Article

Industry and Higher Education

1–10
Factors affecting placement and hiring ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
decisions: A study of students’ perceptions sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0950422220950191
journals.sagepub.com/home/ihe

Meenakshi Dhingra
Ansal University, India

Subhash C Kundu
Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, India

Abstract
This paper assesses students’ perceptions concerning the level of campus placement activities of their higher education
institution (HEI) and determines the order of importance of various factors, as perceived by students, relating to
employers’ selection criteria. Primary data based on the responses of 621 students in 29 HEIs operating in the
National Capital Region of India, were analysed using statistical tools such as average, t-test and Garrett Ranking. The
t-test results indicated that students’ perceptions across the five demographics under study were significantly different.
Further, the Garrett Ranking method revealed that students perceived performance in the interview as the most
important factor affecting their selection or rejection by employers during campus placements. The findings should
assist educational institutions in formulating an effective campus placement process and students in preparing for their
transition to the labor market. Moreover, companies engaging in campus placements will obtain a better understanding of
students’ perceptions regarding their hiring decisions. The major implication of the study is that the gap in perception
between students and employers needs to be bridged through collaboration between HEIs and industry.

Keywords
Campus placement, employers’ hiring decisions, graduate employability, Garrett ranking, student perceptions

The Indian economy currently has a surplus of labor sup- very beneficial as they relieve them from the task of job
ply, with a large number of students graduating every year searching and they have a firm prospect of employment on
and entering the labor market (Kramarz and Skans, 2014; completion of their final academic semester.
Liagouras et al., 2003; Liu-Farrer and Shire, 2020; Tom- Campus placement is a process through which compa-
linson, 2008). The students typically expect their institu- nies visit educational institutions to recruiting graduating
tions to offer them placements by the end of their study students and offering placements to the most deserving
program and that they will get the job of their choice. They applicants before the completion of their degree program.
also have certain perceptions about the expectations of Thus students, the recruiting companies and the higher
employers visiting the campus for placements that will educational institution are the major stakeholders in the
affect the decision to select or reject their application. The campus placement process (Neill and Mulholland, 2003).
primary aim of any educational institution is to provide a Campus recruitment provides an opportunity for the build-
contribution to national progress by creating a healthy ing of sustainable relationships between these stakeholders.
knowledge pool and providing job opportunities for young The process helps students in their career exploration and
people. Institutions therefore organize campus recruitment career path considerations just before they enter the labor
and placement activities in collaboration with various com- market – and they have a chance to select the employers
panies in an effort to find appropriate placements for their
students and at the same time build their brand worth. The
Corresponding author:
companies need fresh and energetic recruits who can be Meenakshi Dhingra, Sushant School of Business, Ansal University, Sector
turned into high-quality and profit-generating human 55, Gurugram 122011, Haryana, India.
resources. For the students, such placement activities are Email: [email protected]
2 Industry and Higher Education XX(X)

and the jobs of their choice. It also helps them to become for career development. Correspondingly, institutions are
aware of the required professional skills and employers’ expected to provide an appropriate environment and prac-
expectations, thus enhancing their knowledge of the world tical guidance to enhance their students’ employability
of work, increasing their confidence and enabling them to (Kandiko and Mawer, 2013).
develop individually through training on particular skills Against this background, we found that very few studies
development and interview techniques. had been conducted by researchers on a similar basis to
Campus placement activities shed light on the level of ascertain students’ perceptions about campus placement
students’ employability through the results of the interview and the factors affecting their selection or rejection by
and employers’ feedback (Shenoy and Aithal, 2016). It is employers visiting the campus. In addition, most of those
therefore important to explore the perceptions of students studies were conducted in a Western context (Beck and
with regard to campus placements and the corporate world Kosnik, 2002; Boyle et al., 2007; Cleak and Smith, 2012;
in order to ensure a smooth transition from academia to Crebert et al., 2004; Dancza et al., 2013; Neill and Mulhol-
industry (Prikshat et al., 2019). land, 2003; Shen and Herr, 2004; Taliaferro and DeCuir-
In addition to the formal course structure, students are Gunby, 2008; Venezia et al., 2010). We found very few
expected to acquire additional skills and practical experi- theoretical studies pertaining to the Indian context specif-
ence to improve their employability through various extra- ically or more generally to the Asian context (Abd-Razak
curricular activities, industrial visits, internships and work et al., 2011; Shenoy and Aithal, 2016; Tan, 2013). Stu-
placement opportunities (Kandiko and Mawer, 2013). dents’ perceptions in the West about factors affecting pla-
According to Renganathan et al. (2012), students consider cement and hiring decisions may differ from those of their
an internship experience as one of the important factors Asian counterparts because of differences in values and
contributing to their employability. Different companies culture. To address this gap in research, therefore, this
have different selection procedures and criteria, including study was conducted with two objectives:
pre-placement discussion, written tests, group discussion,
personality tests and interviews. Thus students also have 1) to analyse students’ perceptions of the campus pla-
perceptions about employers’ selection or rejection criteria cement activities of their institution; and
and try to prepare themselves accordingly. 2) to assess students’ perceptions of the factors affect-
However, students need to be increasingly vigilant with ing their selection or rejection by employers visit-
regard to employers’ hiring and selection decisions, as Dar- ing the campus.
win’s theory of the survival of the fittest is very much
applicable in the current scenario (Sharma, 2019). Today,
most students achieve decent scores and appropriate sub- Literature review
ject knowledge; however, employers are now looking for
additional basic and soft skills that they consider essential Darwinian theory and its applicability
for effective performance in the workplace (Baird and Darwin expounded the theory commonly known as the
Parayitam, 2019). Baird and Parayitam (2019) identified “survival of the fittest” in his On the Origin of Species,
the top six skills that employers wanted as: interpersonal published in 1859. In summary, the theory holds that “the
skills, problem-solving skills, listening skills, communica- individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce
tion skills, professionalism and personal motivation. These perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant
priorities are also important for HEIs: the more students populations” (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, n.d.; see also
who find placements, the more the institution’s brand worth Rogers 1972) for a discussion of biological and social Dar-
is raised, making it more attractive for student enrolment winism). Much has been written in recent years about the
and increasing the competition among employers to recruit need to adapt to change. Lin et al. (2010), for example,
talented graduates (Raya et al., 2015). argued that in our current environment, there is change in
Therefore, it is helpful to investigate students’ perspec- every aspect of life and so, to live in such an environment,
tives concerning institutional effectiveness, which in turn we have to learn to adapt to changes rapidly and efficiently.
may provide sensible guidance to educational administra- Bringing this broad view to bear on the focus of this paper,
tors aiming to serve students more effectively (Salahu-Din, Hanchinal (2014) and Sharma (2019) stressed the fact that
1988). The service quality of universities can be best mon- in the modern world, where there is intense competition,
itored by assessing students’ perceptions about the quality “ability” involves additional skills, and more particularly
of higher education (Rezaei et al., 2017). Obviously, stu- employability or soft skills.
dents’ choice of institution is largely influenced by their Gupta (2011) noted that, with an increasing number of
perceptions of that institution (Shah et al., 2013). Through- HEIs offering management, engineering and other profes-
out all study disciplines, the main objective of students who sional courses, competition is becoming more intense,
embark on higher education is to improve their career pros- again bringing to mind Darwinian theory and the survival
pects and they regard their degree program as the pathway of the fittest. Gupta’s study also argued that, to be among
Dhingra and Kundu 3

the “fittest” HEIs need a strong interface with industry, an potential employee’s knowledge, capabilities, skills, per-
effective placement mechanism and a good placement sonality and value orientations with respect to the job
record. Adaptation to the dynamic and competitive envi- requirements have been identified as the key criteria for
ronment is the only way to survive in the long term and to hiring and selection (Caldwell and O’Reilly, 1990;
have a chance of becoming a dominant player in the field of Kristof-Brown, 2000; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Schmitt and
education. Chan, 1998). Schmitt and Chan (1998), however, contend
that, rather than matching the job description with an indi-
vidual’s knowledge skills abilities (KSA), it is more impor-
Campus placement quality tant to understand the nature of the hiring procedure and
Students’ perceptions of the quality of an institution depend what influences it.
on various factors. According to Kealy and Rockel (1987), Jusoh et al. (2007) identified prominent gaps between
students’ satisfaction with and perceptions of their col- employers’ demands and graduates’ skills and abilities; how-
lege’s qualities depend on the information from significant ever, employers were satisfied with the potential of fresh
people, written materials and, most importantly, from graduates. Generally, an employer aims to select the best-fit
recruitment activities and programs. A report of India’s candidate based on merit rather than on the basis of acquain-
National Association of Software and Service Companies tances or references (Mulligan, 2017). Dhingra (2018) found
(NASSCOM, 2011) found that only 25 per cent of students that performance at the interview is most important for
graduating in India possessed the requisite employability employers’ that attend campus placement events, followed
skills – this compels business corporations to target the by the resume presentation and internship experience. Dhin-
most talented students despite the availability of a large gra (2018) also found that the letter of application and external
student base (Dhingra, 2017). Raya et al. (2015) found that recommendations were of negligible importance, while spe-
human resources managers placed greater importance on cialization, academic scores and the reputation of the institu-
the improvement of the soft skills of graduates so that they tion moderately affected selection decisions during campus
could communicate their subject knowledge. Kandiko and recruitment. El-Temtamy et al. (2016) found that marks, cam-
Mawer (2013) observed that students were not satisfied pus location and the subject of study positively supported
with their institutional offerings and expected value for graduate employability and increased the chances of employ-
money in the form of improved employability and an abil- ment on graduation. Capobianco (2009) highlights that less
ity to meet labor market expectations. Chimes and Gordon importance is given to the academic institution’s reputation
(2008) stressed the need to remove misconceptions about by employers than is usually assumed by prospective students
universities through visits to organizations planning to when they are choosing an HEI.
attend campus placement events, thus forging better con- Additionally, Matsouka and Mihail (2016) investigated
nections with the recruiters and personalizing the process. the perceptions of employers and students and established
Shenoy and Aithal (2016) identified challenges students that soft skills, as well as hard skills, were considered impor-
faced during campus placements and found that they were tant for success in the labor market. They also found that
unhappy with the procedures, as they were forced to adjust students generally overestimated their abilities while employ-
their attitude and personality to match the requirements of ers highlighted deficiencies in fresh graduates. On similar
corporate culture. They were also dissatisfied with the lines, Nwajiuba et al. (2020) emphasize that enhancing grad-
unstable framework of the campus recruitment and corporate uates’ employability skills must be given more attention by all
tie-ins of their institutions. Shenoy and Aithal (2016) also key stakeholders of higher education institutions (HEIs). The
noted that institutions faced problems in managing campus study identified a strong need to develop an academic culture
recruitment activities – such as providing adequate facilities that is conducive to HEI–industry–government collaboration
(e.g. a suitable auditorium, separate rooms for different inter- and that academic administrators, faculties and policy makers
view rounds of interviews, microphones, speakers, etc) for needed to focus on designing curricula that would enable the
visiting corporations; uncertainty about the number of selec- teaching of employability skills.
tions; making time for the placement process and prepara-
tion from the limited period of the semester; no right of
intervention by the HEI after the final campus selections; Research methodology
and the lack of a dedicated campus recruitment framework
between the institution and corporations. Sample
The current study is based on primary data collected
through a questionnaire survey administered to students
Factors affecting employers’ selection decision in the final year of MBA and B. Tech programs. A wide-
Several studies have highlighted factors considered by ranging list of 79 HEIs delivering vocational education in the
employers at the time of hiring graduates, with most focus- National Capital Region was prepared from newspapers,
ing on personality traits and skills. Most commonly, a magazines, and the website of the All India Council for
4 Industry and Higher Education XX(X)

Table 1. Sample distribution and characteristics (N ¼ 621). assessment on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “very
poor” (1) to “excellent” (5). For the t-test, this measure was
Variables Categories Frequency Percentage
used as the dependent variable.
1. Gender Male 321 51.7
Female 300 48.3 Factors influencing employers’ hiring decisions. Based on the
2. Discipline Management 332 53.5 literature review, nine major factors affecting employers’
Engineering 289 46.5 hiring decisions were included in the questionnaire and
3. Type of institute Government 215 34.6 respondents rated each of these factors on a 5-point Likert
Private 406 65.4 scale, ranging from “not at all important” (1) to “extremely
4. Regional Rural 99 15.9 important” (5). The nine factors were: resume, internship
background Urban 522 84.1 experience, specialization, employability skills, academic
5. Language of school English 595 95.8 scores, recommendations, letter of application, performance
education Hindi 26 4.2 in interview, and school attended. In selecting these factors
6. Project in hand Yes 243 39.1 we drew on the studies of Baird, 2016 (resume, internship
No 378 60.9 experience, specialization, academic scores, recommenda-
7. Job offer Yes 349 56.2 tions, letter of application, performance in interview, and
No 272 43.8 school attended) and Jackson, 2013 (employability skills).
All items in the questionnaire are shown in Appendix 1.
Source: Primary survey.

Statistical techniques
Technical Education (AICTE). The institutions were selected
on the basis of their location and the courses available (i.e. To analyse the data collected, descriptives (frequency, per-
MBA and B. Tech). Initially, emails were sent to the Head or centage, mean, standard deviation and standard error of
Dean of the Management and Engineering Departments of mean), the t-test and Garrett ranking were used. The
the HEIs, using email addresses available on the institution’s descriptives and t-test were used to assess the differences
website or located through LinkedIn and other professional between two means. Garrett ranking was used to determine
networking sites. Then the appropriate day and time for con- the most significant factor(s) influencing hiring decisions
ducting the survey were agreed by telephone. and to identify preferences among the factors (Dhanavan-
Questionnaires were administered to 900 students dan, 2016). Generally, this technique is used when respon-
(approximately 40 per institution) and efforts were made to dents are asked to assign a rank to different factors and
obtain equal responses from both management and engineer- rankings are then converted into scores (Unas and Kumar,
ing students. In order to reduce response biases, respondents 2015). SPSS version 25.0 was used in this study. Further-
were informed that there were no right or wrong answers to more, Garrett ranking was applied to calculate the ranks of
the statements in the questionnaires. Initially, 658 question- various factors by using the Garrett Conversion Table
naires were received from the students. Following a prelim- (https://www.scribd.com/doc/47487605/Henry-Garrett-
inary scrutiny, 37 were removed with to avoid probable errors Ranking-Techniques).
in the data analysis. Ultimately, we retained 621 usable
responses (from 28 institutions), generating a response rate Results
of 69%. This is considered appropriate for conducting
research in social sciences as it is above the threshold of Students’ perceptions of campus placement
52.7% (Baruch and Holtom, 2008). Table 1 presents the sam- Students enrolling in higher education look for some value
ple distribution and characteristics of the responding students. addition to their personality and knowledge which may ulti-
As can be seen from Table 1, 51.7% of the respondents mately lead to their selection by employers as they approach
were male, 53.5% were from the management stream and completion of their degree. They assume that their institute
65.4% were from private institutions. In addition, 84.1% plays a vital role in organizing placements for students.
were from an urban background and 95.8% of the respon- However, different students from different institutes have
dents had completed their schooling in English. different perceptions and opinions concerning the quality
of placement activities. In the present study, 56.2% of the
respondents had a job offer in hand prior to completion of
Measures their course and 39.1% were planning or were engaged in a
Perceptions of campus placement. One straightforward state- project for an organization (Table 1). Table 2 presents the
ment was used for assessing perceptions regarding the sta- responding students” perceptions of the campus placement
tus of the institution’s campus placement activities: “What activities of their HEI.
is your perception about your institution’s campus As can be seen, 44.3% believed that the campus place-
placement?” Respondents were asked to record their ment activities were “good,” 15.6% that they were very
Dhingra and Kundu 5

good, but only 8.4% rated the activities as “excellent.” On private institutions perceived the placement efforts of their
the other hand, 5.5% stated that the activities were “very institution as positive (x ¼ 3.16) and those from govern-
poor” and 26.2% that they were “poor.” These statistics ment institutions were dissatisfied (x ¼ 2.56). Additionally,
were further analysed by taking into account various demo- the values shown in Table 3 indicate that there was a sig-
graphics of the respondents. nificant difference (p  0.05) in the perceptions of students
from different regional backgrounds, with those from an
urban background (x ¼ 2.99) exhibiting more satisfaction
T-test results showing students’ perceptions across with the placement activities than those from a rural back-
ground (x ¼ 2.76). However, the difference in perceptions
various demographics
of students completing their school education in English
To obtain a better understanding of students’ perceptions of and Hindi, respectively, is not significant (p  0.05): as
their HEI’s campus placement activities, a t-test was car- shown in the Table 3, both the English (x ¼ 2.95) and Hindi
ried out across the demographic categories of study disci- (x ¼ 2.88) students considered campus placement activities
pline, gender and type of institution. Table 3 presents the to be below average, although the former were more satis-
t-values with significance levels and mean comparisons. fied than the latter.
The respective perceptions of management and engineering
students vary significantly (p  0.05), with the mean values
indicating that the management students were fairly posi-
Students’ perceptions of factors influencing hiring
tive about the campus placement activities, rating them as decisions
good (x ¼ 3.04) while the engineering students were some- In the course of their studies, many higher education stu-
x ¼ 2.85). The difference in perception
what dissatisfied ( dents fantasize about their dream jobs and make plans for
between female and male students is also significant (p  their careers. Almost all have certain perceptions about
0.10), with females (x ¼ 3.03) expressing greater apprecia- their potential selection or rejection by organizations that
tion of the placement activities than males (x ¼ 2.88), who visit the institution for campus placements. Some students,
considered the activities to be poorly managed. The differ- for example, believe that good academic scores will give
ence in the respective perceptions of students from private them an edge, some believe that it is the right attitude and
and government institutions is highly significant (p  confidence level during the interview that matter, and some
0.01), with the mean scores showing that the students from consider that gaining additional experience in the outside
world and recommendations from relatives or friends will
Table 2. Students” perceptions of their institution”s campus be of great advantage. In the present study, initially, it is
placement activities. through students’ perceptions that we have tried to identify
College campus placement Frequency Percentage the order of importance of factors affecting employers’
selection decisions during campus placement activities.
Very poor 34 5.5 Table 4 shows students’ perceptions of factors that in one
Poor 163 26.2 way or another affect employers’ selection or rejection deci-
Good 275 44.3 sions. Based on the mean scores in Table 4, we can see that
Very good 97 15.6
performance in the interview (x ¼ 4.34) is perceived as the
Excellent 52 8.4
most important factor, followed by the resume (x ¼ 3.98),
Source: Primary survey. internship experience (x ¼ 3.89), employability skills

Table 3. Students’ perceptions of campus placement across various demographics.

Demographics Categories N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Mean t-value Sig.

Discipline of study Management 332 3.04 1.032 0.057 2.379 0.018

Engineering 289 2.85 0.922 0.054
Gender Male 321 2.88 1.028 0.057 1.924 0.055
Female 300 3.03 0.934 0.054
Type of institution Government 215 2.56 0.899 0.061 7.463 0.000
Private 406 3.16 0.969 0.048
Regional background Rural 99 2.76 0.949 0.095 2.143 0.032
Urban 522 2.99 0.989 0.043
Language of school education English 595 2.95 0.979 0.040 0.354 0.723
Hindi 26 2.88 1.143 0.224

Source: Primary survey.

6 Industry and Higher Education XX(X)

Table 4. Means, standard deviations and standard error of Table 6. Percentage position and Garrett value.
factors.
S.No. 100(Rij–0.5)/Nj Calculated Value Garrett Value
Std. Std. Error
Factors N Mean Deviation Mean 1 100(1–0.5)/9 5.55 81
2 100(2–0.5)/9 16.67 69
School attended 621 2.95 1.306 0.052 3 100(3–0.5)/9 27.78 62
Specialization subject 621 3.79 0.840 0.034 4 100(4–0.5)/9 38.89 56
Academic score 621 3.55 1.022 0.041 5 100(5–0.5)/9 50 50
Internship experience 621 3.89 0.829 0.033
Recommendations 621 3.23 1.018 0.041 Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/47487605/Henry-Garrett-Ranking-
Resume 621 3.98 0.813 0.033 Techniques.
Letter of application 621 3.40 0.897 0.036
Performance in interview 621 4.34 0.777 0.031 internship experience as 1 and 205 ranked it 2, with none
Employability skills 621 3.86 0.591 0.024 perceiving it as of no importance. Finally, 140 students
Source: Primary survey. assigned rank 1 to the subject of specialization, 138 to the
school attended and 132 to academic scores.

Table 5. Students’ ranking of factors affecting their selection. Percentage position and Garrett value
Ranks given by An appropriate Garrett ranking formula was applied to the
respondents Garrett ranks (shown in Table 5) for the listed factors and
Factors affecting the
S. No. hiring decision 1 2 3 4 5 the corresponding Garrett values were calculated (Unas and
Kumar, 2015). The numbers for each factor given in Table 5
1 School attended 138 42 150 233 58 and the Garrett values given in Table 6 were multiplied (see
2 Specialization subject 140 237 224 16 4 Table 7) and row-wise summation was executed to obtain
3 Academic score 132 180 224 70 15
the total Garrett scores for all factors.
4 Internship experience 177 205 233 6 0
5 Recommendations 71 178 210 145 17


100 Rij  0:5
6 Resume 193 225 200 2 1 Percentage position ¼
7 Letter of application 65 209 275 53 19 Nj
8 Performance in interview 326 187 105 2 1
Rij ¼ Rank given for the ith variable by jth respondents
9 Employability skills 57 434 116 14 0
Nj ¼ Number of variables ranked by jth respondents
Source: Primary survey. The outcomes based on the percentage position formula
and Garrett ranking conversion table are shown in Table 6.
(x ¼ 3.86), specialization ( x ¼ 3.79), and academic
score (x ¼ 3.55), all of which are perceived as moderately Calculation of Garrett value and ranking
important. The school attended ( x ¼ 2.95), recommenda- Table 7 shows the calculation of total scores along with the
x ¼ 3.23), and letter of application (
tions ( x ¼ 3.40) are mean scores of the Garrett values calculated for each factor.
ranked lowest by the students. The table also shows the respective rankings of the factors
In order to obtain a more concise and verified view of affecting the selection of graduating students in the
the order of importance of these influencing factors from the National Capital Region during the campus placement pro-
students’ perspective, the ranking was calculated using the cess. The total and mean scores for all the specified factors
Garrett ranking method. Table 5 presents the ranking of are based on the frequency counts in Table 5 and the Gar-
factors based on the responses of the students, showing the rett table values in Table 6. The rankings in the last column
number of students (out of 621) giving the respective rank to of Table 7 are based on the calculated mean scores (total
each of the nine factors. A ranking of 1 means that the factor score/621). Performance in the interview emerges as an
is perceived as extremely important, with 2 indicating very extremely important factor and therefore is ranked 1. In
important, 3 important, 4 somewhat important and 5 not at order of importance, this is followed by: resume, internship
all important. The performance in the interview was ranked experience, specialization, employability skills, academic
1 by 326 respondents and 2 by 187 respondents, with only 1 scores, recommendations, letter of application and school
respondent assigning the lowest rank to this factor. The attended.
resume was ranked 1 by 193 students and 2 by 225 students,
with, again, only one student assigning the lowest rank to it.
Employability skills were ranked 1 by 57 students and 2 by
Discussion
434 students, with none of the respondents assigning the The study findings indicate that the majority of the students
lowest rank to this factor. Moreover, 177 students ranked are happy with the campus placement activities of their
Dhingra and Kundu 7

Table 7. Ranking of factors.

Ranks given by respondents

Total
S. No. Factors 1 2 3 4 5 Score Mean Score Rank

1 School attended 11178 2898 9300 13048 2900 39324 63.32 9

2 Specialization subject 11340 16353 13888 896 200 42677 68.72 4
3 Academic score 10692 12420 13888 3920 750 41670 67.10 6
4 Internship experience 14337 14145 14446 336 0 43264 69.67 3
5 Recommendations 5751 12282 13020 8120 850 40023 64.45 7
6 Resume 15633 15525 12400 112 50 43720 70.40 2
7 Letter of application 5265 14421 17050 2968 950 40654 65.47 8
8 Performance in interview 26406 12903 6510 112 50 45981 74.04 1
9 Employability Skills 4617 29946 7192 784 0 42539 68.50 5
Note: Mean score ¼ total score/621 or (N).
Source: Author’s compilation based on primary data and Garrett Ranking Conversion Table.

institutions, with a minority criticizing the activities. These the students were clearly aware that their performance in
findings are in contradiction to those of Shenoy and Aithal the interview and the additional skills they were able to
(2016), who found that students were very dissatisfied with exhibit at the time of campus hiring would ultimately help
the campus recruitment framework. Kandiko and Mawer them to survive and secure employment. Merely studying
(2013) also observed that students were not satisfied by at an expensive institution or possessing good recommen-
their institutional offerings and expected better value for dations and references, making a flashily designed letter of
money in the form of improved employability. application of the resume, recording good academic scores
This study also found that the management students were on the resume or simply securing an interview would be of
more positive about campus placement activities than were little help to them during campus placement activities. To
the engineering students. This may be due to a difference in survive and be successful, students must show their differ-
expectations of the institution, the levels of technical, subject ence from others during their interview and convince their
and conceptual knowledge required, and/or the types of job potential employer that they are capable of adapting to
being offered. Also, the students from private universities change. A similar finding is highlighted in studies by Bhar-
were happier with the placement activities than those from athi (2016) and Sharma (2019).
government institutions. This may be attributable to profes-
sional culture and the efforts made by the private institutions
with regard to placement activities with a view to building Implications
their brand worth and attracting more students. Furthermore, The results of this study reveal the relative significance and
the male students showed greater dissatisfaction with place- ranking of various factors affecting the recruitment and
ment activities than did the female students; this may be due selection of graduating students in the NCR region of India,
to the greater expectations of male students with regard to from the students’ perspective. The study may therefore be
the jobs offered, salary, type of organization, etc. useful to institutions in furthering their understanding of
The findings further reveal that students perceive per- students’ opinions with regard to strong and weak aspects
formance in the interview as an extremely important factor of campus placement activities, and so may lead to
affecting their selection or rejection by employers during improvements in campus placement processes.
campus placements, followed by resume, internship expe- The students’ perceptions may also be helpful in further-
rience, specialization, employability skills, academic ing understanding of employers’ preferences and require-
scores, recommendations, letter of application and school ments before the campus interviews take place. Again, this
attended. These findings are consistent with those of pre- may help institutions to improve the campus placement
vious studies on graduate employability (Caldwell and process and students’ preparedness for their transition to
O’Reilly, 1990; Capobianco, 2009; Kristof-Brown, 2000; the labor market. Further, with a better understanding of the
Mulligan, 2017; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Schmitt and Chan, perceptions of students, HEIs may be encouraged to
1998). However, the results differ somewhat from the find- increase the level of institution–industry interaction (Wrye
ings of Temtamy et al. (2016), who highlight academic et al., 2019), so that the perceptual gap can be reduced.
scores, campus location and major subject as the primary Additionally, the study also offers insights into students’
contributors to graduate employability. perceptions for employers who hire fresh graduates by
Overall, the findings also serve as a reminder of the offering business corporations knowledge about how stu-
importance of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory – dents perceive the recruitment and selection procedures
8 Industry and Higher Education XX(X)

during campus placement activities. Again, gaps in percep- hired: evidence from the New England region of USA.
tions about the key factors in securing a campus placement Educationþ Training 61(5): 622–634.
may be reduced, in this case those between students and Baruch Y and Holtom BC (2008) Survey response rate levels and
prospective employers. trends in organizational research. Human Relations 61(8):
1139–1160.
Beck C and Kosnik C (2002) Components of a good practicum
Limitations and future research directions placement: student teacher perceptions. Teacher Education
The study assesses the importance of only nine critical Quarterly 29(2): 81–98.
factors affecting the selection of graduating students on the Bharathi AV (2016) Communication skills-core of employability
basis of students’ responses to a questionnaire survey. It skills: issues and concerns. Higher Learning Research Com-
does not include certain key elements that are considered munications 6(4): n4.
during an interview, such as technical knowledge, commu- Boyle A, Maguire S, Martin A, et al. (2007) Fieldwork is good:
nication style, overall personality, confidence level, integ- the student perception and the affective domain. Journal of
rity, etc. Future researchers may choose to add more factors Geography in Higher Education 31(2): 299–317.
to provide a broader view. Second, the study focuses only Caldwell DF and O’Reilly IIICA (1990) Measuring person-job fit
on students’ overall perceptions about the campus place- with a profile-comparison process. Journal of applied psychol-
ment activities of their institution and factors affecting their ogy 75 (6): 648–657.
selection or rejection by employers visiting the campus. Capobianco F (2009) Reputation versus reality: the impact of US
Future studies might include the perceptions of employers News and World Report Rankings and education branding on
about the institutions and students to provide a fuller pic- hiring decisions in the job market. Unpublished Doctoral The-
ture. Third, only final-year management and engineering sis, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.
students were surveyed, so that students of other disciplines Chimes M and Gordon S (2008) What works; a student and coun-
and professional courses were not covered: future research selor explore college recruitment. Journal of College Admis-
could usefully look at other disciplines to compare results. sion 199: 26–30.
Fourth, the study was conducted in the National Capital Cleak H and Smith D (2012) Student satisfaction with models of
Region of India and therefore has limited relevance to other field placement supervision. Australian Social Work 65(2):
Indian states: a nationwide survey would therefore consti- 243–258.
tute a useful follow-up study. Moreover, cross-cultural Crebert G, Bates M, Bell B, et al. (2004) Developing generic skills
studies are suggested for more generalizable results. at university, during work placement and in employment:
Finally, the study has a cross-sectional design: future graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research & Devel-
researchers might consider a longitudinal study. opment 23(2): 147–165.
Dancza K, Warren A, Copley J, et al. (2013) Learning experiences
Declaration of conflicting interests on role-emerging placements: an exploration from the stu-
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with dents’ perspective. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this 60(6): 427–435.
article. Dhanavandan S (2016) Application of garret ranking technique:
practical approach. International Journal of Library and Infor-
Funding mation Studies 6(3): 135–140.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, Dhingra M (2017) Higher education and professional graduates’
authorship, and/or publication of this article. employability status – an alarming situation for India. Amity
Global Business Review 12(2): 77–84.
ORCID iD Dhingra M (2018) Factors affecting hiring decision: employers’
Meenakshi Dhingra https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2623-801X perspective in national capital region. Journal of Strategic
Subhash C Kundu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8681-2031 Human Resource Management 7(3): 15–21.
El-Temtamy O, O’Neill KK and Midraj S (2016) Undergraduate
References employability training and employment: a UAE study. Higher
Abd-Razak MZ, Mustafa NKF, Che-Ani AI, et al. (2011) Campus Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning 6(1): 100–115.
sustainability: student’s perception on campus physical develop- Encyclopaedia Brittanica (n.d.) Darwin’s influence. Available at:
ment planning in Malaysia. Procedia Engineering 20: 230–237. https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-behavior/History-
Baird AM (2016) 21st Century workforce: employers and stu- and-basic-concepts (accessed 21 July 2020).
dents perceptions of satisfaction and preparation of skills and Gupta R (2011) How to ensure right placements in management,
competencies graduates need to get hired in the Northeast. engineering & pharmacy colleges? Indian Journal of Higher
Doctoral Dissertation, Johnson & Wales University. Education 2(1): 85–86.
Baird AM and Parayitam S (2019) Employers’ ratings of impor- Hanchinal VV (2014) Developing leadership qualities in librar-
tance of skills and competencies college graduates need to get ians through soft skills. Episteme 2(4).
Dhingra and Kundu 9

Jackson D (2013) Student perceptions of the importance of Raya RP, Rajkumar VS, Ganesan P, et al. (2015) Stake holders’
employability skill provision in business undergraduate pro- perceptions in a campus recruitment process. Mediterranean
grams. Journal of Education for Business 88(5): 271–279. Journal of Social Sciences 6(5): 96–101.
Jusoh M, Rizal ARM and Chong SC (2007) Employers’ prefer- Renganathan S, Ambri Bin Abdul Karim Z and Su Li C (2012)
ence and assessment of the qualities of fresh business gradu- Students’ perception of industrial internship programme.
ates: empirical evidence from Malaysia. International Journal Educationþ Training 54(2/3): 180–191.
of Management and Enterprise Development 4(3): 316–336. Rezaei S, Karami Matin B, Hajizadeh M, et al. (2017) Evaluating
Kandiko CB and Mawer M (2013) Student Expectations and Percep- service quality in the higher education sector in Iran: an exam-
tions of Higher Education. London: King’s Learning Institute. ination of students’ perspective. International Journal of
Kealy MJ and Rockel ML (1987) Student perceptions of college Human Rights in Healthcare 10(2): 146–155.
quality: the influence of college recruitment policies. The Rogers JA (1972) Darwinism and social darwinism. Journal of the
Journal of Higher Education 58(6): 683–703. History of Ideas 33(2): 265–280.
Kramarz F and Skans ON (2014) When strong ties are strong: Salahu-Din H (1988) Campus perceptions of students: Implica-
networks and youth labour market entry. Review of Economic tions for strategic planning in black recruitment and retention.
Studies 81(3): 1164–1200. Educational Considerations 15(1): 25–30.
Kristof-Brown AL (2000) Perceived applicant fit: distinguishing Schmitt N and Chan D (1998) Personnel Selection: A Theoretical
between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job and person- Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
organization fit. Personnel Psychology 53(3): 643–671. Scribd https://www.scribd.com/doc/47487605/Henry-Garrettt-
Liagouras G, Protogerou A and Caloghirou Y (2003) Exploring Ranking-Techniques (accessed 16 December 2019).
mismatches between higher education and the labour market Shah M, Nair CS and Bennett L (2013) Factors influencing stu-
dent choice to study at private higher education institutions.
in Greece. European Journal of Education 38(4): 413–426.
Quality Assurance in Education 21(4): 402–416.
Lin HY, Lin SH, Chiu CY, et al. (2010) An AHP approach to
Sharma ACDN (2019) A study of competency requirements and
industry-oriented management competence development in an
business education curriculum in India. Journal Current Sci-
institute of technology. World Transactions on Engineering
ence 20(5).
and Technology Education 8(3): 339–343.
Shen YJ and Herr EL (2004) Career placement concerns of inter-
Liu-Farrer G and Shire K (2020) Who are the fittest? The question of
national graduate students: a qualitative study. Journal of
skills in national employment systems in an age of global labour
Career Development 31(1): 15–29.
mobility. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Epub ahead
Shenoy V and Aithal PS (2016) Changing approaches in campus
of print 27 March 2020. DOI 10.1080/1369183X.2020.1731987.
placements - A new futuristic model. International Journal of
Matsouka K and Mihail DM (2016) Graduates’ employability:
Scientific Research and Modern Education (IJSRME) ISSN
What do graduates and employers think? Industry and Higher
(Online) 2455–5630 1(1): 766–776.
Education 30(5): 321–326.
Shenoy V and Aithal PS (2016) Green placement – an innovative
Mulligan T (2017) Uncertainty in hiring does not justify affirma-
concept & strategy in campus placement model. Munich Per-
tive action. Philosophia 45: 1299–1311.
sonal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper No. 74349.
Nasscom: Only 25% IT graduates readily employable (Online)
Taliaferro JD and DeCuir-Gunby JT (2008) African American
(2011) Available at: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes. educators’ perspectives on the advanced placement opportu-
com/2011-04-7/news/29392668_1_engineering-colleges- nity gap. The Urban Review 40(2): 164–185.
employability-studynasscom (accessed 12 January 2020). Tan PJB (2013) Students’ adoptions and attitudes towards elec-
Neill NT and Mulholland GE (2003) Student placement– tronic placement tests: a UTAUT analysis. American Journal
structure, skills and e-support. Educationþ Training of Computer Technology and Application 1(1): 14–23.
45(2): 89–99. Tomlinson M (2008) The degree is not enough: students’ percep-
Nwajiuba CA, Igwe PA, Akinsola-Obatolu AD, et al. (2020) What tions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate
can be done to improve higher education quality and graduate work and employability. British Journal of Sociology of Edu-
employability in Nigeria? A stakeholder approach. Industry cation 29(1): 49–61.
and Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 27 Jaunary Unas AW and Kumar SR (2015) A study on policyholders satis-
2020. DOI: 10.1177/0950422219901102. faction on service of LIC: reference to Coimbatore district.
O’Reilly CAIII, Chatman JA and Caldwell DF (1991) People and International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research
organization culture: a profile comparison approach to asses- 2(10): 3620–3626.
sing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal Venezia A, Bracco KR and Nodine T (2010) One-Shot Deal?
34: 487–516. Students’ Perceptions of Assessment and Course Placement in
Prikshat V, Kumar S and Nankervis A (2019) Work-readiness California’s Community Colleges. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
integrated competence model: Conceptualisation and scale Wrye B, Chafin C and Higginbotham C (2019) Creating a win-
development. Educationþ Training 61(5): 568–589. win. Educationþ Training 61(5): 605–621.
10 Industry and Higher Education XX(X)

Appendix 1
Questionnaire
1) Name (optional):__________________________________________________________________
2) Stream/ Discipline of study: c Management c Engineering
3. Gender: c Male c Female
4) Type of the Institute: c Public/Govt c Private
5) Are you doing or planning to do any project/assignment in collaboration with any organization?
c Yes c No

6) Do you have any job offer at present?

c Yes c No
7) What is your regional background?
c Rural c Urban
8) Under which medium of language did you obtain your school education?
c English medium c Hindi medium

9) How important do you believe are the following factors in the employer’s hiring decision?

Extremely Very Somewhat Not at all

Factors Important Important Important Important Important

a. School attended
b. Specialization subject
c. Academic score
d. Internship experience
e. Recommendations
f. Resume
g. Letter of application
h. Performance in
interview
i. Employability skills