Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College transitions uses Linkedin data for its outcome rankings. These are based on self reported Linkedin profiles, they are not reliable. Please stop the excessive usage of college transitions rankings in your posts.

I don’t think anyone does. Everyone here knows the gold standard is USNWR, which has been around since early ‘80s.

College transitions is used a ton

Anonymous wrote:College transitions uses Linkedin data for its outcome rankings. These are based on self reported Linkedin profiles, they are not reliable. Please stop the excessive usage of college transitions rankings in your posts.

I don’t think anyone does. Everyone here knows the gold standard is USNWR, which has been around since early ‘80s.

Anonymous wrote:The issue is not everyone uses LinkedIn. I know, for one, that I wouldn't be listed, as a recent grad from Harvard law, in these rankings' datapoints, because LinkedIn serves no purpose in my professional career. Do not use these rankings.

This seems much like saying "I wasn't polled, therefore the survey is invalid." This would represent the case with whichever law school you attended. That said, I'm not even sure where people are seeing College Transitions feeder lists through DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The source may not use LinkedIn data at all. For example, this is a more or less a standard categorization of colleges by selectivity:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/admissions-counseling/college-selectivity/

Took 1 google search for a ranking:
In order to identify “top feeder” colleges, we relied on publicly available data from LinkedIn, a professional networking site featuring profiles of approximately 170 million workers across the United States.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-law-school/

For its feeder school rankings, College Transitions uses LinkedIn to obtain matriculation data, such as that of the undergraduate colleges and law schools attended according to the profiles. In that these profiles have a professional intent, they are likely to be reasonably reliable. Someone not seeking this type of information might find it simpler to read replies of interest to them

Not only they are not reliable. But they also don't reflect the recent trend. Why is it relevant 20-30 years ago Haverford sent most of its graduates to Penn med school? College transitions doesnt' break it down by years.
A lot of physicians don't even care to put their undergrad school on linkedin unless it's an ivy. They do care a lot about med school and residency, which really count.
etc. etc.
I don't trust the feeder list at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The source may not use LinkedIn data at all. For example, this is a more or less a standard categorization of colleges by selectivity:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/admissions-counseling/college-selectivity/

Took 1 google search for a ranking:
In order to identify “top feeder” colleges, we relied on publicly available data from LinkedIn, a professional networking site featuring profiles of approximately 170 million workers across the United States.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-law-school/

For its feeder school rankings, College Transitions uses LinkedIn to obtain matriculation data, such as that of the undergraduate colleges and law schools attended according to the profiles. In that these profiles have a professional intent, they are likely to be reasonably reliable. Someone not seeking this type of information might find it simpler to read replies of interest to them

Most people use the feeder lists, not the other ranking lists from college transitions to make their points. I am suspecting most of these are bots and not real people.

The issue is not everyone uses LinkedIn. I know, for one, that I wouldn't be listed, as a recent grad from Harvard law, in these rankings' datapoints, because LinkedIn serves no purpose in my professional career. Do not use these rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The source may not use LinkedIn data at all. For example, this is a more or less a standard categorization of colleges by selectivity:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/admissions-counseling/college-selectivity/

Took 1 google search for a ranking:
In order to identify “top feeder” colleges, we relied on publicly available data from LinkedIn, a professional networking site featuring profiles of approximately 170 million workers across the United States.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-law-school/

For its feeder school rankings, College Transitions uses LinkedIn to obtain matriculation data, such as that of the undergraduate colleges and law schools attended according to the profiles. In that these profiles have a professional intent, they are likely to be reasonably reliable. Someone not seeking this type of information might find it simpler to read replies of interest to them

Anonymous wrote:For income data, College Transitions does not rely on LinkedIn. Here, for example, it rates graduate earnings at 10% and states the following:

Graduate Earnings (10%)

To measure graduate earnings, we relied on salary data provided by College Score Card, PayScale, and the Equality of Opportunity Project, all of which indicate both early-career and mid-career wages of students by college.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-environmental-science/

That’s for a general ranking. People are talking about their “feeder” lists.

For income data, College Transitions does not rely on LinkedIn. Here, for example, it rates graduate earnings at 10% and states the following:

Graduate Earnings (10%)

To measure graduate earnings, we relied on salary data provided by College Score Card, PayScale, and the Equality of Opportunity Project, all of which indicate both early-career and mid-career wages of students by college.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-environmental-science/

Anonymous wrote:The source may not use LinkedIn data at all. For example, this is a more or less a standard categorization of colleges by selectivity:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/admissions-counseling/college-selectivity/

Took 1 google search for a ranking:
In order to identify “top feeder” colleges, we relied on publicly available data from LinkedIn, a professional networking site featuring profiles of approximately 170 million workers across the United States.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-law-school/

Anonymous wrote:The source may not use LinkedIn data at all. For example, this is a more or less a standard categorization of colleges by selectivity:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/admissions-counseling/college-selectivity/

Well this is disingenuous. That is a ranking that you can’t use LinkedIn for. Most people aren’t leaking college transitions for stats, but for career outcomes.

The source may not use LinkedIn data at all. For example, this is a more or less a standard categorization of colleges by selectivity:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/admissions-counseling/college-selectivity/

My issue with college transitions is not really the website itself. It’s that a bot keeps posting college transitions and google share links over and over again in this site with no context and little applicability to the situation. When someone just plops a source and makes no point, it’s a struggle to take it seriously.

They’re not my go-to resource, and I don’t think I’ve ever linked to them, but I wouldn’t hesitate to use them if the data are sound. I don’t give any credence to LinkedIn data, but is your claim that they “use” LinkedIn data, or that they “*only* use” LinkedIn data? It seems that they have plenty of lists and resources on their site.

College transitions uses Linkedin data for its outcome rankings. These are based on self reported Linkedin profiles, they are not reliable. Please stop the excessive usage of college transitions rankings in your posts.