Most studies fixate on twentysomethings. The real question is how recent entrants—of any age—fare when they start work. By that yardstick, non‑graduates are struggling most.

For more than a decade, headlines about “jobless graduates” have arrived like clockwork, usually pegged to a new survey of people in their mid‑twenties. The story is tidy: a degree no longer guarantees a foothold in the labour market; young graduates drift between short contracts and unpaid internships; employers want experience more than education. But tidy stories can be misleading. The way we count has quietly shaped the way we think, and a methodological habit—restricting analysis to people in their mid‑twenties—has distorted the picture. If we compare recent entrants to the labour market, regardless of age, a different story emerges in 2025: non‑graduates face steeper, longer, and more precarious routes into stable work than those with degrees.

This matters right now because the composition of “new workers” has changed. The post‑pandemic economy pulled in mid‑career returners after caregiving spells, refugees resettling amid conflict, and workers displaced by automation in logistics, retail, and back‑office services. At the same time, delayed graduations and expanded part‑time study broadened the age range of first‑time entrants with degrees. The result is that the classic mid‑twenties snapshot no longer captures who is actually taking a first step into the labour market. A better lens is to focus on the moment of entry—graduation for some, the first full‑time role for others—and to follow what happens over the first 12 to 24 months.

The denominator problem

Traditional studies often define the sample as people aged 22 to 26, then compare unemployment or underemployment rates among degree‑holders versus those without. That age bracket is convenient for data collection, but it is an imperfect stand‑in for “recent graduate” or “recent entrant.” In 2025, a barista retraining as a data technician at 34 and a nursing student qualifying at 41 both appear outside that frame, despite being newly active jobseekers in their fields. Meanwhile, a 25‑year‑old with a degree earned three years ago and a stable job still shows up in the comparison. Apples and oranges creep into the same basket.

What happens if we instead compare like with like—people who are entering the labour market for the first time or after a prolonged absence? That means constructing cohorts by event, not by age: graduation, completion of an apprenticeship, certification after reskilling, or the formal start of full‑time employment. When researchers take that approach, patterns shift. Graduates, on average, endure a short initial search, then see faster wage growth and lower exit rates back into unemployment. Non‑graduates, by contrast, spend longer between applications and offers, string together more temporary contracts, and are more exposed to the rhythms of seasonal demand.

A cohort lens clarifies risk

Think of the labour market like a queue that occasionally surges. In tight times, vacancies are plentiful and time‑to‑hire falls across the board; in slack periods, the queue lengthens and employers raise screening thresholds. When we follow cohorts from the point they join the queue, the role of credentials becomes clearer. A degree does not guarantee a job, but it reliably shortens the queueing time and cushions shocks. Employers use degrees as a noisy but serviceable signal that a candidate can learn quickly, write clearly, and navigate ambiguous tasks. That signal, combined with networks available through universities and professional programmes, reduces the risk of early‑career scarring.

Non‑graduates who enter at the same time face a tougher climb in three ways. First, they are more likely to encounter digital gatekeeping: application portals that filter by credentials, even for roles where skills can be learned on the job. Second, a growing share of entry‑level jobs are “experience‑required” by default; internships, bootcamps, and trial projects that might substitute for a degree are uneven in quality and often unpaid. Third, the geography of opportunity has shifted. In many regions, growth is concentrated in a few high‑productivity hubs where housing costs and commuting burdens screen out lower‑wage entrants, degree or not.

Mind the midlife entrant

The midlife entrant exposes the flaw in age‑bounded analysis most starkly. Consider a 38‑year‑old who spent a decade in hospitality management and then completed a one‑year vocational programme in network administration. By conventional measures, she will not be counted as a “recent graduate,” yet her job‑search behaviour and risks closely resemble those of a 23‑year‑old computer‑science graduate: both are building a professional network from a near‑standing start; both are chasing the first credentialed role; both face technical interviews and probation periods. When we follow both cohorts from the moment of entry, we find that the degree‑holder—of any age—lands faster and climbs a more predictable wage ladder.

There is also a statistical trap in the mid‑twenties focus: selection bias. The non‑graduates who remain jobseeking at 25 are not representative of all non‑graduates; many who found stable work at 18 or 19 are no longer in the sampling frame of youth surveys. Meanwhile, a large share of graduates only complete their studies in their mid‑twenties or later, especially in health, engineering, and part‑time pathways. Comparing these two cross‑sections—survivors among non‑graduates and late‑finishers among graduates—builds a skew into the headline before any analysis begins.

Underemployment and the first rung

The headline rate of unemployment misses the story of underemployment—the mismatch between tasks and training, or hours desired and hours worked. Here, too, the entrant‑based lens is revealing. Many graduates step into roles that do not require a degree on paper, but those roles often sit on a ladder with clear rungs: analyst to associate, staff nurse to senior nurse, trainee teacher to qualified teacher. For non‑graduates, the ladder is more often a set of stepping stones across gig platforms, agencies, and seasonal work. Each move risks a reset of seniority and benefits, and the lack of formal recognition of skills slows pay progression.

Apprenticeships are a partial exception. When well designed and properly funded, they provide an alternative signal of capability, a structured first rung, and an employer with skin in the game. But supply is limited and unevenly distributed. In 2025, many programmes struggle to keep pace with the software and automation reshaping entry‑level work. Cohort‑based analysis shows strong outcomes where apprenticeships integrate classroom learning with real projects and portable credentials; where they do not, non‑graduates again bear the risk.

A better way to measure

What would a cleaner measure look like? Start with an event‑based definition: a “recent entrant” is anyone in their first 24 months after completing a degree, apprenticeship, or reskilling programme, or in their first 24 months of continuous full‑time work after a gap of at least a year. Track four outcomes monthly for those cohorts: time‑to‑first‑job, weeks worked, median weekly pay, and job quality (contract type, benefits, and progression). Break out the results by age band, field, and region, but keep the primary comparison fixed on entrants with versus without a degree‑level credential.

Crucially, publish hazard rates—the probability of moving into work in a given month—rather than only point‑in‑time unemployment rates. Hazard rates show that graduates cross the threshold into stable employment at higher rates in the early months. Another fix: measure underemployment as a share of desired hours, not just headcount. That reveals how often non‑graduates patch together multiple part‑time roles while searching for a foothold. Finally, track re‑entry risk: how many entrants return to unemployment within a year. That bounce‑back rate is consistently higher for those without degrees.

Policy and employer implications

If non‑graduates are having a harder time at entry, policy should target the first 24 months with precision. That means funding high‑quality apprenticeships in growth sectors; expanding last‑mile training attached to actual vacancies; and subsidising structured work trials that pay a living wage. It also means curbing credential inflation in public procurement and licensing, where degree requirements persist out of habit rather than necessity.

For employers, an entrant‑based view suggests two practical steps. First, audit job postings for automatic degree screens that block capable candidates, then replace them with skills‑based challenges tied to the work. Second, build internal certificates that recognise progression from trainee to full contributor within six to twelve months. Those signals lower risk for non‑graduates and give hiring managers the confidence to take bets.

What the headlines miss

The narrative of the “jobless graduate” grips because it captures a real anxiety—debt, uncertain ladders, and a changing economy. But the sharper, fairer comparison is between new entrants with a degree and new entrants without one, whatever their birth year. On that test, graduates are more resilient. They have shorter search spells and smoother progression. Non‑graduates, especially those entering today’s tech‑tinged service jobs, face longer queues and more fragile footholds. If we want the headlines to reflect reality—and policy to fix the bottlenecks—we should stop staring at the mid‑twenties and start tracking the first two years that actually decide a working life.

In other words, the story was never about youth alone. It was about the threshold. And at the threshold in 2025, the people without degrees are the ones waiting longest at the door.