As A-level students in the UK find out their results today, they will no doubt be reassured that this year¡¯s university recruitment round is predicted to be the biggest ever.

But as the clearing system opens and students shop around for the best courses for them, it is worth asking whether universities as a whole are really doing enough to boost their students¡¯ employability ¨C particularly in relation to the campus environment.

Universities these days are often depicted as having a problem with free speech. The deeper issue, however, is not just about maintaining students¡¯ right to speak but about promoting their willingness to listen and to engage with complexity ¨C as professional people need to ¨C rather than being allowed to reduce every argument, whatever side of it they are on, to black-and-white thinking or ideological conformity.

I say that not only as a former student who once protested for causes I believed in, but also as someone who has worked extensively at senior and partner levels with diverse clients and in recruitment, mentoring and organisational development at one of the Big Four accounting firms.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Over decades of coaching individuals from entry-level roles to senior leadership, I¡¯ve come to understand what makes people thrive in a professional and business environment. That¡¯s why I¡¯m increasingly uneasy about the habits and assumptions some students are developing ¨C and the seeming reluctance of universities to engage with this challenge.

Passion and activism have always been part of university life and are often a powerful force for positive change, but too often now we see groupthink replacing curiosity, slogans standing in for study, and a disturbing decline in willingness to listen to and learn from opposing views.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Shouting down lecturers, disinviting outside speakers and resorting to personal attacks, whether online or in person, are increasingly normalised. In some instances, we¡¯ve even seen property damage and physical intimidation being excused as legitimate forms of protest.

What happens when young people steeped in this cancel culture graduate and start working for organisations that have values such as mutual respect, diversity of thought and constructive disagreement embedded in their core ethos?

In my experience, graduates unable to engage respectfully with clients or colleagues who hold different views struggle to settle, become increasingly isolated, and end up unhappy. Worse, they can sow discord and erode team cohesion, with damaging consequences for the organisation as a whole.

Universities are not doing enough to head off such problems. While some run excellent career readiness programmes or offer modules on ethics and communication, these initiatives are often narrowly focused or insufficiently integrated into the wider campus culture.

Institutions should be fostering not only their students¡¯ intellectual development but their behavioural readiness and willingness to listen and understand all perspectives. These soft skills are crucial to collaboration, negotiation, dealing with complexity and handling difference with integrity: attributes that all employers are looking for in graduates and that are also essential to the resilience and well-being of graduates themselves.

Instilling those skills should be a priority, not an afterthought for universities. And the good news is that a solution is within reach. I believe that a small working group, drawn from several higher education institutions and working collaboratively with representatives from business and the professions, could develop a comprehensive, structured, low-cost initiative that would meet the moment¡¯s need.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

I envisage a ¡°Preparing for a Successful Career¡± programme running across participating universities throughout the duration of students¡¯ degrees but parallel to standard teaching and delivered by outside speakers from business and governmental organisations to avoid placing even more strain on already stretched academics.

Despite its headline employability focus, the programme would in effect be a flexible one-stop shop to cover a wide range of relevant issues that also relate to good citizenship and living good lives more generally. For instance, binary ideologies and disruptive workplace behaviour would be indirectly dealt with by inviting speakers with strong views on both sides of contentious debates and requiring students to engage and deal practically with the complexity of those issues.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The course would be optional but the offer of certification of attendance would provide students with a strong incentive to attend: a label that would identify them to an employer as likely to behave according to its values. Moreover, a 2023 King¡¯s College London? showed that 71 per cent of students want their universities to create spaces where different perspectives can be heard and debated without fear or intimidation. That is what this programme would do.

But would employers and professional bodies step up to deliver it? I am confident that plenty would ¨C for several reasons. One is the reputational boost that would come with involvement in a national programme that promotes workplace readiness, intellectual engagement and broad thinking. Another is direct access to a pool of high-quality, motivated students, saving the cost of the recruitment marketing in which most serious employers already invest significantly.

Moreover, the burden for employers need not be heavy. Many firms already have lots of training or induction materials, such as role-playing exercises, that I am sure could easily be adapted. Sessions could be delivered in person, via video or through written resources, and content such as talks, panel discussions and Q&A sessions could be recorded and shared across all participating universities, ensuring scalability and cost-efficiency.

Many speakers ¨C particularly those with strong or provocative views on the contentious topical issues ¨C are likely to welcome the opportunity to present to a serious and diverse student audience. Indeed, the value of that platform may often trump any expectation of a speaking fee.

But signing them up will depend on clear and visible backing for the programme from university leaders. Employers will want to be sure they?will not be wasting their time.

And they won¡¯t be. The transition from university to workplace is a critical one. Let us ensure we are equipping students not just to succeed academically but to thrive in and contribute to the world beyond.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

David Finn spent more than 20 years as a partner in one of the Big Four accounting firms, working in senior client-facing roles with UK and international clients. He was also responsible for staff and partner development, mentoring, and leadership training. He is happy to share a more detailed proposal with any institution or leader interested in exploring the idea further.