Linkedin posts top college ranking - justice for Babson and Bucknell LOL!

[Anonymous]

LinkedIn is for business people. Ranking might make sense from that point of view. The top 10 schools they list have strong business, econ, and finance.

For example, MIT is included in top 10 but Caltech is not...makes sense because MIT is more business/engineering oriented than Caltech, which is more science oriented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where it “the street” poster? It’s your day!

yes, they must be in on this god awful conspiracy with Linkedin to secretly elevate bucknell! i luv it - actual validation that these bucknell grads are killing it - and Cornell mom in Bethesda can’t handle it lol - let the chardonnay flow..

Strange that Wall Street journal- which does a similar analysis- doesn’t include these schools. Seems like selection bias.

Which schools? What’s interesting is WSJ also ranks Babson, Bentley and Lehigh very highly…all in top 15.

Yes, some similarities with WSJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where it “the street” poster? It’s your day!

yes, they must be in on this god awful conspiracy with Linkedin to secretly elevate bucknell! i luv it - actual validation that these bucknell grads are killing it - and Cornell mom in Bethesda can’t handle it lol - let the chardonnay flow..

Strange that Wall Street journal- which does a similar analysis- doesn’t include these schools. Seems like selection bias.

Which schools? What’s interesting is WSJ also ranks Babson, Bentley and Lehigh very highly…all in top 15.

I'd prefer a ranking system that can control for subject studied. It's insane to compare Claremont McKenna or Babson to a majority of colleges that have choices and options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where it “the street” poster? It’s your day!

yes, they must be in on this god awful conspiracy with Linkedin to secretly elevate bucknell! i luv it - actual validation that these bucknell grads are killing it - and Cornell mom in Bethesda can’t handle it lol - let the chardonnay flow..

Strange that Wall Street journal- which does a similar analysis- doesn’t include these schools. Seems like selection bias.

Which schools? What’s interesting is WSJ also ranks Babson, Bentley and Lehigh very highly…all in top 15.

I'd prefer a ranking system that can control for subject studied. It's insane to compare Claremont McKenna or Babson to a majority of colleges that have choices and options.

True for Babson and Bentley…but Lehigh has many choices of what to study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where it “the street” poster? It’s your day!

yes, they must be in on this god awful conspiracy with Linkedin to secretly elevate bucknell! i luv it - actual validation that these bucknell grads are killing it - and Cornell mom in Bethesda can’t handle it lol - let the chardonnay flow..

Strange that Wall Street journal- which does a similar analysis- doesn’t include these schools. Seems like selection bias.

Which schools? What’s interesting is WSJ also ranks Babson, Bentley and Lehigh very highly…all in top 15.

I'd prefer a ranking system that can control for subject studied. It's insane to compare Claremont McKenna or Babson to a majority of colleges that have choices and options.

True for Babson and Bentley…but Lehigh has many choices of what to study.

When nearly half your students are in the school of Business and Engineering, you really aren't giving data on anything but that engineers and jobs in finance pay well. It's the same for Claremont McKenna, where students have an abundant choice of major, but 50% of the college is in economics. Lists like these state the obvious, but it would be nice to see if there's any actual benefit to your degree in math or philosophy by attending Lehigh or Claremont McKenna, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LinkedIn is for business people. Ranking might make sense from that point of view. The top 10 schools they list have strong business, econ, and finance.

For example, MIT is included in top 10 but Caltech is not...makes sense because MIT is more business/engineering oriented than Caltech, which is more science oriented.

This is it. But the majority of people will wind up working in business even if they have an art history degree from Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ranking is built on exclusive LinkedIn data looking at career outcomes of alumni, such as job placement rates and advancement into senior-level positions, or how many alumni held an internship during their degree or started their own company post-grad.

Looks like it is a ranking of where people graduated from and where they ended up?

So nothing about the quality of education or facilities offered. A different pov.

And explains:

Babson: Business school that produces titles like: Director of ..., VP of ...
Caltech: tech school that produces more titles like: Senior or Principal Engineer than: Director/VP of ....

maybe for business schools this would mean something?

And people who go into academics and research count how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranking is built on exclusive LinkedIn data looking at career outcomes of alumni, such as job placement rates and advancement into senior-level positions, or how many alumni held an internship during their degree or started their own company post-grad.

Looks like it is a ranking of where people graduated from and where they ended up?

So nothing about the quality of education or facilities offered. A different pov.

And explains:

Babson: Business school that produces titles like: Director of ..., VP of ...
Caltech: tech school that produces more titles like: Senior or Principal Engineer than: Director/VP of ....

maybe for business schools this would mean something?

And people who go into academics and research count how?

Doesn't - this ranking is meant for people that want to climb the corporate ladder. Nothing else. You want research even USNWR doesn't do it.

[Anonymous]

Does this capture doctors in any way as an example?

I assume even they have LinkedIn profiles but not sure how they might be viewed in the context of this report.

I will say some of the oddest qualitative aspects are what they say grads from certain schools are strong at. For UVA it listed three things with 3D modeling being one of the three…does that make any sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranking is built on exclusive LinkedIn data looking at career outcomes of alumni, such as job placement rates and advancement into senior-level positions, or how many alumni held an internship during their degree or started their own company post-grad.

Looks like it is a ranking of where people graduated from and where they ended up?

So nothing about the quality of education or facilities offered. A different pov.

And explains:

Babson: Business school that produces titles like: Director of ..., VP of ...
Caltech: tech school that produces more titles like: Senior or Principal Engineer than: Director/VP of ....

maybe for business schools this would mean something?

And people who go into academics and research count how?

Doesn't - this ranking is meant for people that want to climb the corporate ladder. Nothing else. You want research even USNWR doesn't do it.

It's the douche nozzle 50, and seems pretty accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol at this ranking.

Disagree.

The LinkedIn college ranking is fine based on the methodology.

While I have never commented on Bucknell University on this website, I do know dozens of graduates of Bucknell. All seem to be very successful, but all of them also came from successful families who owned their own businesses. (As an aside, not one of the many Bucknell grads that I know is in the field of medicine.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this capture doctors in any way as an example?

I assume even they have LinkedIn profiles but not sure how they might be viewed in the context of this report.

I will say some of the oddest qualitative aspects are what they say grads from certain schools are strong at. For UVA it listed three things with 3D modeling being one of the three…does that make any sense?

The ranking only takes into account 2019-24 grads and specifically looked at careers in tech/business so it is not a good ranking for anyone targeting phd/research-based tech careers, MD, etc.

All the docs are still in med school or residency and most docs once in a real job post residency do not have linked in. It is not very useful for getting hired as a physician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranking is built on exclusive LinkedIn data looking at career outcomes of alumni, such as job placement rates and advancement into senior-level positions, or how many alumni held an internship during their degree or started their own company post-grad.

Looks like it is a ranking of where people graduated from and where they ended up?

So nothing about the quality of education or facilities offered. A different pov.

And explains:

Babson: Business school that produces titles like: Director of ..., VP of ...
Caltech: tech school that produces more titles like: Senior or Principal Engineer than: Director/VP of ....

maybe for business schools this would mean something?

And people who go into academics and research count how?

Doesn't - this ranking is meant for people that want to climb the corporate ladder. Nothing else. You want research even USNWR doesn't do it.

For those who want research look at QS and filter for USA. Undergrad research possibilities tend to be highest at the top QS ranked schools. Many of the top ones also are tops in private/industry funding thus will have a nice buffer during the government related cuts. Top schools are digging into their private/corporate funding networks, some of which have had undergrad-sponsoring funding in place for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this capture doctors in any way as an example?

I assume even they have LinkedIn profiles but not sure how they might be viewed in the context of this report.

I will say some of the oddest qualitative aspects are what they say grads from certain schools are strong at. For UVA it listed three things with 3D modeling being one of the three…does that make any sense?

the ranking and listing of the "top things" is just a combing and sorting of data based on the job description the linked in user posted. It may not relate at all to their major. For example the young recent grads DS25 knows have variably generic to highly specific job descriptions on their linked in. Some are at tech companies but not in tech roles at all, they are in sales or HR, though from linked in title one would not know that. LinkedIn based rankings have many errors associated with the user-provided "data" it tracks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA ranked 12th, higher than half the Ivy League and far and away the top public.

Notre Dame #8

Please don't post anything positive about UVA. This board will not tolerate that!