not evenly distributed. In many cases, the difference in outcomes is not ability, but exposure. Measuring positioning would focus on whether institutions are enabling students to enter the spaces where opportunity exists.

Articulation (ability to compete)

Can students translate their learning into the language of the labour market?

This could be demonstrated through students’ ability to identify and evidence their skills, for example, through careers registration or similar tools, alongside application and interview success rates where available, and structured assessment of employability within the curriculum.

Many graduates have valuable skills but struggle to communicate them effectively. A focus on articulation would look at how well students are prepared to navigate recruitment processes and demonstrate their value to employers.

Trajectory (development over time)

Are students making progress throughout their studies?

This could be tracked through engagement with careers and employability support before the final year, movement from unclear to defined career goals, and increasing participation in relevant experiences.

By the final year, it is often too late to begin this process. A trajectory lens would assess whether institutions are supporting that development early enough to make a difference.

Place-based impact (contribution beyond the individual)

Where relevant, how do graduate outcomes contribute to regional skills needs and local economies?

This could include graduate retention within the region, alignment to local priority sectors, and partnerships with regional employers.

This recognises that success is not only individual, but also systemic. Universities play a key role in supporting local labour markets, and this should be visible in how outcomes are understood.

From measurement to understanding

Many of these indicators already exist within institutions, through engagement data, placement activity, careers support and student development tracking. The issue is not data collection, but coherence.

A Graduate Excellence Framework would not necessarily require entirely new data, but a more structured way of bringing existing insights together. It is less about adding reporting requirements and more about making better use of information that is already available.

For institutions, this matters. Any new framework risks being seen as an additional administrative burden. If designed well, a GEF could reduce duplication by bringing together data that is currently collected in silos across academic departments, careers services and employer engagement teams.

There are, of course, challenges. Leading indicators can be harder to standardise and may be vulnerable to gaming if poorly designed. These challenges are not unique. Existing frameworks already balance metrics with structured narrative and external validation. The alternative, reliance on a single lagging indicator, is arguably more problematic.

A system that only measures outcomes risks misdiagnosing the problem it is trying to solve.

A more complete picture of success

Graduate Outcomes will remain an important part of how we understand higher education. But it cannot, on its own, carry the full weight of defining success.

If we want to improve outcomes, we need to measure the conditions that create them.

Because the real question is not just where graduates end up, but whether they were ever in a position to succeed in the first place.