Employment Outcomes of Higher Education Graduates from during and after the 2007–2008 Financial Crisis: Evidence from a Romanian University

Abstract

In the current article, we seek to understand the ways in which unfavorable macro-level circumstances influence the employment outcomes of university graduates, in the long term. We use the 2007–2008 financial crisis as a historical setting and compare data about the later employment outcomes of 772 students who graduated a bachelor’s program at a public Romanian university before and after the financial crisis. The comparison includes a quantitative perspective and a qualitative one and refers to: duration of the job search after graduation; seniority levels; number of jobs held; profile of the first job gained after graduation; current status on the labor market; localization of the current employer; profile of the current job; satisfaction with the career status; perceived employability. Additionally, we also explore the influence of the following micro-level determinants on employment outcomes: attendance to internships programs; employment during the attendance of the BA program; and choosing to continue education with a master’s program. The findings suggest that, although the group who graduated during the financial crisis indeed faced some initial setbacks, manifested through longer waiting times before securing their first job, they currently have objectively superior employment outcomes compared with their counterparts who graduated after the crisis. Subjectively, the members of the two groups show similar levels of satisfaction with their career status. The analysis of the micro-level determinants shows that they have a positive influence on individual employment outcomes, and this may be of interest in the future in increasing graduates’ resilience on the labor market and supporting their sustainable employment.

1. Introduction

1.1. University-to-Work Transition in Times of Crisis and Employment Outcomes of Graduates

In the increasingly dynamic labor market, human capital remains an important asset, especially in regard to highly qualified positions, therefore the role of higher education in preparing the skilled workforce is a very significant one [1]. The expansion of the tertiary education system embeds the promise of the enhancement of human capital and, with it, social and economic growth for the society at large and upward mobility and satisfactory careers for the graduates [2,3].

The fulfillment of this promise brings with it prestige and authority for the higher education providers. Consequently, graduates’ employability is commonly used as an indicator in the assessment of the quality of higher education programs in various countries [3,4,5] and the labor market outcomes of university graduates stand out as an important topic for higher education research and policy [3,5,6]. Authors in this field use two main frameworks when assessing the labor market outcomes of university graduates: (1) a quantitative one, referring to their employability, assessed via their employment rate [2,7], and (2) a qualitative one, referring to the quality of the jobs secured by the graduates, assessed via various objective characteristics, such as the salary level, the type of contract, or the horizontal matching of the job with the field of study [8,9], as well as subjective ones, such as perceived employability and perceived career success [10].

However, when the promise is not fulfilled, the tertiary education system is confronted with a high level of pressure from the members of the society, who feel cheated in their expectations for a better life as a direct result of a higher level of education. This was the case for the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, when, due to the high unemployment rate and inferior employment outcomes of young university graduates, critics came to place under question the very role of universities in society. Making grim predictions about the future of the graduates on the labor market, some have gone as far as calling the generation that graduated during the financial crisis “graduates without a future” [11], or “the lost generation” [6], as if the harm caused to their professional trajectories by the negative circumstances of the graduation (i.e., the financial crisis) was irreparable.

The theoretical perspectives involved in approaching the topic of graduate employability and employment outcomes need to be both contextual and relational [5].

From a contextual perspective, the financial crisis from 2007–2008 constitutes, for the professional trajectories of university graduates in that period, what Akkermans, Seibert, and Mol [12] call a “career shock”, defined as “a disruptive and extraordinary event that is, at least to some degree, caused by factors outside the focal individual’s control and that triggers a deliberate thought process concerning one’s career”. Under this paradigm, the graduates’ labor market outcomes are determined mainly by two categories of factors: (1) those that act at a macro-level and are not under the control of the individual (such as the positive or negative circumstances of the labor market); and (2) those that act at a micro-level, over which the individual has some form or level of control (such as the choice to participate in internship programs). In the same vein, Navarro-Cendejas and Fachelli [8] propose that, in the analysis of complex processes, such as the university-to-work transition of graduates, a “historical angle” should be established, in which the characteristics of the wider-scale context are taken into consideration, for a better understanding of the processes that take place and the ways in which context shapes outcomes.

From a relational/interactional perspective, the event systems theory [13] purports that the outcome of an event is not solely the result of an individual action nor of the external context but is rather determined by the interaction between the two. In order to understand how these interactions work relative to the labor market and generate different employment outcomes, Holmes [3] advocates for a processual approach, focused on the trajectories of graduates during their journey of identity development, that generates a better understanding of the negotiations and transactions involved in the process.

In the current article, we build on these theoretical perspectives in exploring the influence of adverse labor market conditions (namely, the 2007–2008 financial crisis) on the employment outcomes of university graduates, as they evolve on the labor market. We do so by comparing two cohorts of students who graduated a bachelor’s (BA) program in social sciences at a public Romanian university, over the course of one decade—the 2008–2018 period. The chosen period covers the financial crisis (2008–2013) and the recovery after it (2014–2018). The Romanian context works very well as a case study about the effects of the financial crisis on the employment outcomes of university graduates in an Eastern European post-socialist country that is also a member of the European Union.

1.2. The Financial Crisis as a Macro-Level Factor That Shapes the Employment Outcomes of University Graduates

The employment outcomes of university graduates who enter the labor market during a recession have been frequently described as inferior to those of graduates whose initial labor market entry happened in a period of economic boom: lower quality jobs [14]; lower wages in the long run [15], higher horizontal mismatch between the jobs and the field of study [16,17], and reduced probability for career advancement [18].

A recently published study sought to investigate the long-term individual and family-level consequences on university graduates of an initial entry on a labor market affected by the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis in South Korea [7]. The comparison of various outcomes between three cohorts of graduates (promotions from before, during, and after the crisis) showed that (1) the negative context that describes the labor market at the time of the first entry affects employment, earnings, marriage, fertility, and asset building among graduates; and (2) the negative effects confronted by the graduates who entered a seriously affected labor market go way beyond the duration of the market dysfunction.

Another recent research study, aimed at estimating the negative effects of entering the labor market during recession periods on the careers of university graduates in the Netherlands [19], found out that two of the most important losses confronted by the persons who graduated in times of crisis relate to the level of wages earned in their first years and the horizontal mismatching of their jobs with the field of studies. However, the study also concluded that these effects fade away about 5 years after graduation, and the job mobility has a fundamental role in the recovery process.

At the European level, the damage caused by the 2007–2008 financial crisis to the initial entry on the labor market of higher education graduates was considerable, although manifested differently from one country to another: an analysis of the impact of the financial crisis on the employability of Italian graduates of tertiary education [7] shows their employment rate was affected during the crisis more than that of the general population, although, before the crisis, the situation was opposite, with higher education graduates having a higher employability rate compared to the general population. The situation of the Italian graduates on the labor market started to recover only after 2012–2014, both in terms of employment rates and in terms of increased wages [7,20].

A comparative analysis of the labor market outcomes obtained 5 years after graduation by almost 12,000 Catalan graduates from periods before and during the economic crisis [8] showed not only a decrease in the employment rate among the promotions that graduated during the crisis, but also a deterioration of the quality of the jobs they could access, characterized by precariousness, lack of protection, professional stagnation, and low income.

During the crisis, Ireland (one of the countries with the highest educational participation rates in the world) confronted a sharp rise in graduate unemployment and emigration [21]. This is considered to be the effect of the harsh measures taken to reduce costs with higher education: budget cuts in the funding of tertiary education institutions, restructuring of state agencies for tertiary education, tightening of eligibility criteria for students’ access to maintenance grants, corroborated with decreases in their amount, and increases in the contributions paid by students [22].

In the Czech Republic, the effects of the crisis started to manifest around the end of 2008, first in the economy and subsequently on the labor market. Unemployment rate among youngsters grew rapidly from 19% in 2008 to almost 31% in 2010, although university graduates were the least affected by it (15%) among this age group [6,23].

In Romania, youth unemployment increased during the financial crisis, in 2009 reaching 19.6% (higher than the EU average of 18.3%), and being even higher among university graduates, with one in four not having a job [24]. Between 2008 and 2009, the percentage of Romanian graduates that were employed decreased by 54%, mainly as a result of a sharp decrease in vacancies [24]. Thus, the effects of the crisis exacerbated the already worrying trends of the Romanian labor market, such as the external migration of the qualified workforce, also known as brain drain. A survey conducted in 2012 on 1205 Romanian bachelor’s and master’s students in economical sciences [25] showed that about 45% of the participants were opened to the idea to migrate externally, even if that meant postponing or abandoning their studies and even if the employment was for a short period of time. The large majority of the participants at the survey stated that the main motivation for their potential external migration would be economic [25].

There are also some authors who explain the powerful effects of the financial crisis over the employment outcomes of the graduates through the unfortunate superposition of the crisis over some already existing dysfunctions of the higher education sector: its rapid expansion, which produced an imbalance on the labor market between the demand and supply of highly qualified employees [2,6,26,27]; the (in)capacity of its institutions to adapt to the labor market and provide graduates with the competencies needed by the employers [6,7]; and the low level of prestige of some providers of higher education [2].

Negative macro-level circumstances may affect employment outcomes not only directly, but also indirectly, by shaping the persons’ future plans and projections regarding their careers. For example, perceived employability, the individuals’ level of trust in themselves to find and keep employment [5], has been linked by many authors with the individual’s level of satisfaction with their employment and overall life situation [28,29], and was identified as an important personal resource in managing the university-to-work transition, especially under critical circumstances [30]. Previous studies have shown that a high level of insecurity about one’s employability can be generated by exposure to previous situations of unemployment (such as those encountered by many graduates during the financial crisis) and can continue to affect the individual long after the unemployment period has ended, which has been labeled as a “scarring” effect [28,31].

1.3. Micro-Level Factors That Influence the Labor Market Outcomes of University Graduates

On the other hand, there are authors who highlight the importance of micro-level factors in shaping the graduates’ labor market outcomes: for example, Hedvicakova [23] points out that the often unrealistic expectations of the graduates regarding the future working conditions (such as wage levels, working schedule, or possibilities for advancement) can negatively influence their professional path, by making them turn down employment opportunities and thus delay their entrance to the labor market.

Employment during university studies seems also to matter for the later employment outcomes of graduates. Navarro-Cendejas and Fachelli [8] note that people who worked during their university studies, especially in a field related to their studies, have the upper hand on the labor market, compared to their counterparts, since they had the opportunity to combine the knowledge developed through formal education with the training and experience gained through work. Employment during university studies has been found to positively influence the period of transition from education to employment, by shortening the duration of the first job search [32,33,34]. It has also been positively linked to enhanced matching of the skills with the future jobs accessed by graduates [34]. A survey conducted towards the end of the financial crisis period, on 1205 Romanian bachelor’s and master’s students in their final year in economical sciences, showed that about one third of them were already working [25].

The school-to-work transition is an important concern for educational actors, especially from the perspective of universities, therefore, many of them strive to ease this transition for their students, by providing them opportunities for internships [35]. Internships have multiple roles [33,36]: they facilitate the acquisition of practical knowledge and professional competences that cannot be provided by the university; also, they allow the undergraduates to develop a hands-on understanding of what professional roles suit them and, thus, provide a better focus to their future job search; not in the least, they provide the students the opportunity to meet potential employers and develop personal contacts and relationships that will serve them very well when entering the labor market as university graduates. Data from a 2013 Eurobarometer [37] showed that almost half (46%) of all young people in Europe reported attending an internship. Previous studies conducted on the effects of undergraduate internships on later employment outcomes of graduates have found that internships are associated with higher employment rates [36,38,39,40] or at least increased interest of employers to invite candidates to job interviews [41,42], higher earnings [43], shorter waiting times when searching for a job [33,44,45], enhanced job satisfaction [44], and enhanced horizontal matching between the job and the field of study [33]. However, other studies [46] observe that these positive effects are manifested mainly at the beginning of the career (first job after graduation) and dissipate over time (4 or 5 years after graduation).

Some graduates also use a very simple and intuitive strategy in shaping better employment outcomes for themselves, by continuing their studies with a master’s program or even a PhD, in order to enhance their level of educational achievement and human capital, and thus, raise their competitive advantage and become more interesting for the potential employers. A very recent study conducted in Germany, on a large-scale dataset with detailed information on almost 28,000 high-ability students [47], found out that one of their strategies to adapt to the very poor labor market conditions they faced during the period of the financial crisis was to increase their educational level by enrolling in a PhD program. Once the crisis ended, this tendency decreased, which is a clear sign that the strategy was considered useful only under certain conditions. This strategy of adaptation is not only the attribute of high-ability students: a survey conducted in 2012 in Romania, on over 1200 bachelor’s and master’s students in their final year [25], showed that 78% of the participants took into consideration to continue their studies, as a way to postpone entering the labor market under bad auspices and make use of the bad times by building an advantage. The same strategy was also observed in a study involving university graduates in the Netherlands [19].

2. Materials and Methods

Within the current study, the main research question that guided the analysis of the data is the following: How does entering a troubled labor market affect the employment outcomes of university graduates?

The underlying assumption is that if the damage caused by entering a dysfunctional labor market is as dramatic and permanent as announced in the wake of the 2007–2008 financial crisis, then the persons who graduated during this period (“the lost generation” or “the graduates without a future”) would have very different (i.e., inferior) employment outcomes compared to those who graduated in the post-crisis period. From a sustainability perspective, this is important to clarify, since the labor market conditions become more and more tumultuous and unpredictable, with increased robotization and automation of the workplace [48] and permanent disruptions caused by structural changes and global crises [10,49].

Therefore, the hypothesis we test within the study states that the employment outcomes of persons who graduated during the financial crisis are significantly different from those of the persons who graduated after the crisis.

In order to answer the research question and test our hypothesis, we compare the labor market situation of two subgroups of university graduates: (1) persons who graduated during the financial crisis (in the 2008–2013 period) and, respectively, (2) persons who graduated after the financial crisis (in the 2014–2018 period). In the comparison of the two subgroups, we look at the employment outcomes of the graduates both from a quantitative perspective and from a qualitative one.

The importance of the current study is two-fold:

(1) First, the study is relevant in light of the eighth Sustainable Development Goal of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all) and researchers have highlighted the need for supplementary analyses regarding the employment outcomes of young graduates, in order to better support the achievement of this goal [1]. Knowing how crises affect people in a certain area of their life, we can work to increase their resilience in case of a future crisis, and thus reduce their vulnerability.

(2) Second, due to the fact that the results of the study add to the literature on the employment outcomes of university graduates in general and, in particular, on the effects of adverse labor market conditions on these employment outcomes, we also contribute to the discussion on the critical role of the higher education institutions in a society and the potential strategies to better fulfill this role, in order to help their graduates adapt to a labor market in which structural change has become a built-in feature [49].

The following employment outcomes are taken into account: duration of the job search after graduation; total work experience (seniority levels); total number of jobs held; profile of the first job gained after graduation; current status on the labor market; localization of the current employer (foreign or internal); profile of the current/most recent job; satisfaction with the current career status; perceived employability. The profile of the first job gained after graduation is described through: horizontal matching between the field of activity and the field of study [33,50]; the sector of activity; and the level of satisfaction toward the job. The profile of the current/most recent job is described through: horizontal matching between the field of activity and the field of study; the sector of activity; managerial role; working conditions relative to those of other colleagues; level of the net salary; and the level of satisfaction regarding the job.

Additionally, we explore three of the micro-level factors that shape employment outcomes, as highlighted by other scholars: attendance to internships programs during the BA study period; participation on the labor market during the attendance of the BA program; and choosing to continue education with a master’s program.

The description of outcomes combines objective and subjective assessments. The subjective assessments are related to the following variables: level of satisfaction regarding the first and the current job; working conditions relative to those of other colleagues; satisfaction with the current career status; and perceived employability.

Since most of the data collected were nominal, the analysis of the employment outcomes of the two subgroups is mainly based on descriptive analysis techniques. For the comparison of the outcomes of the two subgroups, we used the chi-square test for independence, the independent samples t-test and the paired samples t-test, performed with IBM SPSS software.

The data were collected at a single point in time, in 2020, from the bachelor-level graduates of a Romanian university, who finished their studies in social science between 2008 and 2018. The respondents were invited by e-mail to fill in an online questionnaire. Approximately 3000 individual invitations were sent over the course of six months, and a total of 772 returned questionnaires were validated, which represents a response rate of approx. 25%. The number of participants from any of the years included in the study represented at least 5% in the total sample (

Table 1. Distribution of the sample by year of graduation.

Period of Graduation	Year of Graduation	Frequency	Percent
Crisis (2008–2013)	2008	45	5.8
	2009	68	8.8
	2010	43	5.6
	2011	66	8.5
	2012	51	6.6
	2013	65	8.4
Post-crisis (2013–2018)	2014	50	6.5
	2015	56	7.3
	2016	83	10.8
	2017	106	13.7
	2018	139	18.0
Total		772	100

).

In order to analyze the results according to the proposed methodology, we divided the respondents into two subgroups: those that graduated during the financial crisis (between 2008 and 2013, N = 338), and those that graduated after the crisis (between 2014 and 2018, N = 434). From here on, the analysis of the data will be presented both for the entire sample and separately, for each subgroup.

Within the total sample (N = 772), 80% of the respondents were females and 20% were males. Among the 2008–2013 subgroup (N = 338), the percentage of female respondents was slightly higher (82%) than among the 2014–2018 subgroup (N = 434, 78% females).

The average age of the respondents was 29.8 years (N = 772, SD = 6.18). As expected, the average age for the 2008–2013 subgroup (N = 338, M = 32.68 years, SD = 4.88) was higher than of the 2014–2018 subgroup (N = 434, M = 27.56 years, SD = 6.16).

3. Results

3.1. Employment Outcomes

3.1.1. Duration of Job Search after Graduation

The analysis of the data shows that the average number of months of job search after graduation is 4.4 for the entire sample (N = 736)—Figure 1. In the comparison of the two subgroups, we expect that, due to the adverse conditions of the labor market at the time of graduation (namely a low number of available jobs and a high number of candidates competing for them), the 2008–2013 subgroup would have an increased duration of job search compared to the 2014–2018 subgroup.

An independent samples t-test shows that, indeed, the average duration of job search after graduation was significantly higher for the subjects who graduated during the financial crisis (M = 5.8, SD = 9.84) than for those who graduated after it (M = 3.3, SD = 6.7), t(556) = 3.8, p < 0.05.

This setback is also noticeable in the percentage of persons from each subgroup who manage to find their first job in less than 6 months after the graduation, which is lower among the persons who graduated during the crisis (76%, N = 329) than among those who graduated after it (87%, N = 407)—

Table 2. Distribution of the sample, by duration of job search after graduation.

		Duration of Job Search after Graduation				Subtotal
		<6 Months	>6 and <12 Months	>12 and <18 Months	>18 Months
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	249 (75.68%)	40 (12.15%)	9 (2.74%)	31 (9.43%)	329 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	353 (86.73%)	25 (6.14%)	12 (2.95%)	17 (4.18%)	407 (100%)
Total sample		602 (81.79%)	65 (8.84%)	21 (2.85%)	48 (6.52%)	736 (100%)

.

3.1.2. Total Work Experience (Seniority Levels)

The comparative analysis of the data regarding the seniority levels of the graduates shows that the large majority of the 2008–2013 graduates subgroup (almost 90%) falls within the category with the highest level of work experience (more than 5 years), with one third of them declaring more than 10 years of work experience. On the other hand, only about 28% of the graduates in the period after the crisis (2014–2018) have over 5 years of work experience, while the rest of them (72%) have up to 5 years of work experience, with almost one-third (31%) declaring a total work experience between 1 and 3 years (Figure 2).

A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation between the time of graduation and seniority levels. The relation between these variables was significant, X² (5, N = 757) = 299.81, p < 0.01.

Therefore, the graduates from the 2008–2013 period are more likely to possess superior levels of work experience than their counterparts, in accordance with the longer time passed since their graduation, in spite of the turbulent conditions that described the labor market during their graduation times.

3.1.3. Total Number of Jobs Held

The results of the independent samples t-test show that the average number of jobs held so far by the subjects who graduated during the financial crisis is significantly higher (M = 3.36, SD = 1.81) than the number of jobs held by the subjects who graduated after the financial crisis (M = 2.55, SD = 1.75), t(702) = 6.18, p < 0.05. This is in accordance with the larger amount of time passed for the former group since the graduation of the program (Figure 3).

3.1.4. Profile of the First Job after Graduation—Horizontal Matching, Sector of Activity and Satisfaction with the Job

The data regarding the horizontal matching of the first job after graduation (compatibility with the field of study) show that less than half (43%) of the graduates in the total sample (N = 747) secured their first job in their field of study and/or specialization, an additional 18% in a connected field, and 39% in a different one (

Table 3. Profile of the first job—Horizontal matching.

		First Job Was…			Subtotal
		In the Field of Studies	In a Connected Field	In Another Field
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	148 (44.58%)	58 (17.47%)	126 (37.95%)	332 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	174 (41.93%)	76 (18.31%)	165 (39.76%)	415 (100%)
Total sample		322 (43.11%)	134 (17.94%)	291 (38.95%)	747 (100%)

).

The comparative analysis of the situation of the two subgroups allows us to observe that the high percentage of graduates that secure their first job in a different field than their specialization is not unique to the group that graduated during the crisis period, as a temporary solution to the shortage of jobs from the period of the financial crisis, but on the contrary: the percentage of respondents that reported this situation is slightly higher among those that graduated in the post-crisis period (40% vs. 38%). However, the chi-square test of independence shows that the horizontal matching of the first job among our sample did not differ based on the period of graduation (during or after the crisis), X² (1, N = 747) =0.253, p > 0.05.

The sectors in which the first employers of the graduates in the entire sample (N = 744) activated are: the private for-profit sector (75%), the public sector (20%) and the private nonprofit sector (4%). Out of the 75% who secured their first job in the private for-profit sector, 9% opened their own business (

Table 4. Profile of the first job—Sector of activity.

		First Job Was in the … Sector				Subtotal
		Public	Private Non-Profit	Private for Profit	Own Firm *
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	75 (22.73%)	16 (4.85%)	239 (72.42%)	31 (9.39%)	330 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	76 (18.36%)	16 (3.86%)	322 (77.78%)	36 (8.69%)	414 (100%)
Total sample		151 (20.30%)	32 (4.30%)	561 (75.40%)	67 (9.00%)	744 (100%)

* Entrepreneurial activity is included in the count of the private for-profit sector.

).

Although the graduates in the 2008–2013 period show a slightly higher orientation toward the public sector (22% vs. 18%), the private nonprofit (4% vs. 3%) one, and toward entrepreneurship (9.39% vs. 8.69%), the chi-square test of independence shows that the sector of activity of the first job among our sample did not differ based on the period of graduation (during or after the crisis), X² (1, N = 747) = 0.253, p > 0.05.

The graduates’ level of satisfaction with their first job was assessed on a five-point scale, which expressed the degree of satisfaction felt by the respondents toward eight characteristics of the job: salary, benefits, the possibilities for promotion, the work conditions, the demands of the job, the relationships with the managers, the relationships with the colleagues, the work schedule.

An independent samples t-test reveals almost no significant differences between the scores registered by each characteristic among the two subgroups, with the exception of the possibilities for promotion, t(706) = −2.11, p < 0.05, which registered a higher mean score among the respondents who graduated after the crisis (M = 2.83, SD = 1.23) than among those who graduated during it (M = 2.63, SD = 1.25).

The analysis of the mean scores registered by each characteristic for the entire sample (N = 741) shows that the top three characteristics most appreciated by the graduates on their first job were (Figure 4): (1) the relationship with the colleagues (M = 4.16, SD = 0.92), (2) the relationship with the managers (M = 3.73, SD = 1.21), and (3) the work schedule (M = 3.66, SD = 1.18). Additionally, the two least-appreciated characteristics of the first job were: (7) the salary (M = 2.94, SD = 1.11), and (8) the possibilities for promotion (M = 2.76, SD = 1.24).

3.1.5. Current Status on the Labor Market and Localization of the Current Employer

In order to assess the respondents’ current status on the labor market, we used the question “Are you currently employed?”, with three possible answer choices: “Yes”; “No, but I was previously”; and “No, and I never was”. The overwhelming majority (90%) of the graduates in the sample (N = 772) were employed at the time of the study, while 10% were not, with 2% of them stating they were never employed (

Table 5. Current status on the labor market.

		Are you Currently Employed?			Subtotal
		Yes	No, But I Was Previously	No, and I Never Was
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	317 (93.78%)	18 (5.33%)	3 (0.89%)	338 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	375 (86.41%)	46 (10.60%)	13 (2.99%)	434 (100%)
Total sample		692 (89.64%)	64 (8.29%)	16 (2.07%)	772 (100%)

).

The current status on the labor market differed significantly by period of graduation X² (2, N = 772) =11.603, p < 0.05. The comparison of the two subgroups shows that the group of graduates from during the crisis period had a higher percentage of respondents that were employed at the time of the study, compared to those that graduated after the crisis (94%, N = 338 vs. 86%, N = 434); conversely, the latter group had a higher percentage of persons who were never employed (2.99% vs. 0.89%).

Regarding the localization of the current employer (internal/Romanian or external/foreign), the large majority of the graduates in the total sample (91%, N = 722) declared they worked for a Romanian employer, while 9% of them worked for a foreign employer (situated outside Romania). Although the percentage of participants that worked for a foreign employer was higher among the group that graduated during the crisis (11.53%, N = 321) than among those who graduated after it (7.48%, N = 401—see

Table 6. Localization of the current employer.

		Localization of the Current Employer		Subtotal
		Internal (In Romania)	External (Foreign)
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	284 (88.47%)	37 (11.53%)	321 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	371 (92.52%)	30 (7.48%)	401 (100%)
Total sample		655 (90.72%)	67 (9.28%)	722 (100%)

), the localization of the current employer did not differ significantly between the two groups, X² (1, N = 722) =3.465, p > 0.05.

3.1.6. Profile of the Current/Most Recent Job—Horizontal Matching, Sector of Activity, Managerial Role, Working Conditions Compared to Other Colleagues, Salary Level, Satisfaction with the Job

In order to assess the occupational dynamic since graduation, we looked at how the respondents evolved between the first and the current job. For those who were not currently employed, the characteristics of the last job held were taken into the analysis.

Regarding the horizontal matching of the current/most recent job held, approximately half (52%) of the graduates in the total sample (N = 729) worked in their field of study and/or specialization, an additional 17% in a connected field, and 31% in a different one (

Table 7. Profile of the current/most recent job—Horizontal matching.

		Current/Most Recent Job Is …			Subtotal
		In the Field of Studies	In a Connected Field	In Another Field
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	170 (52.31%)	60 (18.46%)	95 (29.23%)	325 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	212 (52.47%)	63 (15.59%)	129 (31.94%)	404 (100%)
Total sample		382 (52.40%)	123 (16.87%)	224 (30.73%)	729 (100%)

).

As in the case of the first job, the comparison of the two subgroups does not reveal large differences between them: about half (52%) of the members of both subgroups are currently working in their field of study, while those who work in a different field make up between 29% (in the case of the graduates from during the crisis period, N = 325) and 32% (in the case of those who graduated after the crisis, N = 404). The chi-square test of independence confirms that the horizontal matching of the current job among our sample did not differ based on the period of graduation (during or after the crisis), X² (2, N = 729) = 1.306, p > 0.05.

Regarding the occupational dynamic since graduation, we can observe that, between the first and the current/most recent job, the percentage of the graduates in the total sample working in their field of study raised by about 9%. However, almost one in three graduates (30.73%, N = 729) continue to work in a different field than the one they prepared for (Figure 5).

The comparative analysis of the two subgroups allows us to observe that the dynamic registered among the total sample regarding the horizontal matching of the first and current job with their field of study is faithfully replicated among each of the two subgroups with almost one in three graduates from each subgroup currently working in a field that is not compatible with their field of study (Figure 6).

The sectors in which the current/most recent employers of the graduates activate are: the private for-profit sector (70%), the public sector (27%) and the private nonprofit sector (3%). Entrepreneurs make up a little over 8% of the total sample (N = 728) and are included in the percentage of those that work in the private for-profit sector (

Table 8. Profile of the current/most recent job—Sector of activity.

		Current/Most Recent Job Is in the … Sector				Subtotal
		Public	Private Non-Profit	Private for Profit	Own Firm *
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	111 (34.15%)	10 (3.07%)	204 (62.78%)	24 (7.38%)	325 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	87 (21.59%)	11 (2.73%)	305 (75.68%)	35 (8.68%)	403 (100%)
Total sample		198 (27.20%)	21 (2.88%)	509 (69.92%)	59 (8.10%)	728 (100%)

* Entrepreneurial activity is included in the count of the private for-profit sector.

).

The chi-square test of independence shows that the sector of activity of the current job among our sample differed based on the period of graduation (during or after the crisis), X² (5, N = 728) = 16.946, p < 0.05.

The comparison of the two subgroups shows a higher orientation of the graduates in the 2008–2013 period toward the public sector compared to those who graduated in the 2014–2018 period (34%, N = 325 vs. 21%, N = 403), while, in turn, the latter are more represented by those who are employed in the private for-profit sector (75% vs. 62%). The percentages of those working in the private non-profit sector are very similar for the two subgroups (about 3% among each group) and are slightly lower than in the case of the first job. The same is true for the percentage of entrepreneurs in the sample, which could indicate that some of them decided to close their businesses and seek a job in a company. This latter finding is consistent with the results of a study on university graduates in the Netherlands, which observed that, under recession conditions, due to the fact that the number of jobs is limited, some graduates try to create opportunities for themselves and open up their own businesses, which they later close as the labor market recovers [19].

Regarding the managerial role at the current/most recent job, one in five graduates in the entire sample (21%, N = 736) declare they fulfil such a role (

Table 9. Profile of the current/most recent job—Managerial role.

		Fulfilling a Managerial Role at Current/Most Recent Job		Subtotal
		No	Yes
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	242 (73.56%)	87 (26.44%)	329 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	338 (83.05%)	69 (16.95%)	407 (100%)
Total sample		580 (78.80%)	156 (21.20%)	736 (100%)

). The proportion of subjects who reported having a managerial role at their current job differed by period of graduation, X² (1, N = 736) = 9.81, p < 0.05. The comparison of the two subgroups shows a higher percentage of persons in a managerial role within the group that graduated during the crisis (one in four, 26%, N = 329) than within the group that graduated after it (one in six, 17%, N = 407).

This situation may be explained through the higher seniority levels declared by the persons who graduated between 2008–2013, since seniority is a main requirement for fulfilling a managerial role.

Asked to assess their working conditions relative to those of their colleagues’, most respondents (83%, N = 734) consider they have the same working conditions as their colleagues, 14% consider they have worse working conditions than their colleagues, while 2.72% assess their working conditions as better than those of their colleagues (

Table 10. Profile of the current/most recent job—Working conditions compared to those of other colleagues.

		Your Current/Most Recent Working Condition, Compared to Your Colleagues, Were …			Subtotal
		Better	The Same	Worse
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	6 (1.85%)	268 (82.20%)	52 (15.95%)	326 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	14 (3.43%)	343 (84.07%)	51 (12.50%)	408 (100%)
Total sample		20 (2.72%)	611 (83.24%)	103 (14.04%)	734 (100%)

).

Although the percentage of members that report worse working conditions than their colleagues is slightly higher among those who graduated during the crisis period (15.95%, N = 326) than among those who graduated after the crisis (12.50%, N = 408), the comparison of the two subgroups does not show significant differences between their subjective evaluations regarding the working conditions, X² (2, N = 734) = 3.296, p > 0.05.

Between June and December 2020 (the period when the data were collected), the average net monthly salary in Romania oscillated between the equivalent of 640 and 734 Euros, therefore we placed the net monthly salary level declared by the respondents in three possible categories: low—under 600 EUR, average—600–1000 EUR, and high—over 1000 EUR.

The analysis of the data for the entire sample (N = 733) shows that about 22% of the graduates have a high salary level, almost 38% have an average salary, while the highest percentage of them (40%) earn low salaries (under 600 EUR/month).

There is a significant relationship between the salary level and the period of graduation, with the graduates from during the crisis period being more likely to have a higher salary level than those who graduated after the crisis, X² (2, N = 733) = 43.47, p < 0.05.

The respondents in the 2008–2013 graduates group (N = 326) are distributed as follows: 39% have an average net salary, almost one in three (31%) have a high net salary and about the same (30%) have a low net salary (Figure 7).

This allows us to notice that the situation of the respondents in the 2014–2018 graduates group (N = 407) is worse than of their counterparts, because half of them (50%) have a low net salary, about one third of them (36%) have an average net salary and only one in seven (14%) have a high net salary.

As in the case of the satisfaction with the first job, the same eight characteristics were used to assess the graduates’ level of satisfaction toward their current/most recent job. An independent samples t-test revealed no significant differences between the scores registered by each characteristic among the two subgroups. The analysis of the mean scores registered by each characteristic for the entire sample (N = 711) shows that the top three characteristics most appreciated by the subjects on their current job are the same as in the case of the first job (Figure 8): (1) the relationship with the colleagues (M = 4.37, SD = 0.83), (2) the relationship with the managers (M = 4.18, SD = 0.98), and (3) the work schedule (M = 4.08, SD = 1.00). Additionally, the two least-appreciated characteristics remain similar to those of the first job: (7) the salary (M = 3.79, SD = 0.92), and (8) the possibility for promotion (M = 3.62, SD = 1.11).

The results of a paired samples t-test for the entire sample regarding the levels of satisfaction with the eight characteristics of the current job, compared to the first one, show that, for each characteristic, the level of satisfaction increased (Figure 9), and this increase is statistically significant:

• The satisfaction regarding the possibilities for promotion among the graduates in the sample increases with 0.86 points and the increase is significant: t(715) = 17.51, p < 0.05;
• The satisfaction regarding the salary among the graduates in the sample increases with 0.85 points and the increase is significant: t(717) = 18.74, p < 0.05;
• The satisfaction regarding the benefits among the graduates in the sample (increases with 0.81 points and the increase is significant: t(718) = 16.95, p < 0.05;
• The satisfaction regarding the demands of the job among the graduates in the sample increases with 0.50 points and the increase is significant: t(719) = 11.84, p < 0.05;
• The satisfaction regarding the work conditions among the graduates in the sample increases with 0.56 points and the increase is significant: t(719) = 12.09, p < 0.05;
• The satisfaction regarding the work schedule among the graduates in the sample increases with 0.42 points and the increase is significant: t(718) = 8.67, p < 0.05;
• The satisfaction regarding the relationships with the managers among the graduates in the sample increases with 0.45 points and the increase is significant: t(716) = 9.58, p < 0.05;
• The satisfaction regarding the relationships with the colleagues among the graduates in the sample increases with 0.21 points and the increase is significant: t(718) = 5.72, p < 0.05.

In summary, the graduates’ level of satisfaction with their jobs seems to increase as they move from the first job to the current one and the increase is significant. On the other hand, although the characteristics that are the least appreciated about their first job (salary and the possibilities for promotion) are the ones that register the highest increases at the current job, they still remain the least appreciated in the context of the current job.

3.1.7. Satisfaction with Current Career Status

The satisfaction of graduates with their current career status was measured through two items: (1) the level of satisfaction with their professional evolution since graduation; (2) the degree of accomplishment of the professional expectations they had when starting the BA program. Each item was assessed using a four-point scale, where 1 meant “very low” and 4 meant “very high”.

Regarding the graduates’ satisfaction with their professional evolution so far, the overwhelming majority of the respondents in the sample (N = 750) have declared themselves satisfied with their own evolution since graduation: 47% declared a high level of satisfaction and 40% a very high one. Only 12% of the sample stated they are unsatisfied with their professional evolution since graduation, by declaring low or very low levels of satisfaction (

Table 11. Satisfaction with professional evolution.

		Reported Level of Satisfaction with Professional Evolution since Graduation				Subtotal
		Very Low	Low	High	Very High
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	6 (1.80%)	29 (8.71%)	156 (46.85%)	142 (42.64%)	333 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	14 (3.36%)	43 (10.31%)	201 (48.20%)	159 (38.13%)	417 (100%)
Total sample		20 (2.67%)	72 (9.60%)	357 (47.6%)	301 (40.13%)	750 (100%)

).

The differences between the two subgroups are relatively minor, with a slightly higher proportion of members of the 2014–2018 group (N = 417) who declared themselves unsatisfied with their professional evolution since graduation (13.67% vs. 10.5%).

Regarding the degree of accomplishment of the professional expectations the graduates had when starting the BA program, the majority (64.49%) of the respondents in the sample (N = 749) also declare a high or very high degree of accomplishment of their professional expectations from when they started the BA program, while around a third of them (35.51%) declare a low or very low degree (

Table 12. Degree of accomplishment of professional expectations had when starting the BA program.

		Reported Level of Accomplishment of Professional Expectations				Subtotal
		Very Low	Low	High	Very High
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	35 (10.57%)	73 (22.05%)	144 (43.51%)	79 (23.87%)	331 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	46 (11.00%)	112 (26.79%)	189 (45.22%)	71 (16.99%)	418 (100%)
Total sample		81 (10.81%)	185 (24.70%)	333 (44.46%)	150 (20.03%)	749 (100%)

).

There are some slight differences between the two subgroups, with the 2008–2013 group having a higher percentage of members who report a high or very high degree of accomplishment of their professional expectations (67.38%), compared to the 2014–2018 group (62.21%).

A comparative analysis (independent samples t-test) of the differences between the two subgroups regarding their satisfaction with the two aspects discussed shows that, although the graduates from during the crisis period register higher mean scores than the graduates from the post-crisis period on both items (Figure 10), the differences are not statistically significant: t(746) = 0.231, p > 0.05 for the satisfaction with professional evolution, and t(747) = 1.88, p > 0.05 for the degree of accomplishment of professional expectations had when starting the BA program.

3.1.8. Perceived Employability

Perceived employability was assessed with a questionnaire which included four items formulated as statements regarding the graduates’ confidence in their capacity to easily access a job (example item: “I am optimistic that I could find another job, if a searched for one”). The research participants had to express their agreement with the statements on a five-point scale. The value for Cronbach’s Alpha for the questionnaire was α = 0.91. The total score was calculated as the sum of the four items. A higher score meant a higher level of trust in their capacity to easily access a job.

The analysis of the data for the entire sample (N = 772) shows an average score of 9.29 points from a maximum of 20 (Figure 11).

The comparison of the two subgroups shows a slightly higher mean for the 2008–2013 graduates group (N = 338, M = 9.40, SD = 3.81), than for the post-crisis graduates (N = 434, M = 9.21, SD = 3.74). However, the independent samples t-test reveals that the difference is not statistically significant: t(770) = 0.698, p > 0.05.

3.2. Micro-Level Factors That Positively Influence the Labor Market Outcomes

3.2.1. Attendance to Internship Programs

The respondents were requested to provide information regarding their involvement in internship programs during their BA studies. As opposed to involvement in volunteer programs, the content of the internship programs is streamed toward providing the students with knowledge and competences from their field of study.

The analysis of data regarding the respondents’ attendance in internship programs shows that while 14% of the entire sample (N = 772) did not attend any internship in a relevant organization for the field of study, most of them did: half (52%) attended one such internship and a third (33%) more than one (

Table 13. Involvement in internship programs during BA studies.

		Involvement in Internship Programs (Relevant for the Field of Study) during BA Studies			Subtotal
		No	Yes, One	Yes, More than One
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	56 (16.57%)	163 (48.22%)	119 (35.21%)	338 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	53 (12.21%)	241 (55.53%)	140 (32.26%)	434 (100%)
Total sample		109 (14.12%)	404 (52.33%)	259 (33.55%)	772 (100%)

).

The involvement of subjects in internship programs did not differ significantly by period of graduation, X² (2, N = 770) = 4.984, p > 0.05. The 2008–2013 group of graduates (N = 338), has, at the same time, the higher percentage of graduates not attending any internship (16.57% vs. 12.21%) and the higher percentage of graduates attending more than one internship (35.21% vs. 32.26%).

An analysis at the level of the entire sample (N = 747) regarding the outcome of the first employment (in terms of horizontal matching between the specialization and the field of studies), based on the graduates’ involvement in specialized internship during the BA programs shows that 62% of the graduates were involved in one or more specialized internships (N = 642) secure their first job in their field of studies or a connected one. On the other hand, half (51%) of those who were not involved in any specialized internship (N = 105) also secure their first job in their field of studies or a connected one. (

Table 14. Horizontal matching of the first job, based on the graduates’ involvement in internship programs during the BA studies.

		Horizontal Matching of the First Job		Subtotal
		In the Field of Studies or a Connected One	In Another Field
Involvement in internship programs during BA studies	No	54 (51.43%)	51 (48.57%)	105 (100%)
	Yes	402 (62.62%)	240 (37.38%)	642 (100%)
Total sample		456 (61.04%)	291 (38.96%)	747 (100%)

).

A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between involvement in internship programs and horizontal matching of the first job with the field of studies. The relationship between these variables was significant X² (1, N = 747) = 4.75, p < 0.05. The graduates who were involved in internship programs are more likely to secure their first job in the field of studies.

The same analysis, this time regarding the outcome of the current/most recent employment (in terms of horizontal matching between the specialization and the field of studies), based on the graduates’ involvement in internships during the BA programs (

Table 15. Horizontal matching of the current/most recent job, based on the graduates’ involvement in internship programs during the BA studies.

		Horizontal Matching of the Current/Most Recent Job		Subtotal
		In the Field of Studies or a Connected One	In Another Field
Involvement in internship programs during BA studies	No	54 (51.92%)	50 (48.08%)	104 (100%)
	Yes	451 (72.16%)	174 (27.84%)	625 (100%)
Total sample		505 (69.27%)	224 (30.73%)	729 (100%)

) shows that, for the graduates who were not involved in any specialized internship (N = 104) the situation remains very stable over time, with 52% of them securing their current/most recent job in their field of studies or a connected one. However, among those who were involved in one or more specialized internships (N = 625), the proportion of those who managed to secure their current job in their field of studies or a connected one increased to 72%.

The chi-square test of independence shows that there is also a significant relationship between the involvement in internship programs and the horizontal matching of the current job with the field of studies: X² (1, N = 729) = 17.155, p < 0.05, with the graduates who attended internship programs being more likely to hold their current job in the field of studies.

Therefore, the attendance of one or more internship programs during the BA studies seems to be related to positive employment outcomes in terms of horizontal matching, and even more so in the longer term, for the graduates’ transition from the first job to the current one (Figure 12).

3.2.2. Having a Job during the Bachelor-Level Studies

More than half of the persons in the total sample (56%, N = 756) had a job during their student years and this is more accentuated among the post crisis graduates (60%, N = 421) than among those who graduated during the crisis (51%, N = 335)—

Table 16. Having a job during the bachelor-level studies.

		During Your BA Studies, Did You Work?		Subtotal
		No	Yes
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	163 (48.66%)	172 (51.34%)	335 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	166 (39.43%)	255 (60.57%)	421 (100%)
Total sample		329 (43.52%)	427 (56.48%)	756 (100%)

.

The analysis at the level of the entire sample (N = 736) of the job search duration after graduation, based on the employment status during the BA studies (

Table 17. Duration of job search after graduation, based on the graduates’ employment status during BA study period.

		Duration of Job Search after Graduation				Subtotal
		<6 Months	>6 and <12 Months	>12 and <18 Months	>18 Months
During BA studies, did you work?	No	215 (66.77%)	50 (15.53%)	17 (5.28%)	40 (12.42%)	322 (100%)
	Yes	387 (93.48%)	15 (3.61%)	4 (0.97%)	8 (1.94%)	414 (100%)
Total sample		602 (81.79%)	65 (8.83%)	21 (2.85%)	48 (6.53%)	736 (100%)

), shows that 93% of the graduates who were employed during BA studies (N = 414) found a job in less than 6 months after graduation. From those who were not employed during the BA study period (N = 322), only two-thirds (67%) managed to find their first job in less than 6 months. The chi-square test of independence shows that there is a significant relationship between having a job during BA studies and the duration of the job search after graduation, X² (4, N = 736) = 87.271, p < 0.05, with the graduates who had a job during the BA studies period being more likely to secure their first job faster after graduation.

It appears that having a job during the BA study period shortens the duration of the search for the first job.

A further analysis at the level of the entire sample (N = 747) regarding the outcome of the first employment (in terms of horizontal matching between the specialization and the field of studies), based on the graduates’ participation on the labor market (employment) during their studies, shows that, 71% of the graduates who did not work during their BA study period (N = 325) secure their first job in their field of studies or a connected one. On the other hand, only 53% of those who did work during their studies (N = 422) managed to secure their first job in their field of studies or a connected one (

Table 18. Horizontal matching of the first job, based on the graduates’ employment status during the BA studies.

		Horizontal Matching of the First Job		Subtotal
		In the Field of Studies or a Connected One	In Another Field
During BA studies, did you work?	No	232 (71.38%)	93 (28.62%)	325 (100%)
	Yes	224 (53.08%)	198 (46.92%)	422 (100%)
Total sample		456 (61.04%)	291 (38.96%)	747 (100%)

). The chi-square test of independence shows that there is a significant relationship between having a job during BA studies and the horizontal matching of the first job after graduation, X² (1, N = 747) = 25.867, p < 0.05, with the graduates who did not have a job during the BA studies period being more likely to secure their first job in their field of studies.

The same analysis, this time applied to the outcome of the current/most recent employment (in terms of horizontal matching between the specialization and the field of studies), based on the graduates’ participation on the labor market during the BA programs (

Table 19. Horizontal matching of the current/most recent job, based on the graduates’ employment status during the BA studies.

		Horizontal Matching of the Current/Most Recent Job		Subtotal
		In the Field of Studies or a Connected One	In Another Field
During BA studies, did you work?	No	227 (72.06%)	88 (27.94%)	315 (100%)
	Yes	277 (67.23%)	135 (32.77%)	412 (100%)
Total sample		504 (69.33%)	223 (30.67%)	727 (100%)

), shows that, for the graduates who did not hold a job during their BA study period (N = 315) the situation remains very stable over time, with 72% of them currently having a job in their field of studies or a connected one. However, among those who did have a job during their BA studies (N = 412) the proportion of those who are currently working in their field of studies or a connected one increased to 67%. The chi-square test of independence shows that there is no significant relationship between having a job during BA studies and the horizontal matching of the current job, X² (1, N = 727) = 1.959, p > 0.05.

Therefore, having a job during the BA program seems to negatively affect graduates’ employment outcomes in terms of horizontal matching of the first job, but this influence appears to dissipate over time, with the graduates’ transition from the first job to the current one (Figure 13).

3.2.3. Continuation of Studies with a Master’s Program

The analysis of the graduates’ choice to continue their studies with a master’s program shows that three-quarters (76%) of the persons in the entire sample (N = 772) have chosen to do so (

Table 20. Continuation of studies with a master’s program.

		After Graduation, Did You Continue Your Studies with a Master’s Program?		Subtotal
		Yes	No
Period of graduation	Crisis (2008–2013)	263 (77.81%)	75 (22.19%)	338 (100%)
	Post-crisis (2014–2018)	322 (74.19%)	112 (25.81%)	434 (100%)
Total sample		585 (75.78%)	187 (24.22%)	772 (100%)

).

The comparative analysis of the two subgroups shows no significant differences among them, X² (1, N = 772) = 1.354, p > 0.05, with 78% of those who graduated during the crisis (N = 338) and 74% of those who graduated after the crisis (N = 434) choosing to continue their studies with a master’s program.

A further analysis at the level of the entire sample (N = 729) regarding the outcome of the current employment (in terms of horizontal matching between the specialization and the field of studies), based on the graduates’ choice to continue (or not) their studies with an MA program (

Table 21. Horizontal matching of the current/most recent job, based on the graduates’ choice to continue their studies with a master’s program.

		Horizontal Matching of the Current/Most Recent Job		Subtotal
		In the Field of Studies or a Connected One	In Another Field
After graduation, did you continue your studies with a master’s program?	Yes	404 (73.19%)	148 (26.81%)	552 (100%)
	No	101 (57.06%)	76 (42.94%)	177 (100%)
Total sample		505 (69.27%)	224 (30.73%)	729 (100%)

and Figure 14), shows that 73% of the graduates who choose to continue their studies with an MA program (N = 552) currently hold a job in their field of studies or a connected one. On the other hand, only 57% of those who did not choose to advance their educational attainment level (N = 177) are currently working in their field of studies or a connected one.

The chi-square test of independence shows that there is a significant relationship between the decision to continue the studies with an MA program and the horizontal matching of the current job with the field of studies, X² (1, N = 729) = 16.374, p < 0.05, with the graduates who continued their studies with an MA program being more likely to hold their current job in their field of studies.

4. Discussion

The comparison of the employment outcomes of the graduates who completed their BA studies during the financial crisis and those who completed them after the crisis allows us to observe the following differences between the two groups:

• The average duration of job search after graduation is considerably longer for persons who graduated during the financial crisis (5.7 months), compared to those who graduated after the crisis (3.3 months). Additionally, the percentage of persons who manage to find their first job in less than 6 months after the graduation is lower among those who graduated during the crisis than among those who graduated after it (76%, vs. 87%). A relatively recent study conducted on university graduates in the Czech Republic showed that about 86% of the graduates surveyed found employment in less than 6 months after graduation [23], which is in line with the results regarding this employment outcome among the post-crisis graduates, which, in turn, implies that the persons who graduated during the crisis confronted longer-than-normal waiting times before accessing their first job.
• In spite of this initial setback, the seniority levels (number of years of work experience) held by the persons who graduated during the financial crisis are higher than those of the persons who graduated after the crisis, with the majority of the former group (almost 90%) having more than 5 years of work experience and the majority of the latter group (72%) being in employment for less than 5 years.
• The average experience on the labor market (measured via the total number of jobs held) is also superior among those who graduated during the financial crisis (who held on average 3.36 jobs) compared to those who graduated after the crisis (who held on average 2.55 jobs). A recent study [19] highlighted the importance of job mobility, especially between firms, in the process of recovery of the losses registered by the generations who graduated during recession periods. The profile of the first job accessed shows no significant differences regarding the horizontal matching of the job with the field of studies, or the sector of activity among the two subgroups. Unfortunately, about 40% of the graduates in the sample did not manage to secure their first job in a field aligned with their own specialization, and, contrary to the conclusions of previous studies [16,17,19], this was not unique for the persons who graduated during the crisis but was also found among those who graduated in the recovery period.
• The level of satisfaction with the first job is very similar for both subgroups, for almost all the characteristics of the job, with one single exception—the possibilities for promotion, which registered a higher mean score among the respondents who graduated after the crisis than among those who graduated during it. This is in line with the results of previous studies, which found that, during recession periods, one of the negative effects confronted by the university graduates on the labor market consists of the reduced possibility for career advancement [18].
• The percentage of respondents that were employed at the time of the study was higher among the subgroup that graduated during the crisis period (94%) than among the subgroup that graduated after the crisis (86%). Moreover, the latter group had a higher percentage of persons who were never employed (2.99% vs. 0.89%).
• Although a slightly higher percentage of persons who graduated during the financial crisis worked for a foreign employer (almost 12%) at the time of the study, compared to those who graduated after the crisis (almost 8%), this difference was not statistically significant. However, an earlier study, conducted in the wake of the financial crisis on Romanian students, pointed out the attraction they felt toward the idea of emigration or, as a replacement, working for a foreign employer, as a way to increase their income and overcome the difficult conditions of the labor market [25].
• The profile of the current job also shows no differences regarding the horizontal matching of the job with the field of studies, with about one in three graduates from each group currently working in a field that is outside their field of study. Additionally, we observe a very similar dynamic among the members of each group: as they evolve from the first job to the current one, they tend to secure jobs that are closer to their field of study. Thus, between the first and the current job, the horizontal matching with the field of studies increases with about 8% in each subgroup. The similar levels and dynamics of horizontal matching among the two subgroups goes somehow against the position held by some European researchers, who tried to explain the horizontal mismatch as a direct result of the financial crisis [6]. The situation may be caused, as suggested by other researchers [2,7], by completely different factors, subtler, but more enduring than the crisis, such as the way universities manage to respond to the dynamics of the labor market, in qualitative and quantitative terms (i.e., providing competencies needed by the employers, capping the number of students based on the number of professionals needed in a specific field in a certain period of time).
• There are some notable differences in the profile of the current job in terms of sector of activity, managerial status and salary level, between the two groups: the persons who graduated during the financial crisis are more oriented toward jobs in the public sector (34% vs. 21%), hold more often than their counterparts a managerial position (26% vs. 17%) and have higher salary levels. These findings are in line with the results of more recent studies, which indicate that the initial losses confronted by the graduates who enter the labor market in recession (such as lower wages, mismatched jobs, or slower advancement on the corporate ladder) tend to be recovered in about 5 years after graduation [16,19].
• The subjective self-assessments of graduates’ professional trajectories show many similarities between the two groups. First, the level of satisfaction with the current job does not differ among groups for none of the characteristics of the job. A further analysis of the dynamic of this variable between the first and the current job shows that it works very similarly for both groups: for each characteristic of the current job, the level of satisfaction increases compared to the first job, and this increase is statistically significant. Second, the analysis of the subjective assessment made by the respondents regarding their satisfaction with their current career status shows that, although the persons who graduated during the financial crisis period tend to report higher levels of satisfaction with their professional evolution since graduation and higher levels of accomplishment of their professional expectations from when they started the BA program, the differences between the two groups are not statistically significant, which means they perceive in very similar ways their current career status. These findings are in line with Holmes’ [3] view of the processual “graduate identity” approach on employability and employment outcomes, according to which the professional identity of the graduate is constantly evolving and periodically re-affirmed by the individuals, who continue to develop and accumulate agency as they gather more work experience. This complex process of identity development allows the graduates to feel they increasingly take control of their own professional trajectories, which in turn, reduces the perceived negative influence of the larger-scale external factors.
• The analysis of the perceived employability scores reported by the two groups revealed no significant differences among the persons who graduated during the financial crisis period and those who graduated after the crisis, which may signify that the graduates from during the crisis period did not interpret the effects of the crisis so severely as to erode their confidence in their capacity to access future employment. Therefore, the similarity between the scores of the two subgroups allows us to conclude that we did not identify any “scarring” effect [28,31] of the financial crisis period over the perceived employability of the graduates from those times.

The analysis of the three determinants of positive employment outcomes (attendance to internship programs, having a job during BA studies and continuation of studies with a master’s program) at the level of the entire sample allowed us to observe the following:

• The attendance to one or more specialized internships during the BA program seems to be related to positive employment outcomes in terms of horizontal matching, and even more so in the longer term, within the graduates’ transition from the first job to the current one. This finding is in line with those of previous studies, which have found enhanced horizontal matching between the job and the field of study among graduates who attended internship programs [33]. However, while previous studies observe a reduction of this positive influence over time [46], in the current study, we observed the opposite: as the graduates move between jobs, those who have attended internship programs tend to select, in a higher proportion, jobs that are compatible with their field of study, thus increasing horizontal matching over time.
• Being employed during the BA program seems to have mixed effects over the employment outcomes of the graduates: on the one hand, it appears to shorten the duration of the period necessary to access the first job. This finding is supported by results of previous studies [32,33]. On the other hand, employment during the BA program seems to negatively affect the horizontal matching of the first job. These mixed effects may be caused by the fact that some of the students working during the BA program continue to work for the same employer after graduation, and the jobs they hold as students and, later, as graduates are probably not aligned with their field of studies. However, the negative influence on the horizontal matching of the job appears to dissipate over time, with the graduates’ transition from the first job to the current one.
• The proportion of graduates who choose to continue their studies with a master’s program is about the same (three in four persons), irrespective of the macro-level influences of the economic context under which they graduated. This goes against the findings of previous studies, which observed that, in times of crisis, graduates tend to continue their education as a strategy to postpone labor market entrance and to increase their competitive advantage, but, as the negative context ends, so does the trend of enhancing the educational level [19,25,47]. The choice to continue their studies appears to have a positive influence on the graduates’ employment outcomes in terms of horizontal matching of the current job, since the percentage of those who work in their field of study or a connected one is considerably higher among those who continued their studies with a master’s program (73%) than among those who did not (57%).

Summarizing these findings, we conclude that, based on the data collected from our sample, we did not find solid evidence to validate the hypothesis of the study, which stated that the employment outcomes of persons who graduated during the financial crisis are significantly different than those of the persons who graduated after the crisis. Therefore, the evidence we found does not support the claim that entering the labor market in adverse/ crisis conditions causes long-term negative effects for university graduates, as other studies have found [9]. We did find evidence that the persons who graduated during the crisis faced some initial hardships in accessing the labor market, as evidenced by other researchers as well [6,7,8,20,23,24], manifested mainly through longer waiting times before securing their first job. However, it appears that, in time, they managed to overcome these hardships and strengthened their status on the labor market; compared to their counterparts who graduated after the crisis, they currently have objectively superior employment outcomes: they have higher employability, higher seniority levels, higher representation in managerial roles and higher salary levels. These findings are in line with the results of more recent studies, which observe that the university graduates who enter the labor market during recession periods, although facing initial losses in terms of employment outcomes, manage to bounce back about 5 years after graduation [16,19].

Additionally, in terms of subjective assessments of these outcomes, the two groups show similar levels of satisfaction with their jobs, their professional evolution since graduation and the accomplishment of their professional expectations from when they started the BA program.

Therefore, we would dare to say the persons who graduated during the crisis have refuted the allotted status as “the lost generation” or “the graduates without a future”, and they may have done this through individually replicable means, as the separate analysis of the determinants of positive employment outcomes among our sample suggests that these may be more relevant than the macro-level factors in shaping the outcomes of university graduates. The specialized internships during the BA program and continuation of studies with a master’s program appear to have important influences over the graduates’ employment outcomes, even in the long term, mainly from a qualitative perspective—the horizontal matching of the current job with the field of study. Being employed during the BA program, although shortening the waiting time before accessing the first job (thus increasing employability), reduces the horizontal matching of the first job, thus affecting its quality. Fortunately, this negative influence weakens over time, as the graduates evolve on the labor market and manage to secure jobs that are increasingly aligned with their field of studies. These mixed effects could be corrected by the higher education institutions through the provision of counseling services to the students, during their BA study period, in order to assist them in accessing jobs that are aligned with their specializations.

These findings provide support for the relational/interactional perspective on employment outcomes of university graduates [3], which proposes that the employment outcomes are not only the product of the individual actions, or of the general context, but rather of the relations and interactions between them, and thus the graduates are involved in a process of constant evolution and identity development on the labor market, a process in which they own agency and decision-making power.

5. Conclusions

Our interpretation of these findings is not that adverse labor market conditions do not have the potential to cause great harm to the graduates’ future and their later employment outcomes, but that there are means through which we can prevent and tackle this risk.

Governmental programs designed to support employment are very useful in overcoming the periods of crisis (such as the 2007–2008 financial crisis), especially for new graduates, who are very vulnerable in such times. In the specific case of Romania, the preoccupation of the government authorities with the labor market integration of graduates started around 2007, in the wake of the country’s accession to the European Union, and just before the effects of the economic crisis started to unfold. Among other actions and policies established by the government, a subsidy program targeted at increasing youth employment by providing financial stimuli to graduates and their employers was set up and funded through the newly accessed European financing mechanisms. This program seemed to have an important effect on the work integration of the young graduates: in 2008, almost half (47%) of the graduates that became employed did so under subsidized employment [24]. In 2009, this percentage decreased to about one-third (34%) [51], but it was still considerable.

However, if long-term sustainable and qualitative employment is the objective we aim for, government support cannot be the only instrument used to address it. Other means for increasing students’ resilience to adverse macro-level factors should be established, and these means consist in the enhancement of the students’ capabilities, even since during their university years, by equipping them with the competencies needed to access and to adapt to the ever-changing labor market conditions. Such capabilities, sometimes referred to by other authors as “career competencies” [52], or “career readiness” [5], should include at least two categories: (1) work-related competencies, which can be developed through specialized internships in partnership with potential employers, and (2) personal competencies for lifelong learning, which are needed to ensure a suitable development and adaptation of the person in the long term. These competencies have the potential to boost employability and engagement, and thus increase the resilience of graduates in their confrontations with various setbacks or career shocks [53].

Researchers in the field argue that higher education institutions have a crucial role in the development of these capabilities among graduates [5] and further analyses and inquiries into how this role is fulfilled now and how it can be improved in the future are certainly of use to policymakers, employers, graduates, and universities themselves as well.