This paper develops the concept of graduate identity as a way of deepening the understanding of graduate employability. It does this through presenting research in which over 100 employers in East Anglia were asked to record their perceptions of graduates in respect of their employability. The findings suggest a composite and complex graduate identity, depending on employer size and sector. There is no one fixed identity for graduates. Nevertheless, certain themes emerged that seriously put into question the traditional model of graduate employability comprising skills, competencies and attributes. What emerges is a four‐stranded concept of identity that comprises value, intellect, social engagement and performance. Thus, when assessing the potential of graduates, performance is not the only criteria that employers take into account. Moreover, the four elements of identity are by no means independent of each other but are expected to interpenetrate producing a composite identity, with different employers emphasising different facets of this identity. Everybody talks about transferable skills and nobody knows what it means. That baffles me. What's a transferable skill—they've never transferred anything. … They don't know how to do it. (E‐Learning SME, Director) What is different about a graduate? Young ideas, freshness, the way they live their lives— a whole lifestyle that brings enthusiasm of youth—[it] brings freshness to the organisation and can create a different dynamic. (Energy Sector, Manager)

The discourse surrounding skills in education and learning has often been dismissed as mere ‘skill–talk’. This article seeks to reject this criticism by arguing that much of the criticism of skill–talk rests on an unsatisfactory behaviourist view of skills. Another approach towards considering skills is also considered, an approach deriving from the Aristotelian concept of technē, but this is also rejected. It is suggested that the concept of ‘situational understanding’ provides the best way of thinking about skills. This approach firmly situates the learning of skills within context: the possibility of all–purpose generic skills is rejected. At the same time, this approach helps to articulate what is needed from the standpoint of agency if skills are to be ‘transferred’.

This paper explores the meaning of education in contrast with ‘pedagogy’. Whereas education can be defined as ‘learning for its own sake’, pedagogy can be defined as learning oriented towards social goals. An attempt to find an adequate conceptualisation is first of all sought in Aristotle, but his concept of education is found to depend on too narrow a concept of rational activity. A more adequate conceptualisation is found in Michael Oakeshott's contrast between morality and enterprise associations. However Oakeshott's definition of education needs modifying if it is to take account of the idea of critical knowing, which is seen as crucial to any definition of education.

No abstract

This article analyses the nature of an educational experience by taking as its starting point Dewey's Art as Experience in order to identify what it is that counts as a significant or worthwhile experience. Dewey suggests that an experience needs to have an integral character in which the different phases of the experience are related and which tends towards a conclusion. Furthermore, an experience also needs to have the character of what Dewey calls an ‘undergoing’, an engagement with content which may be difficult or painful. It is suggested that this kind of experience may be seen in terms of a ‘light’ pedagogy in which content is allowed to unfold. This is contrasted with educational experiences that are ‘teacher‐driven’ or ‘learner‐driven’.