The OP's "content" appears to be other people's content.

Agree. College transitions' feeder lists are stupid.

By its nature, DCUM is a repetitive forum. OP's that ask similar questions, such as "What colleges are close in selectivity to those on my current list," are likely to receive similar responses. For this type of question, College Transitions can be good source for offering further ideas, of which some may not have been previously familiar to those who come here for help. As to why the OP of this topic would be reading numerous other topics in order to encounter these examples, and then complaining about them by hinging the complaint on a tenuous LinkedIn connection . . . well, this seems to be some type of personal matter.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. I hope this isn’t the type of reasoning they teach at Harvard law.

I wouldn’t fixate on the exact spot each school has in a ranking—because this type of analysis isn’t 100% exact—but there is nothing inherently wrong with combing through tens of thousands of LinkedIn profiles to find where people with certain jobs went to school. PeakFrameworks has a similar analysis for investment banking with slightly different firms and years looked at, and the results aren’t terribly different. It gives you a good general idea and is consistent with what schools are generally accepted as targets.

Anonymous wrote:A PP. For the record, I'd like to comment that resumes are also self-reported data.

Yep. OP is nonsense.

A PP. For the record, I'd like to comment that resumes are also self-reported data.

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.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech/

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.

Awwww...info contradicts what you want to believe? Poor thing.

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.

+1
I think the person who constantly cites college transitions rankings has a favored school that is high in their rankings.

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/

These categorizations are much like that of Barron's, only more accessible. Certainly the site can be helpful.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t even know what you are talking about and I’ve been on this board since 2023.

You aren’t very active then

I don’t even know what you are talking about and I’ve been on this board since 2023.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This!

I'd say a major problem with U.S. News is that people define schools by it — for example, "T20s" — without citing a souce or naming a category.

In contrast, with posts using College Transitions the source and methodology are right there for anyone to view, evaluate and criticize when appropriate.

What I object to most though is the OP attempting to interfere with information that may benefit some people in constructing college lists or in evaluating potential choices.

LinkedIn data is a really large and comparatively easily accessed data set.

Sampling is an incredibly difficult task and quite expensive to do perfectly.

Scholarly papers are looking at LinkedIn data and producing valid conclusions. Perhaps they are directional.

It is foolish to dismiss LinkedIn as a data set. Especially in favor of a rankings series produced by a second-rate magazine that doesn't exist anymore and is now just a list-selling business.