Recently, the McK­insey Center for Gov­ern­ment released the second in its “Edu­ca­tion to Employ­ment” series of the reports. The first, “Edu­ca­tion to Employ­ment: Designing a System that Works,” released in December 2012, looked at global youth unem­ploy­ment chal­lenges and the roles of higher edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tions and employers in helping stu­dents to make the tran­si­tion from one domain to the other more suc­cess­fully. The second report, “Edu­ca­tion to Employ­ment: Get­ting Europe’s Youth into Work,” released in Jan­uary of this year, takes a geo­graph­i­cally more narrow look at the same issues, and makes some prac­tical rec­om­men­da­tions for addressing the so-​​called skills gap cur­rently vexing many Euro­pean nations.

The report is timely, and rel­e­vant not only to all who are con­cerned about the prospect of a “lost gen­er­a­tion” of Euro­pean youth but also to those of us con­cerned with the college-​​to-​​work tran­si­tion here in the U.S., and the poten­tial long-​​term effects of under­em­ploy­ment and unemployment.

I was reminded of this very recently while con­ducting a brief survey of employers myself. In one ques­tion, the survey pre­sented the respon­dents with a list of more than a dozen insti­tu­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics and asked how impor­tant each of those char­ac­ter­is­tics is to their selec­tion of pre­ferred providers for recruiting full-​​time hires. Included in the list of char­ac­ter­is­tics were things like geo­graphic loca­tion, diver­sity of the stu­dent body, insti­tu­tional rank­ings, selec­tivity, and so forth.

Read the article at Inside Higher Ed →