Is the length of the first job-search spell a valid measure of external effectiveness of study programs?

The aim of this paper is to show that labour-market outcomes related to holding a job are not valid measures of the relative impact of different programmes, while better performing measures are those related to holding jobs reaching given quality standards. For this purpose, we develop a simple job-search model: graduates decide whether to accept a job offer depending on the utility of the different options. If graduates with better work prospects are more selective than others, neither the exit rate from unemployment, nor the probability of being employed at a given time are necessarily higher for those coming from "the best" university programmes. On the other hand, under mild conditions, neither the waiting time for a job reaching given quality standards not the probability of having a "good job" depend on individual behaviour, but only on work opportunities: this makes the latter indicators better measures of external effectiveness. Nevertheless, while cross-sectional data suffice for the assessment of the working condition, evaluation of the waiting time for a "good job" requires longitudinal data.