Criticizing the reliance on short-term skills training as a band-aid solution

Critics warn that focusing on short-term skills training fails to address the root problems of the graduate divide: a mismatch between university curricula and the economy, and a lack of early career guidance. They argue that while programmes like SkillsFuture help a few, they cannot compensate for a degree that has become less valuable in the job market. Humanities graduates, for example, often lack exposure to the digital tools and data literacy that employers now expect, and a few weeks of training cannot replace deep learning that should have been built into their courses. The government, critics say, is shifting the burden onto graduates to fix a problem that begins earlier. They point to countries like Germany, where universities work closely with industry to ensure that degrees remain relevant. Singapore’s approach, by contrast, often leaves graduates to scramble for credentials after they finish school. The result is a two-tier system: graduates from certain disciplines get smooth entry into high-paying jobs, while others struggle and often settle for roles that do not require a degree. This can entrench inequality, as students from less privileged families who may not have had the flexibility to choose a 'safe' degree are left behind. Critics call for a more coordinated effort between universities, employers, and the government to refresh curricula and provide better career counselling from the first year of study.