Graduate employability in India: Why Tier-1 colleges win bigger in non-tech jobs
A placement-season truth most colleges won’t advertise is this: Many college graduates are filtered out not for what they don’t know, but for what they cannot demonstrate under pressure, how they structure an answer, explain a choice, read a brief, or hold their nerve when the format is unfamiliar. The syllabus can be finished; the translation from knowledge to workplace output often isn’t. That translation is where college ecosystems quietly matter: not only lectures and notes, but the daily discipline of writing, presenting, debating, working in teams, and being assessed on clarity rather than recall.A tier-wise snapshot from the Mercer | Mettl India’s Graduate Skill Index 2025 offers a useful, if limited, window into this. It is not a final verdict on colleges or graduates, but it does show an uneven pattern: Tier-1 colleges lead overall, yet their advantage appears tighter in technical roles and wider in non-technical ones. The implication is not that one tier has ‘better students’, but that certain kinds of readiness—communication-heavy, judgement-heavy, presentation-heavy skills—are more strongly shaped by campus exposure and repeated practice than by content delivery alone.
The tier gap exists , but it isn’t a cliff
Start with the simple picture. In 2024, overall employability (as measured by the index) stands at 48.4% for Tier-1, 46.1% for Tier-2, and 43.4% for Tier-3. The numbers are too close to support the lazy morality tale—“elite campuses produce talent, the rest produce excuses”—and too far apart to be dismissed as statistical noise. They sit in that familiar grey zone: Enough separation to influence outcomes, not enough to explain the entire anxiety graduates feel in hiring funnels. So the real story isn’t the gap itself—it’s where the gap widens, and why.Employability isn’t just a labour-market verdict; it also reflects what colleges train students to do. Tiers reflect selection, yes. But they also reflect the “invisible curriculum”: How often students are made to write clearly, present arguments, work in teams, and make decisions under time pressure—skills that matter in hiring, but aren’t always taught or assessed seriously.Those tier differences also reflect exposure. Internships can be routine in some colleges and rare in others. Feedback can be detailed and corrective, or it can be cosmetic—a tick in the margin. Classrooms can simulate real work, with deadlines, ambiguity and trade-offs, or they can remain predictable exam spaces where questions arrive neatly framed. Read carefully, the dataset doesn’t tell you which college is “good”. It tells you what behaviours the system rewards, and what parts of job-readiness too many campuses still leave to chance outside the classroom.
Technical roles: Where the tier advantage shrinks
In technical roles, the tier spread tightens noticeably. Employability in technical roles in 2024 is 46.4% (Tier-1), 45.5% (Tier-2), and 43.0% (Tier-3).For a country obsessed with “top colleges”, this should land as a corrective. It suggests technical readiness—at least in the way the index measures it—is no longer a monopoly of elite campuses. Technical competence is travelling.Why might that be happening? This is because technical learning has become easier to distribute. Tool access is broader. Practice materials are abundant. Coding, testing and front-end pathways are reinforced by online ecosystems. Many colleges, across tiers, now teach similar foundations. When education becomes more standardised and skill pathways become clearer, the tier penalty shrinks.
Non-tech roles: Where Tier-1 pulls away harder
Now look at non-technical roles, and the tier advantage becomes more pronounced. In 2024, non-technical employability sits at 51.1% (Tier-1), 46.9% (Tier-2), and 44.2% (Tier-3). The index here is explicit on the direction: Tier-1 is higher across all non-technical roles, with Tier-3 lagging across the set. This spread is telling because non-tech hiring is rarely a straight test of subject knowledge. It is often a test of workplace readability: Can a graduate interpret a brief, structure an argument, write cleanly, speak with clarity, and defend choices without collapsing into vagueness? These are not “soft” add-ons. They are the working parts of many entry roles in marketing, HR, operations and business functions. The point is not that Tier-2 or Tier-3 graduates lack talent. It is that the ecosystem advantages of Tier-1 colleges—more frequent presentations, stronger peer benchmarking, greater internship density, and routine exposure to professional feedback—tend to train these behaviours more consistently.In campuses where evaluation remains heavily exam-shaped, students may graduate with knowledge but with fewer chances to practise performance under real constraints. That is why the non-tech gap expands: The hiring filter is not only asking what you know, but how well you can show it.
Why digital marketing still rewards Tier-1 campuses
If one role captures this tier behaviour cleanly, it is digital marketing. The index puts employability for a digital marketer at 55.1% for Tier-1, 47.9% for Tier-2, and 41.8% for Tier-3.This is striking precisely because digital marketing is widely marketed as accessible: Courses, tools, templates, certifications. Yet the tier penalty persists. That suggests hiring filters here are not purely about tool familiarity. They’re about professional output: How you frame a problem, write a brief, interpret data without hand-holding, defend trade-offs, communicate results, and sound credible while doing it.Tier-1 aspirants have a training advantage here. And it often comes from a campus ecosystem that forces students into repeated performance situations that are not optional.
The real tier gap is what colleges rehearse
The uncomfortable takeaway is not that Tier-1 graduates are “better” or that Tier-3 graduates are “behind”. It is that employability increasingly rewards what colleges routinely rehearse. Where skills can be demonstrated cleanly—especially in technical roles—the tier penalty narrows. Where hiring depends on judgement, writing, persuasion and professional clarity, the tier advantage widens. The tier gap is not a mysterious market bias; it is the predictable outcome of what colleges choose to value and assess. In that sense, employability functions like a sorting mechanism that rewards prior advantage under the neutral language of “fit”. It privileges the student who has had repeated exposure to professional codes and punishes the student who has been trained mainly to comply with exam patterns.
