What Actually Moves Graduate Outcomes Numbers? Evidence-Based Factors

Graduate outcomes data now influences league tables, funding conversations, student recruitment and senior leadership attention. As a result, universities are under more pressure than ever to “improve the numbers.”

The problem is simple but fundamental: most institutions have very little visibility into why some students secure roles and others do not. Careers teams see workshops attended, appointments booked and applications submitted. Employers see who they interview and hire. The crucial piece in the middle — the quality and effectiveness of students’ job search behaviour — is largely invisible.

Across analysed job searches, one pattern stands out:

Students with seniority alignment scores below 1.0 are around four times less likely to secure graduate roles — regardless of how many applications they submit.

In other words, volume alone does not move graduate outcomes. Specific behaviours do.

Why Traditional Metrics Don’t Explain Outcomes

Most universities track a familiar set of indicators:

• number of careers appointments attended
• event registrations and attendance
• engagement with digital resources
• CVs submitted for review
• applications submitted via institutional platforms

These measures capture input, not performance. They tell you who is present, not who is progressing.

Two students can look identical on these metrics — same number of appointments, similar number of applications — yet their outcomes can be radically different. The differentiator is not how often they interact with support, but how effectively they apply for roles.

When you examine real application data, five factors repeatedly correlate with better graduate outcomes.

Factor 1: Seniority Alignment — Applying at the Right Level

Seniority alignment is the degree to which a student’s experience, skills and career stage match the level of roles they are applying for. A postgraduate applying to “Head of” roles, or a first-time job seeker applying to mid-senior specialist posts, is misaligned from the start.

Across multiple datasets, a clear pattern emerges:

Students with seniority alignment scores below 1.0 are four times less likely to secure graduate roles than those with higher alignment — even when they submit a similar or greater number of applications.

Misalignment shows up in several ways:

• applying to roles that require significantly more experience than they possess
• targeting highly specialist positions without foundational exposure
• ignoring graduate programmes in favour of roles clearly designed for experienced hires

From an employer perspective, these applications are quickly filtered out. From the student’s perspective, each rejection feels like a personal failure. Without visibility into alignment, universities often interpret this as a confidence issue or engagement problem, rather than a targeting problem.

Factor 2: Keyword Optimisation and ATS Compatibility

Most large employers use Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) to filter candidates before a human ever sees a CV. These systems rely heavily on keywords that reflect required skills, qualifications, tools and responsibilities.

In many analysed searches, students’ CVs contained almost none of the functional keywords that appeared in the roles they were targeting. The consequences are measurable:

• low application view rates (for example, 3–5% of applications ever opened)
• zero progression to shortlist, interview or assessment centre
• consistent rejection at the earliest possible stage without feedback

A student can attend every careers workshop and still fail to progress if their CV never passes automated screening.

What moves graduate outcomes here is not generic CV quality in isolation, but role-specific keyword alignment. When students adapt their language to reflect the requirements of each role — without fabricating experience — view rates and progression improve significantly.

Factor 3: Geographic and Market Fit

Location and sector expectations often sit silently behind unsuccessful applications. Students regularly apply to roles:

• in regions they are not actually willing to relocate to
• with salaries that do not match their expectations
• in sectors with small graduate intake but high competition
• at organisations with rigid eligibility criteria

When geographic targeting and market fit are misaligned, students experience long runs of non-response. They assume this reflects their capability, not their search parameters.

Students who show better outcomes tend to:

• define realistic geographic ranges early
• adapt their search based on where recruitment activity is highest
• balance aspirational roles with a set of solid, realistic targets

Universities seldom see these patterns because they track where students apply, not whether these choices are sensible relative to demand and candidate profile.

Factor 4: Application Cadence and Consistency

Students rarely fail because they never apply; they more commonly fail because they sprint, stall and then stop. When you map application timelines, two profiles emerge:

Steady performers

• apply consistently throughout the term
• refine their approach as they receive responses
• adapt CVs and cover letters based on feedback and outcomes

Exhausted sprinters

• apply for a large number of roles in a short burst (for example, 30–40 applications in two weeks)
• receive either silence or generic rejections
• experience a sharp decline in applications
• eventually stop completely

From an outcomes perspective, the first profile tends to secure interviews and offers earlier. The second profile often appears engaged at first, then quietly disappears from application systems before graduation or shortly afterwards.

What moves outcomes here is structured, sustained application behaviour, not short bursts of panicked effort.

Factor 5: Timing — When the Search Actually Starts

Many graduates begin serious job searching only in the final term or after examinations. Unfortunately, large sections of the graduate labour market recruit much earlier.

Students who secure roles sooner often:

• begin exploring sectors and roles in their penultimate year
• apply to internships or year-in-industry placements
• engage with employers in the autumn term of final year

Students who struggle frequently delay action until spring or summer, when many structured programmes have already closed. They are competing for fewer roles, with less time and higher pressure.

Outcomes improve when institutions place more emphasis on when students start meaningful search activity, not just whether they do so.

Factor 6: Using Feedback and Iteration

When you look at successful job searches, one behaviour is nearly universal: iteration. Students who secure offers tend to adjust their strategy over time:

• they change CV structure when it fails to generate views
• they refine role targeting based on where they reach interview stage
• they adapt their narrative according to questions they struggled with previously

Less successful searches are often characterised by repetition:

• the same CV sent to every role
• the same sector targeted despite zero progression
• the same mistakes repeated at interview

Without performance data — such as view rates, shortlist rates and interview-to-offer ratios — it is extremely difficult for students to know what to refine. Careers teams see that students “are applying”; they do not see whether any of those applications are working.

What Does Not Move Graduate Outcomes Very Much

It is tempting to assume that if you simply increase the number of events, workshops and resources, outcomes will rise accordingly. The data tells a different story.

On their own, the following have limited impact on outcomes:

• total number of careers events delivered
• attendance counts at general employability workshops
• total platform log-ins
• generic CV checks without reference to specific roles
• raw application volume without quality improvements

This is not to say these activities are unimportant — they often create awareness and build readiness. But they do not, in isolation, explain why one graduate secures three offers while another remains unemployed despite apparent engagement.

For outcomes to improve, support must influence the specific behaviours that correlate with progression through the recruitment funnel.

From Activity Metrics to Performance Metrics

To move graduate outcomes in a measurable way, universities need to complement engagement metrics with performance metrics. These might include:

• Application view rate: what percentage of applications are actually opened by employers?
• Shortlist rate: how many viewed applications progress to the next stage?
• Interview conversion: what proportion of interviews lead to offers?
• Seniority alignment: are students applying for roles that sensibly match their experience?
• Time to first interview: how long does it take for active students to reach a live conversation?

With these metrics in place, careers teams can:

• identify students who are applying a lot but progressing nowhere
• spot those at high risk of burnout or disengagement
• intervene earlier with targeted support
• demonstrate to senior leadership which interventions genuinely shift outcomes

Reframing the Outcomes Question

Instead of asking:

“How many students used our careers service?”

the more powerful question is:

“Which specific job search behaviours consistently lead to better graduate outcomes — and how can we help more students adopt them?”

Evidence shows that behaviours such as appropriate seniority alignment, role-specific keyword optimisation, realistic geographic targeting, consistent application cadence and iterative refinement have far more influence on outcomes than raw effort alone.

When universities begin to measure and support these behaviours directly, graduate outcomes numbers become less of a black box and more of a predictable, improvable set of patterns.