Rethinking the “70% of Graduates Would Switch to Trades” Narrative in South Africa

A recent international survey has sparked headlines in South Africa claiming that 70% of graduates would consider swapping their degrees for trade careers. It is a striking statistic, but one that does not hold up under closer scrutiny.

The research in question was conducted by a UK-based company whose core business is linked to insuring vehicles used as workspaces. Its interest in trade-related careers is therefore not neutral. The study forms part of a broader effort to engage graduates who may be considering alternative career paths, particularly in trades such as plumbing, electrical work, and similar occupations.

That context matters. It shapes both the framing of the research and the interpretation of its findings.

 

A statistic without context

The claim that 70% of South African graduates would abandon their degrees for trades has already appeared in local media. However, this conclusion is based on a small and potentially unrepresentative sample. The survey reportedly included roughly 250 participants per country on average, and given its UK focus, the South African sample may have been even smaller.

This raises immediate concerns about generalisation. A sample of this size cannot credibly represent the views of millions of South African graduates, particularly in a labour market as complex and unequal as South Africa’s. Survey research, especially global surveys, comes with built-in limitations. Without careful design that accounts for local realities, such findings risk oversimplifying deeply structural issues.

 

The reality of graduate unemployment

South Africa’s labour market tells a more complicated story. Graduate unemployment currently sits at around 11% to 12%. While this is a serious concern, it is significantly lower than the unemployment rate among Technical and Vocational Education and Training graduates, which ranges from 62% to 67%.

These figures challenge the idea that trades offer a straightforward or more secure alternative to university education. In fact, they suggest the opposite. A university degree still provides a stronger pathway into the formal labour market.

At the same time, the frustration among graduates is real. Reports have highlighted engineering and IT graduates struggling to find work years after completing their qualifications. Many only enter stable employment in their late twenties or early thirties, if at all. This is not a simple question of choosing between degrees and trades. It is a systemic issue tied to economic structure, labour demand, and uneven growth.

 

The influence of policy and public messaging

It is also not surprising that graduates express interest in alternative career paths. South African policy and public discourse have, for years, strongly promoted entrepreneurship and small business development as solutions to unemployment.

This messaging shapes how young people think about their futures. When formal employment opportunities are limited, entrepreneurship and trades appear as viable, even necessary, alternatives. But aspiration does not always translate into opportunity.

There is also a growing policy push to channel students into TVET colleges due to limited university capacity. This has created a binary narrative: university versus trades. In reality, this framing is too simplistic and potentially misleading.

 

Trades are not a fallback option

A critical point often lost in public debate is the nature of trade work itself. Trades are frequently framed as manual labour, as if they require less intellectual engagement. This is inaccurate.

Trade occupations involve a combination of technical knowledge, problem-solving, creativity, and practical skill. They draw on what can be described as the integration of head, heart, and hand. Many tradespeople see their work as a vocation, not merely a source of income.

South Africa undeniably needs more skilled artisans. Infrastructure decay, energy transitions, and water system challenges all point to growing demand for technical skills. But expanding trade without addressing labour-market absorption risks reproduces the same unemployment problems seen among graduates.

 

A deeper structural problem

At its core, the issue is not a lack of skills alone. South Africa has invested heavily in skills development since 2000, spending billions annually. The country arguably has more formally trained individuals than ever before.

The real problem lies in the structure of the economy and its limited capacity to absorb skilled labour. Growth remains too slow, inequality continues to widen, and opportunities are unevenly distributed.

Without significant economic expansion and a coherent industrial strategy, neither universities nor TVET colleges can guarantee employment outcomes.

 

What needs to change

The conversation needs to shift from simplistic comparisons to systemic understanding.

First, there is a need for better, locally grounded research on graduate employment and career pathways. Policymaking and public debate cannot rely on small, externally driven surveys.

Second, educational institutions should play a stronger role in preparing students to understand the labour market. This includes how industries evolve, how economic policy shapes demand, and how to navigate uncertainty.

Third, the state must align its skills development, industrial policy, and employment strategies. Training people for jobs that may not exist in a few years is not sustainable.

Finally, young people need to be equipped with adaptable, foundational skills that allow them to shift across sectors as the economy changes.

Beyond the headline

The idea that most graduates want to abandon their degrees for trades makes for a compelling headline. But it shrouds more than it reveals.

South Africa’s unemployment crisis is not a matter of poor individual choices between education pathways. It is a structural challenge that requires coordinated responses across education, policy, and the economy.

Reducing it to a single statistic does a disservice to the issue’s complexity and risks misleading policymakers and the public.