Contents
Tourism education and tourism training are two different things, and much of the argument between universities and employers comes from mixing them up. Education, in the sense a degree means it, should help a person understand how tourism works as a system: why people travel, how destinations are managed, how a hotel makes or loses money, what tourism does to a place and its residents. Training teaches a person to do a specific job well on a Tuesday morning: check in a guest, set a banquet table, run a transfer, close a shift. A good tourism career needs both. The gap with the industry opens when each side expects the other to supply the half it was never designed to give.
Employers often hire graduates and then complain that they cannot do the job on day one. Universities often hear that complaint as a criticism of their curriculum, and defend it. Both reactions miss the point. A degree was never meant to replace the first months on the floor, and the floor was never meant to replace thinking.
I sit on the advisory board of a university tourism research center and have served on the education commission of a meetings industry association, which has put me on both sides of this conversation at once. What strikes me is how often each side describes the other side’s problem and rarely its own.
What does a tourism degree actually prepare someone for?
At its best, a tourism degree prepares someone for a career rather than a first job, whether that career runs through hotels, destinations or the event management career path. Graduates should be able to read a market, understand the difference between a DMO and a private operator, think about seasonality, sustainability and residents, follow revenue and distribution, and see why the visitor experience depends on dozens of businesses that never talk to one another. That kind of understanding is what lets someone move, after a few years, from operations into sales, planning, destination work or management.
The field is wider than most students imagine when they enrol. Hotels and travel agencies are still large employers, but the types of tourism that now employ graduates include meetings and events, cruise, health and wellness, sports, culture, recreation, aviation, technology platforms and investment. A degree that only prepares people for a hotel front office is preparing them for one room in a large building.
The weak point of many programs is not the theory itself. It is that theory and practice are scheduled in separate boxes, theory in class and practice in a summer internship, with very little conversation between the two. The student learns about guest satisfaction in one semester and then spends a summer carrying plates without anyone asking what they noticed.
Why does the industry keep saying graduates are not ready?
Partly because it is true, and partly because the industry has arranged things so that it stays true.
It is true in the sense that a new graduate rarely knows the property management system the hotel uses, the way a particular agency builds its budgets or the rhythm of a congress week. Nobody can know all of that in advance, because every employer does it slightly differently. What employers sometimes mean by not ready is not trained in our way, and that is a job for the employer.
The less comfortable part is the industry’s own role. Internships in many hotels, agencies and event companies are treated as seasonal labour rather than learning: unpaid or barely paid, without a mentor, without rotation between departments, with the intern placed wherever the roster has a hole. Employers then hire the same students a year later and wonder why they arrive with a low opinion of the sector, and why the tourism workforce shortage never eases. Experienced managers are rarely given time to teach a class, guest lectures are arranged as personal favours, and companies that complain about curricula seldom offer to help write one.
The quality frameworks that exist already point to this. UN Tourism’s TedQual certification for tourism education programs looks at six areas, and employers are one of them, alongside students, the curriculum and teaching system, the faculty and management. That is a quiet but important idea: the quality of tourism education is partly measured by the relationship with the people who will hire its graduates.
Who teaches what changes every season?
Some areas of tourism change faster than any curriculum can follow. Distribution platforms, pricing tools, booking behaviour, event technology, the way MICE tourism clients buy, sustainability reporting, accessibility expectations: what was current when a course was approved may be outdated by the time its students graduate. Asking universities to keep pace alone is unrealistic.
The industry has the most to give here, and it gives the least. A revenue manager who spends one afternoon a term showing students a real pricing screen, a DMC operations lead who walks a class through an actual incentive program from request to invoice, an event producer who brings a technical rider and explains why each line is there: these are small contributions that cost the business a few hours and change how a student sees the work. They work best when they are planned into the course, repeated every year and given credit inside the company, rather than squeezed in when someone happens to be free.
Vocational schools deserve a separate word. A large share of the people tourism needs most, cooks, service staff, front office and housekeeping teams, technical crews for events, come from two-year and vocational programs rather than from four-year degrees. Their value depends heavily on how the industry treats them. Where a hotel kitchen works with a school kitchen, or a production company brings its equipment and its technicians into a stage technology course, those programs produce people who are ready faster and stay longer. Where they are seen as a source of cheap seasonal hands, the same programs struggle to attract students at all.
The same applies to newer fields. Recreation management programs, for example, train people for work in parks, sports and cultural centers as well as resorts, yet many graduates find that employers do not quite know what to do with them. The education exists; the industry has not always built the jobs that would use it.
What would an internship worth the name look like?
An internship is often a student’s first contract with the sector, and it shapes what they believe tourism is. If the first summer means long shifts, no explanation and a thank-you nobody says, that becomes their picture of the profession, and some of the best of them choose another one.
The internships that work tend to share a handful of features, and none of them is expensive. The student is paid. Each intern, or each small group, has a named mentor who meets them regularly and asks what they are learning. They rotate through two or three departments, so they leave with a sense of how the business fits together. At the end, the mentor writes a short assessment for the school and the student writes one about the placement, and both sides read the other’s. And the employer tells the students it would like to see again that a place will be waiting after graduation.
The gap between tourism education and the industry is closed less in classrooms than in the first internship and the first year of work, and both of those belong to employers.
So I find the usual debate about curricula a little beside the point. A curriculum can be improved, and should be. But a well-taught student who meets an indifferent first employer is lost to the sector, and an averagely taught student who meets a good one often becomes a fine professional. The industry, in other words, has more control over the outcome than it likes to admit.
Whose job is the first year after graduation?
The first year is where the gap shows most clearly and where it can be closed most cheaply. Some employers already treat it as a program: a graduate rotates through departments, has a mentor and a target in each, and sits down with a manager after twelve months to talk about where they fit best. Others hire a graduate into an open position, hand over a uniform and a schedule, and judge them by the end of the first month.
The difference matters well beyond any single business. A destination that wants to grow, push back seasonality in tourism or attract more congresses and events needs people who stay in the sector long enough to become experienced, and that depends on whether those first years feel like the start of a career or a temporary job with a diploma attached. Schools can help by following their graduates, keeping in touch and noticing which employers keep them and which lose them, because that information is useful to the next class choosing where to intern.
Industry associations sit in a useful position here, and I think they are underused. A single small hotel or agency cannot design a graduate program, but an association of hotels, congress organizers or event companies can agree on what a fair internship looks like, share a simple mentoring format, collect placements from many members and offer students a choice that no single employer could. Education commissions inside such associations exist precisely to connect the two sides, and their value depends less on statements than on whether members actually change the way they take on interns and graduates. A city can do the same on a larger scale: when a city’s hotels, venues, destination development bodies and schools look at the same calendar, an internship can follow the season instead of fighting it, and a graduate can see more than one employer as a possible next step.
I would trust an employer’s commitment to tourism education far more if it could tell me where last summer’s interns are working today.