Read the article
Start by being clear about what a readiness programme can and cannot show. It can show that students practised certain steps, that the college learnt where its students are weak, and that a record now exists. It cannot, on its own, show that placements went up because of it. Too many things change from one year to the next: the companies that visit, the roles on offer, the economy, the batch itself. If you claim a result you cannot explain, the claim will not survive the first question from a head of department.
Measure attendance first, because it is the simplest and the most often skipped. For each session, record who was expected and who came. Do it at the door, with a sheet or a form, and not from memory afterwards. Then look at it across the programme. Which students came to every session, which came to some, and which came to none? The students who came to none are the most important group, and the cell is the only body that can reach them.
Record what students practised, not only that they were there. A student who sat through a mock interview as an observer has had a different experience from one who was interviewed. For each session, note what each group did: resumes reviewed, discussions held, projects explained, interviews taken. A simple count of what was done is more useful than a general statement that the session went well. Keep it honest. If half the students did not get to speak, write that down.
Collect feedback while it is fresh. Ask students two or three plain questions at the end of each session. What was useful? What was unclear? What would you want more of? Ask the volunteers and speakers as well, since they see the batch from outside and often notice things the college does not. Keep the questions short, and read the answers before the next session, not after the programme has ended.
Write down the gaps. This is probably the most valuable record the programme produces. Over the sessions, patterns appear: resumes that list tools but explain no work, students who cannot describe their own project, a batch that is quiet in groups, interview answers that are memorised and do not fit the question. Describe each gap in a sentence, with an example if there is one, and say roughly how common it was. Use words such as most, some or a few, unless you actually counted. Do not invent percentages. A plain description is more credible than a precise number that nobody can trace.
Be careful with comparisons. It is tempting to compare this batch with the last one, or one department with another. Unless the groups were similar and the measures the same, the comparison will mislead. A better comparison is a student with their own earlier self: the first draft of the resume and the second, the first practice interview and the last. If a college keeps these, it has something to show that does not depend on outside conditions.
Protect students in the record. Feedback and observations are about students, and should be kept by the people who need them. Share the pattern with faculty and the head of the department, not individual comments with the whole batch. Do not rank students on the basis of practice rounds, because they were practice.
Finish with next steps. A record that ends with findings and no action is only half a record. For each main gap, write one thing the college could do about it, who will do it and by when. It may be a weekly practice group, a resume check before each company visit, or a second round of mock interviews for students who found the first one hard. Then put a date on the calendar when the cell will look at the list again.
When the placement season is over, look at the outcomes alongside this record, not instead of it. Some students will have been placed and some will not, for reasons that have little to do with the programme. But a cell that has attendance, practice, feedback and a list of gaps can say something useful about what to do differently next year, and that is what a readiness programme is for.