Among the many challenges in higher education (regulatory compliance, academic and social inclusion, emerging technologies, the sustainability of institutions and programs, internationalization, employability, etc.), I must admit that, in my experience of more than two decades in higher education administration, I am constantly and repeatedly struck by what I hear from business leaders and alumni regarding the disconnect between undergraduate curricula and the job market. 

And I’m talking about alarming percentages, as cited by various studies (research institutes, academic studies, graduate follow-up surveys, and institutional evaluations/CPA) and by the hiring processes of large companies that do not require a college degree. 

By way of illustration, a 2021 survey conducted by Educa Insights indicates that while more than 60% of educational administrators believe their programs prepare students for the job market, only 39% of business leaders believe that this preparation is adequate. This situation is inconceivable given the clear commitment in our institutional missions to train professionals and citizens who embody professional excellence and social commitment.

In addition to the statistics presented by these studies, there has been a rise in companies hiring based on skills and experience (without requiring a college degree) and an increase in investment in corporate vocational training centers. Meanwhile, undergraduate programs that are highly ranked in the Higher Education Assessment System (SINAES) are gradually declining due to a lack of applicants. 

The crisis of legitimacy we are experiencing calls for self-criticism. This self-criticism begins with an analysis of our educational programs, which were developed in an academic context in strict accordance with INEP’s evaluation criteria, yet with little or no interaction with the productive sectors. 

This results, to a large extent, in a graduate’s professional profile that is far removed from market demands and, consequently, in a curriculum composed of elements that are eminently theoretical and disconnected from one another within their respective disciplinary boundaries. We do not have a synergistic and flexible curriculum designed to build the competencies described in the aforementioned pedagogical project, but rather a collection of juxtaposed disciplines (a rigid model) resulting from traditional content-based divisions.

If the program’s profile and curriculum fall short of the labor market’s needs, learning methodologies contribute to widening this gap. Despite the growing popularity of active learning methodologies—including the incorporation of technologies applied to the learning process—their implementation lacks clarity regarding their pedagogical objectives, as evidenced, for example, a disconnect from learning objectives and, even more seriously, from the assessment process, which remains quantitative, evaluative, and grading-based, rather than being process-oriented and formative. 

I would like to highlight other signs of the disconnect between academic curricula and the job market: the inadequacy or insufficiency of curricular internships; final projects, whose primary purpose is to provide an applied synthesis of the academic journey, but which are being reduced to purely theoretical discussions and comparative studies; and the lack of career planning throughout the course of study. 

Faculty members with excellent academic training but no professional experience contribute to reinforcing this disconnection, since they are unable to provide contextualized examples related to practical problems or real-world situations, to demonstrate how the theory taught applies to professional practice, or to stay current regarding the interplay between content and practice—especially with regard to new technologies in the labor market.

In light of the above, and without claiming to exhaust this line of thought (or even to prescribe solutions), I believe it is imperative to develop new dynamics that connect educational institutions, teachers, academics, and productive sectors through socio-educational pathways. 

This points to the need for new (more flexible) curriculum models, investments in teacher training, and efforts to promote and enhance teachers’ connection to the labor market, as well as the integration of applied projects, extension programs, and internationalization into the curriculum—all of which are relevant strategies for educational pathways linked to the transformation and evolution of the professions. 

About the author:

Did you like this article? Then share it on your social media: