Cross-Sectional Inquiry on Employability and Employment Status

of the BSE Graduates (2016-2018): A Tracer Study

Manuel E. Caingcoy
College of Education, Bukidnon State University
[email protected]

Desiree A. Barroso
College of Education, Bukidnon State University

Abstract- Higher education institutions are expected to produce quality and competitive graduates for the job market
and nation-building. In realizing this role, Bukidnon State University needs to ensure that graduates may land a job-
relevant and align with their education and training. With this, a tracer study was conducted to verify whether the
three batches of graduates are employed and are employable. It ascertained their employability based on their work
experience from graduation to the present job. It employed a cross-sectional method and data mining for the
information of 326 graduates. The results revealed that the majority of graduates had jobs relevant to their education
and training; yet, there was a significant difference in the employability of graduates across batches, except in terms
of gender. Biological Science, Social Studies, and Math graduates were employable within the first six and twelve
months compared to graduates from other curricula. It was claimed that the BukSU had prepared BSE graduates for
employment. However, these results have implications for strategic options in improving the programs. The study
made some recommendations for future tracer initiatives.

Keywords: position, employment status, employability, gender

Introduction
Higher education institutions are expected to produce quality and competitive
graduates for the job market (Melink et al., 2009) and nation-building (DepEd, 2017). They are
responsible for producing a quality workforce for the social, economic, and cultural
development of the country. That is why HEIs prepare graduates to land jobs. One of the best
ways HEIs can prepare them is to help them pass in the licensure examination by delivering
quality instruction and by providing the relevant experience. Nonetheless, graduates’ chances to
land a teaching job are very slim or they may have a job that is not matched to their schooling
and training. But if they can pass on the board examination, the more likely they can get a job
relevant to their specialization, and the sooner a job can be obtained. In this way, they may
contribute to the labor participation rate and employment rate of the country.
It may be a phenomenon that graduates have difficulty in the transition after graduation
as they embark on employment. In the same month, they graduated, some might have got a
job, while others opted to spend months in preparation for the licensure examination. There
would be graduates who have a strong desire to work immediately after they finish college, yet
they are constrained by the job conditions and requirements. One of these is a license. This
requirement may prolong their waiting for a chance to land a teaching job. But if they can
obtain a job a few months after graduation, that would be a factor for a greater chance and of
their employability.

1
 Employability has received a deep interest among colleges (Aspiring Minds, 2016). The
term employability has been perceived differently. In one tracer study, it was understood as
employed, unemployed, or never been employed (Domingo, 2013). To analyze closely, these
concepts were taken interchangeably with the term employment status. They are the outcomes
of whether graduates are employable or not. In the simplest terms, employability is the ability to
get a job (Gedye et al., 2018), but not the outcome of such ability. Aspiring Minds (2016)
delineated these two constructs. Employment status is an outcome of employability. In its
report, employability status is at various degrees, such as did not get interview opportunities ,
got an interview opportunity, reached the final round, and employed. The higher one applicant
can progress in this ladder, the more employable he or she is. Therefore, employment status can
be taken as employed, unemployed, or underemployed. It is an outcome of employability, that
is, the ability between the one who did not get an interview opportunity and the one who got
the interview opportunity. This variance reflects two different employability levels.
In a study in which participants were undergraduates, employability was defined by
students extrinsically in the early years of their studies with simplistic terms associated. This
definition becomes intrinsically focused and sophisticated as they progressed in their studies.
Extrinsically, students perceived employability based on what the employer thinks of the
applicant (Gedye et al., 2018). This empirical evidence suggests that the perception of
employability depends on one’s maturity and as individuals mature, their idea of employability
becomes focused on the self and not on how others perceive it.
Felicen et al. (2013), as cited in Baking et al. (2015), opined employability as the
capability of individuals to move self-sufficiently within the labor market to realize the potential
through sustainable employment. Smith et al. (2014) identified six dimensions of employability
(termed work-readiness): professional practice and standards, integration of theory and practice,
lifelong learning, collaboration, informed decision-making, and commencement-readiness
(confidence in starting a job in the discipline). This ideation is somewhat more complex than
how employability was usually referred to in the past.
Employability and productivity are central issues in the strategic direction of higher
education institutions (Baking et al., 2015; Aspiring Minds, 2016). The degree to which graduates
can become productive in the industry or sector where they are in reflects the quality of the
institution and its curriculum. This is the reason why these issues are of great concern to
universities. Employability of their graduates is feedback to the university (Aspiring Minds,
2016). Whether it is from employers or students’ perspective, it would always add value to
decision-making and policy options.
In this research, employability is the distance between the day individuals have
graduated and the day they get a job. This construct lacks empirical evidence and theoretical
support. As a phenomenon, it is always dependent on internal and external conditions. The
internal condition is inclusive of individual qualities, traits, skills, and capability, while the
external condition may include job requirements, perception of employers, among others. This
internal condition is similar to what Finch et al. (2016) identified in their study on the dynamic
capabilities view of employability. These include intellectual, personality, meta-skill, and job-
specific individual resources, which may become graduates’ competitive advantage.

2
 Employment status refers to whether or not graduates are employed, unemployed, or
underemployed after they graduated from college. In a recent report, the Philippine Statistics
Authority (2019) described the employment status of Filipinos 15 years old and above: 93.7%
are employed; 18.5% are underemployed, while 6.3% are unemployed. With optimistic statistics,
it is of utmost interest that a higher percentage of BSE graduates are employed, and a few of
them are underemployed or unemployed. These statistics are far more improved when the
International Labor Organization (2009) described the youth as pessimistic, demoralized, and in
despair.
Infante et al. (2014) have the same understanding of employment status as the current
study, but they were limited to two categories, employed or not employed. Their findings
revealed that graduates of the Guimaras State College were 69.9% employed and 30.1% were
not employed. However, it is not clear in their tracer study if those who are employed are really
in the practice of their profession. Looking at the phenomenon of underemployment is also a
very important undertaking.
Bukidnon State University, College of Education, intends to trace its BSE graduates
relevant to its preparation for quality assurance endeavors (i.e. AACCUP accreditation,
Institutional Sustainability Assessment, ISO certification, and SUC leveling. These endeavors will
look into the Licensure Examination Performance of BSE graduates, employment status,
employability, and other relevant information.
This study is also premised after the empirical evidence reported by Aspiring Minds
(2016), which revealed that both males and females are equally employable and have equal
percentages of employment status, while males are slightly better when it comes to salary
figures. Similarly, the present study intends to verify if there are variances in employment status
and employability between genders and across disciplines such as biological science, Filipino,
math, social studies.
This tracer study would be instrumental in crafting strategic options for the university to
prepare its future BSE graduates more competitively than what the university has already
produced. By doing this, BukSU can have feedback on whether it has prepared graduates
competitively. This is only indicated when graduates had landed jobs relevant to their profession
and training. The results of this tracer study would provide vital information on opportunities,
strengths, weaknesses, and threats that can be made bases on drawing lessons for more
strategic options.
This tracer study intended to establish a profile on the employment status of BSE
graduates and ascertain their employability when they were on the transition from college to
career life. Employment status included the type of employer and position. Employability was
clustered into three: employable to non-permanent positions, highly employable to permanent
positions, and employable to permanent positions. It determined whether gender, year
graduated, and curricular programs can yield variance in BSE graduates’ employability. In the
end, this study identified strategic options for improving BSE programs and in designing
program enhancement that maximizes graduates’ competitive edge.

Methodology

3
 The study used a cross-sectional research method to compare the employability and
employment status of 2018, 2017, and 2016 BSE graduates (see Table 1). It data mined
secondary data from the Chairperson’s office, which were gathered by commissioned faculty to
tract graduates of every batch a few months after graduation. These data include their
position/rank, salaries, employers, year graduated, and month/year employed. For profiling
purposes, these data were analyzed using frequency and percentages to describe the
employability and employment status of these graduates. Employability is categorized as (1)
employable to non-permanent positions (within 1 to 6 mos.), (2) highly employable to
permanent positions (within 7 to 12 mos.), and (3) employable to permanent positions (13 mos.
and above). For cross-sectional analysis, the secondary data were processed and analyzed using
a t-test for independent samples and analysis of variance. Since the data were already available
at the office of the BSE chairperson, the study did not recruit graduates as participants. And so,
there was no need for the proponents to secure informed consent form from them. Instead, it
asked permission from the appropriate authorities to use the existing data for this research. The
study did not have any related risks. The names of the graduates are not revealed in the
manuscript.

Results and Discussion

Table 1. Percentage and Frequency Distribution of traced BSE graduates
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Batch Gender f(%) Curricular Programs Representatives(f/%) Total
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 Male 29(27.88) BSE-BioSci 12 (11.5) 104
Female 75(72.11) BSE-English 20 (19.2)
BSE-Filipino 24 (23.1)
BSE-Math 8 (7.7)
BSE-SocStud 40 (38.5)
2017 Male 24(22.9) BSE-BioSci 14 (13.33) 105
Female 81(77.1) BSE-English 25 (23.80)
BSE-Filipino 25 (23.80)
BSE-Math 24 (22.85)
BSE-SocStud 17 (16.19)
2016 Male 31(26.49) BSE-BioSci 12 (10.03) 117
Female 86(73.50) BSE-English 37 (31.6)
BSE-Filipino 11 (9.4)
BSE-Math 14 (12.0)
BSE-SocStud 34 (29.1)
BPEd 9 (7.7)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1 illustrates the number of graduates involved in the tracer study. As reflected
below, it covered three batches. In the 2016 tracer, it included the BPE-SPE program, while it

4
was not included in the 2017 and 2018 tracking, respectively. As noticed, females outnumbered
males across three batches. In 2018, many of them came from the Social Studies program. For
the 2017 batch, English, Filipino, and Math are almost equally represented. For 2016, English
and Social Studies have greater representations than other curricular programs. In 2016, there
were 136 graduates from all curricular programs, and the tracer included 117. This means that
the tracing involved 86.02% of this batch. For the batch 2017, there were 156 graduates and it
traced 104 which is 67.30% of the batch’s members. For the 2018 batch, the College of
Education had produced 224 graduates and 104 of them or 46. 42% were involved.
Regardless of the programs, employability of 2018, 2017, and 2016 BSE graduates into
three. Largely, more than 70% of the 2018 graduates were employable to non-permanent
positions/jobs within the first six months after graduation. This is so since at this time they do
not have a license yet, which is the requirement in the practice of their profession and
employment in public schools. This means that most of the 2018 graduates had jobs a few
months after graduation. It is assumed that they did this to gain experience, which is needed for
applying for a permanent teaching position at the Department of Education. Most of the time,
graduates during these months are preparing for the September licensure examination. This is a
regular schedule for graduates of Teacher Education programs. This resulted in very few (4.8)
who were highly employable to permanent positions within 7 to 12 months. More than 10% did
not indicate the date they were employed.

Table 2. Clustered Employability Profile of the 2018, 2017, and 2016 BSE Graduates
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Batch Clusters f % Qualitative Description
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 Within 1-6 mos. 73 70.3 Employable to non-permanent positions
Within 7-12 mos. 5 4.8 Highly employable to permanent positions
Within 13 mos. or so 15 14.4 Employable to permanent positions
Not indicated 11 10.6 -
2017 Within 1-6 mos. 41 39.1 Employable to non-permanent positions
Within 7-12 mos. 21 20.0 Highly employable to permanent positions
Within 13 mos. or so 27 25.7 Employable to permanent positions
Not indicated 16 15.2 -
2016 Within 1-6 mos. 38 32.9 Employable to non-permanent position
Within 7-12 mos. 5 4.7 Highly employable to permanent positions
Within 13 mos. or so 64 54.7 Employable to permanent positions
Not indicated 10 8.5 -
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The employability of the 2017 BSE graduates is also shown in Table 2. Close to 40% were
employable to non-permanent positions. This is far behind compared to the 2018 batch.
Moreover, 20% of this batch was highly employable to permanent positions. These statistics are
four times greater than those in the 2018 Batch. Approaching to 26% were employable to

5
permanent positions within 7 to 12 months. Again, this is greater than those from 2018
graduates.
For the 2016 batch, almost 30% were employable to non-permanent positions. Note that
the statistics of those who were highly employable to permanent positions were almost the
same as those in the 2018 batch. Lastly, close to 50% of this batch was clustered as employable
to permanent positions. Comparing this with the 2018 and 2917 graduates, there were more
graduates from batch 2016 who had landed permanent jobs a year or so after they had
graduated from college. But this does not mean that the 2016 graduates are more employable
than the other batches. This simply means that the 2018 graduates preferred to settle a job a
few months after graduation, even if these jobs are non-permanent and there is no job security.
Many from this batch prefer to have experience before taking the board examination. Woya
(2019) unveiled that 82.3% of their statistics graduates were employed, while 17.75% suffered
from unemployment. This study revealed further that there is a percentage of graduates who
were yet employed and never been employed. Among IT people, 71.88% of the graduates were
employed (Javier, 2015).

Table 3. Employability Profile of 2018, 2017, and 2016 Graduates by Curricular Programs
_______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________
Batch/Programs Clustered Employability
Within 1-6 mos. Within 7-12 mos. Within 13 mos. Missing Actual Total
f (%) f(%) and above f(%)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 BSE-BioSci 6(49.66) 5(41.66) 0(0.0) 1 11 12
BSE-English 20(100.0 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0 20 20
BSE-Filipino 16(66.66) 0(0.0) 7(29.16) 1 23 24
BSE-Math 4(57.14) 0(0.0) 2(28.57) 2 6 8
BSE-SocStud 27(67.5) 0(0.0) 6(15.0) 7 33 40
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
2017 BSE-BioSci 1(7.14) 12(85.71) 1(7.14) 0 14 14
BSE-English 8(32.0) 7(28.0) 9(36.0) 1 24 25
BSE-Filipino 8(32.0) 0(0.0) 11(44.0) 6 19 25
BSE-Math 19(79.16) 0(0.0) 1(4.16) 4 20 24
BSE-SocStud 5(29.41) 2(11.76) 5(29.41) 5 12 17
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
2016 BSE-BioSci 8(66.33) 0(0.0) 4(33.33) 0 12 12
BSE-English 9(24.32) 4(10.81) 23(62.16) 1 36 37
BSE-Filipino 3(27.27) 0(0.0) 6(54.54) 2 9 11
BSE-Math 2(14.28) 0(0.0) 9(64.28) 3 11 14
BSE-SocStud 14(41.19) 1(2.94) 17(50.0) 2 32 34
BPed 2(22.22) 0(0.0) 5(55.55) 2 7 9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: 1-6 mos. Employable to non-permanent positions; 7-12 mos. Highly employable permanent positions; 13 mos. or above-less
Employable to permanent positions

6
 Table 3 presents more specific information on which curricular programs are more
employable within the first six months and the second six months or so. For the 2018 batch,
100% of the English group was employed within the first six months after graduation. More than
50% of the Social Studies and Filipino graduates were employed in the same period.
For the batch 2017, a great number (79.16%) of the math graduates had been employed
within the first six months. Many (85.71%) of the BioSci graduates had been employed between
7 and 12 months after they graduated, and more than 40% of the Filipino majors were
employed on the 13th month or later. As can be noticed in batch 2016, most of the BioSci
graduates were employed in the first six months, while BPEd, English, and Filipino graduates
were employed after a year they graduated. Across programs, a few had the jobs in the second
six months after graduation. No one was employed from the BioSci, Filipino, and BPEd groups
during this period.
A study found that Science majors are the most employable graduates, while Math
majors can diversify their talents (Boholano, 2012). However, Baking et al. (2015) rejected a null
hypothesis stating a significant difference in employability across curricular programs. Therefore,
all graduates from all degree programs are equally employable. Most of the BSE graduates
(53.6%) were employed within the first six months after graduation (Navida, 2017). Domingo
(2013) exposed that the majority of graduates were employed locally and a quarter waited for at
least a month to six months before hired. Abarro (2017), it turned out that BSE Physical
Education and Musicmajors had the highest employment of 86.67%, while BSE General and
Biological Science majors had the lowest employment of 61.84%.
As can be observed in Table 4, most (89.4%) of the 2018 BSE graduates had jobs relevant
to their education and training since most of them had mostly experienced teaching in private
schools. Less than ten percent (9.6%) had a job not relevant to their education and training.
However, it can be noticed that most (88.5%) of them had a temporary status of employment.
Only very few (9.6%) had permanent employment. As argued above, this was because they were
still about to take the licensure examination within the first six months after graduation.
For the 2017 graduates, many (81.9%) of them also had the relevant work experience,
teaching in private schools, while more than ten percent (11.4%) had work experience not
relevant to their education and training. Noticeably, there are close statistics between those who
had permanent (40%) and non-permanent (53.3%) employment. After three years (2016-2019),
the 2016 graduates have almost similar statistics to those who graduated in 2018 when it comes
to graduates who had employment relevant and not relevant to their education and training.
Currently, most (60.7%) of the 2016 graduates have permanent jobs. This means that many of
them have landed jobs in the Department of Education or State Colleges and Universities.
Generally, the percentage of those who landed a permanent job increased as graduates had
more years after graduation. This is so since they have acquired more years of experience.
A study found that majority of graduates had landed jobs aligned with pre-service
preparations (Baking et al.,2015). Further, Napallaton et al. (2017) found that most graduates
had regular employment status. A great of the BEEd graduates were found employed in the field
of teaching. Also, Aquino et al. (2015) traced that majority of Teacher Education graduates had
employment relevant to their degrees. Moreover, Woya (2019) presented that 65.8% of the
employed graduates had permanent work, while a portion (16.5%) had temporary jobs. In

7
Abarro (2017), both the BSE and BEE graduates were found employable, in particular, 74.24%
were employed, 11.86% were underemployed, a few of them were (8.81%) were self-employed,
and a small portion (5.09%) were unemployed. Likewise, Caῇiares (2015) showed that 72.1% of
their Science and Mathematics graduates had full and permanent employment, while 18.9% had
full and non-permanent. Only a portion (2.3%) was in part-time jobs. It was also indicated that
83.7% had teaching-related jobs, while the other portion (9.3%) had non-teaching jobs.

Table 4. Distribution of Position and Employment Status of the 2018, 2017, and 2016 BSE
Graduates
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Batch Position Employment Status
f % f %
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 Teacher 93 89.4 Permanent 10 9.6
Not a Teacher 10 9.6 Non-Permanent 92 88.5
Not indicated 1 1.0 Not indicated 2 1.9
______________________________________________________________________________________
2017 Teacher 86 81.9 Permanent 42 40.0
Not a teacher 12 11.4 Non-permanent 56 53.3
Not indicated 7 6.7 Not indicated 7 6.7
______________________________________________________________________________________
2016 Teacher 105 89.7 Permanent 71 60.7
Not a teacher 11 9.4 Non-Permanent 45 38.5
Not indicated 1 .9 Not indicated 1 .9
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

In Table 5, there are two types of employers of employed graduates regardless of

whether the jobs are teaching or non-teaching-related. Very few of the 2018 graduates were
employed in the public sector, while most of them were employed in the private sector. For the
2017 batch, there very close numbers between government and private employers. Lastly, most
of the 2016 graduates were employed in government and some of them were in the private
sector. These results suggest that as these graduates accumulate relevant work experiences,
they would likely seek employment in government agencies, especially schools. As argued
above, it took time for graduates to land permanent employment in government because the
hiring and raking process requires teaching experience. This argument is based on testimonies
among in-service teachers in the government.
Aquino et al. (2015) traced that majority of Teacher Education graduates were employed
in public schools. This was also true in another that reported that most of the BEEd graduates
were employed by government agencies (Napallaton et al., 2017). Besides, most (61.19%) of the
BSE and BEE graduates were employed in public schools, while a small number (38.81%) was
employed in private schools (Abarro, 2017). Those with teaching-related jobs, the majority

8
(53.5%) were employed in public secondary schools, some (27.9%) private secondary schools,
and a few (2.3%) in private/public college or university (Caῇiares, 2015).

Table 5. Distribution of Employers of the 2018, 2017, and 2016 BSE Graduates
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Batch Government Private Not Indicated Total
f % f % f %
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 22 21.2 82 78.8 0 0.0 104
2017 52 49.5 49 46.7 4 3.8 105
2016 69 59.0 47 40.2 1 .9 117
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tables 2 and 3 above set the parameters for comparing the three batches as to their
employability. Table 6 below prepares further comparison of the batch groupings, curricular
programs, and gender. Notice that the average months of employability among these batches
explain further that the 2018 graduates preferred employment a few months (3.54 mos.) after
graduation than the other two batches. They are the type of graduates who love to acquire
experience even if they do not have a license to practice their profession. As evidenced in Table
5, most of them had landed private employment. Most of the 2017 graduates were employed
within nine (9.36) months after graduation. These graduates had landed jobs after they had
taken the board examination. Therefore, between February and March in the following year,
most of them were already hired. This is the time that schools started hiring teachers for the
next school year. This is the batch prefers to apply for a job when they are highly employable
already to permanent jobs. On the other hand, most of the 2016 graduates had landed jobs
between 14 and 15 (14.52 mos.) months after graduation. This batch graduated in March 2016.
Thus, they were hired between April and May 2017. The differences in the employability of these
batches are further presented in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 6. Average Employability of BSE Graduates

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Batch N Mean SD SE Employability
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 94 3.54 4.74 .48 Employable to non-permanent jobs
2017 87 9.36 7.86 .84 Highly employable to permanent jobs
2016 101 14.52 10.50 1.04 Employable to permanent jobs

9
Total 282 9.27 9.30 .55 Highly employable to permanent jobs
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 7 presents the results of the analysis of variance, which compares the
employability of three batches (2016-2018) of BSE graduates. F statistics (F = 44.438, df=2, p
<.05) revealed significant differences in their employability. At this level, it is not clear which
grouped vary significantly. When the 2016 and 2017 graduates are compared, the mean
difference in employability is 5.15694* (5 mos.). This difference is statistically significant at the
0.05 level. Thus, 2017 graduates are more employable to permanent jobs than their
counterparts.
Table 7. Analysis of Variance Comparing Employability of the Three Batches of Graduates
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Groups Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F Sig.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Between Groups 5783.227 2 2936.614 44.439 .000
Within Groups 18, 346. 748 279 66.082
Total 24, 309. 975 281
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comparing the 2016 and 2018 graduates, it turned out that the difference was more than 10
months. This difference was also statistically significant. This suggests that the 2018 graduates
can be employed earlier than the 2016 graduates. But again, the tendency is that these
graduates are likely to land non-permanent jobs since they do not have a license yet within the
first three months. However, there would be more 2016 graduates who would land in
permanent jobs since they applied for jobs after a year or so. The 2017 and 2018 graduates
were compared as to their employability. The mean difference shows a significant difference in
their employability. This difference is almost six months. These results strengthened the claims
made earlier.

Table 8. Post Hoc Test Results Comparing the Employability of BSE Graduates
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Compared Batches Mean Difference SE Sig.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
2016 batch 2017 batch 5.15694* 1.18905 .000
2018 batch 10.98220* 1.16502 .000
2017 batch 2016 batch -5.15694* 1.18905 .000
2018 batch 5.825268* 1.20936 .000
2018 batch 2016 batch -10.98220* .16502 .000
2017 batch -5.825268* 1.20936 .000
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*The Mean Difference is significant at the 0.05 level

10
Table 9. T-Test for Independent Results Comparing Employability Using Gender Across Batches
of BSE Graduates
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Batch Gender N Mean SD SE df t sig
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
2018 Male 20 2.75 3.63 .74272 91 -.823 .413
Female 69 3.65 4.91 .59151
2017 Male 19 9.68 6.04 1.38719 85 .197 .844
Female 68 9.27 8.33 1.01006
2016 Male 29 13.65 10.40 1.93189 100 -.531 .597
Female 73 14.87 10.51 1.23124
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 9 displays the results of comparing the employability of 2018, 2017, and 2016 BSE
graduates using their gender. To take a closer look, there was no significant difference in the
employability of male and female BSE graduates across the three batches. These results confirm
the claim of the Aspiring Minds (2016) that both males and females are equally employable.
Thus, gender cannot be a factor of employability. It does not matter if graduates are male or
female. Employability might be influenced by other factors, except for gender. Based on the
United Nations Development Programme’s gender equality index, the Philippine Commission
on Women (2019) indicated two-year data. The country sustained its rank (14 th) in economic
participation and opportunity, while it plunged its rank in educational attainment from the 1 st to
the 37th. With the overall rank in 2019 (ranked 8 th), the 2020 performance indicates a decline
(ranked 16th).
Napallaton et al. (2017) reported that more females are employed in private and public
agencies than males. Employability among IT graduates was predominant among single and
young females (Javier, 2015). It was inferred that “employment and underemployment of youth
generally appeared to be dichotomous and is largely a function of gender. Gender typecasting
is ubiquitous, especially in rural areas. While more males are working, more females are
housebound and likely [care] children” (International Labor Organization, 2009, p. 22).

Conclusion
This tracer study concluded that many of the 2018 BSE graduates were employable to
non-permanent positions compared to the 2017 and 2016 graduates. These individuals were
employed within the first six months after graduation. Moreover, there were more 2017
graduates highly employable to permanent positions than those who graduated in 2018 and
2016. This is true within the period between 7 and 12 months after graduation. It was also
noticed that there was a trend in the number of graduates who were employable to permanent
positions within the thirteen months or so.
As for the curricular program, many of the 2018 Social Studies graduates were employed
in the first six months after graduation, while there were many of the 2018 Biological Science
graduates employed in the first twelve months. For the 2017 batch, many of the Math
graduates were employed in the first six months, and a great number of the Biological Science

11
graduates were employed within 7 to 12 months after graduation. For the 2016 batch, most of
the Biological Science graduates were employed in the first six months and a greater proportion
of graduates from other programs were employed within 13 months or so.
Regarding employment status, most of 2018, 2017, and 2016 BSE graduates had jobs
relevant to their education and training. Experience would matter in obtaining a permanent job.
This is true since many of the 2016 graduates had permanent jobs compared to the later
batches. By practice and based on policy, DepEd hires applicants who have prior teaching
experience and license. The 2016 graduates had been exposed to the labor market for three
years now, while the 2017 and 2018 graduates had only been exposed to the labor market for
two years or one year, respectively.
Looking at the results, the study implies that the Guidance office may provide more
information on hiring and employers relevant to teaching so that right after graduation,
graduates can apply and be employed and practice their profession to schools that are not strict
to license requirements. The College of Education through relevant offices may provide more
training to graduating students relevant to the legalities of employment so that graduates are
grounded in policies and regulations as they practice their profession. To do this, the university
through the relevant office may establish more linkages that provide continuing education and
training to graduating students in preparation for employment.
It is recommended that there would be another tracer study that includes curriculum
evaluation in which graduates will look into the knowledge, skills, and values they acquired
through years of education at BukSU. They may also assess whether their knowledge, skills, and
values were useful or not in their current job. In this way, the university could revisit the
curriculum using the information that the graduates can provide in the tracer study.
It is highly suggested that there would be another tracer study that includes employers
or direct supervisors of graduates. This is to look into the efficacy of graduates and evaluate
whether they are more competitive with other workers in the workplace.

Cited References
[1] Aquino, A. B., Punongbayan, A. J., Macalaguim, L. P., Bauyon, S. M., Rodriquez, R. A., &
Quizon, G. R. (2015). Teacher Education Graduate Tracer Study from 2010 to 2014 in One
State University in Batangas, Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, 3(5), 45-50. https://bit.ly/2Rgv147
[2] Aspiring Minds. (2016). National Employability Report- Engineers: Annual Report 2016 .
Aspiring Minds. http://bit.ly/30yD66t
[3] Baking, E.G., Quiambao, D.T., Cruz, R.C., Buenviaje, L.M.B. Nicdao, R.C. & Nuqui, A.V. (2015).
Employability and productivity of graduates: An exploratory analysis of program
strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Economic Research, 1(1). 1-10.
http://bit.ly/30cZwtP
[4] Boholano, H. B. (2012). Employability of Teacher Education Graduates of an Asian Public University.
JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 9(1), 106-122. https://bit.ly/3bWi1ZB
[5] Caῇiares, M. J. F. (2015). Tracing University of San Carlos’ Science and Mathematics Education
Graduates: How are we in developing teacher professionals? International Journal of Research
Studies in Education, 4(2), 69-86. https://bit.ly/39JANSa

12
[6] Department of Education. (2017). DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017: Adoption and
Implementation of Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers . DepED.
https://bit.ly/32Ymg3w
[7] Domingo, D. D. (2013). MMSU Graduates’ Employability Status and Potentials. MMSU
Science and Technology Journal, 3(2), 34-54. http://bit.ly/2L2x4aF
[8] Finch, D. J., Peacock, M., Levallet, N. & Foster, W. (2016). A dynamic capabilities view of
employability. Education & Training, 58 (1), 61-81. http://bit.ly/2S0Hvfx
DOI:10.1108/ET-02-2015-0013
[9] Gedye, S. & Beaumont, E. (2018). The ability to get a job: student understandings and
definitions of employability. Education & Training, 10(5), 406-420. http://bit.ly/2XrzrFH
[10] Infante, J. G., Junco, E. P. & Marquez, M. C. (2014). Employment Status of the Graduates of
Guimaras State College, Philippines. IAMURE International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, 11. https://bit.ly/32ZFXb6
[11] International Labor Organization. (2009). Youth Employability Surveys in the Philippines: An
Integrative Report. ILO. https://bit.ly/2xTqptS
[12] Javier, B. S. (2015). Determinants of Employability of the Information Technology Graduates
in Cagayan State University, Philippines. The Countryside Development Research Journal,
3(1), 43-52. https://bit.ly/2xSmmy2
[13] Melink, M., & Pavlin, S. (2009 ). Employability of graduates and higher education
management systems. Slovenia: DEHEMS. https://bit.ly/2Xa7beh
[14] Napallaton, M. M., & Baquiller, G. E. (2017). Profile and Employability Performance of Jose
Rizal Memorial State University – Tampilisan Campus Bachelor of Elementary Education
Graduates. JPAIR Institutional Research Journal, 10(1), 45-53. https://bit.ly/2XhGCnD
[15] Navida, G. S. (2017). Employability of the Bachelor of Secondary Education Graduates of
Pangasinan State University Alaminos City Campus. Journal of Education, Management
and Social Sciences, 2(1), 1-6. https://bit.ly/2Xbzadp
[16] Philippine Commission on Women. (2019 ). Philippines drops 8 places in gender equality,
remains top in Asia. PCW. https://bit.ly/3e7Busa
[17] Philippine Statistical Authority. (2015). 2015 Annual Labor and Employment Status
(Preliminary results of the 2015 annual estimates). Philippines: Philippine Statistical
Authority. http://bit.ly/32lid0u
[18] Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). The impact of work-integrated learning on student
readiness. Final Report. Office for Learning and Teaching, Australia. http://bit.ly/2JHbBko
[19] Woya, A. A. (2019). Employability among Statistics Graduates: Graduates’ Attributes,
Competence, and Quality of Education. Education Research International, 1-7.

13