Anonymous wrote:Binghamton University... really?

Yep. It’s a good school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

How is the real talent going elsewhere if the students admitted to HYP have the top academic indicators over every other school.

Top academic indicators coming out of an intensively managed childhood does not necessarily translate to real talent.

THIS!

I guess this settles the argument that Emory is better than Wake and Tulane.

Where are all the crybabies about how the new USNEWS rankings penalized all the schools with small classes and few Pell recipients.

Seems like this Forbes list supports the USNEWS rankings since no Tufts or Wash U either.

They admit people who are lower relatively speaking to perfect scores, the people who get in are all very strong academic performers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

How is the real talent going elsewhere if the students admitted to HYP have the top academic indicators over every other school.

Top academic indicators coming out of an intensively managed childhood does not necessarily translate to real talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

How is the real talent going elsewhere if the students admitted to HYP have the top academic indicators over every other school.

Averages.

They do admit lower performing students over higher ones, and those higher ones who get shut out of ivies go to state flagships.

And those state flagships accept a lot more students, especially in state, who have lower scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

I did read the article. The question cannot be answered directly because we don't know exactly what was asked or what companies were surveyed.

But, generally, the most colleges a company hires from can be due to location rather than anything else, so asking the question "which college do you mostly hire from" may not be an indication of what that the article was addressing, which is that more and more hiring managers view the state flagships and the lesser tiered privates a lot more favorably than 5 years ago.

If you graduated from an Ivy, your lack of reading comprehension is telling.

Here's what the PP asked: "Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates? "

Here's the answer: " the most colleges a company hires from can be due to location rather than anything else, so asking the question "which college do you mostly hire from" may not be an indication of what that the article was addressing, which is that more and more hiring managers view the state flagships and the lesser tiered privates a lot more favorably than 5 years ago.

And that's why what colleges they hire mostly from wouldn't necessarily match the most selective public universities.

The article isn't trying to list the top publics that most of the hiring managers hire from, but rather, the perception of graduates from top publics and 2nd tier privates, compared to top tier.

And once again, they didn't look at CA universities because CA does not use any objective figures like SAT scores.

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

How is the real talent going elsewhere if the students admitted to HYP have the top academic indicators over every other school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

It's about the hiring manager's perception, which is key.

It comes down to preparedness. Some 37% of those with hiring authority in our survey said state universities were doing better than five years ago in preparing job candidates and 31% thought non-Ivy League private colleges had improved. Just 14% had similar praise for the Ivy League, while 20% said they’re doing worse, making this the only segment in which negative appraisals of the trend in job readiness exceeded positive ones.

The problem with the list is they curated it to 32 schools based on selectivity and test scores and then asked respondents which of these 32 schools they hire from.

I don’t get why it was curated to only 32 schools as a starting point…that makes zero sense.

Again, University of Indiana was specifically mentioned in the article…but it won’t make the list because it isn’t selective enough. Doesn’t make much sense.

But, isn't that how people perceive "elite" schools? Based selectivity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Binghamton University... really?

Where is it?

DP here. Never heard of it.

Binghamton is the old SUNY-Binghamton. It's the flagship of the NY system. Filled with working and middle class kids from Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, Stuy, etc. who cannot afford HYPSM.

You may have never heard of it, but fairly confident your DC's GPA/SAT score is dusted by these kids.

We have discovered a new species... The Binghamton booster!

Neither DC is @ Binghamton. We are full pay and they are in T20s, but I live in NYC so I know these families. IYKYK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

It's about the hiring manager's perception, which is key.

It comes down to preparedness. Some 37% of those with hiring authority in our survey said state universities were doing better than five years ago in preparing job candidates and 31% thought non-Ivy League private colleges had improved. Just 14% had similar praise for the Ivy League, while 20% said they’re doing worse, making this the only segment in which negative appraisals of the trend in job readiness exceeded positive ones.

The problem with the list is they curated it to 32 schools based on selectivity and test scores and then asked respondents which of these 32 schools they hire from.

I don’t get why it was curated to only 32 schools as a starting point…that makes zero sense.

Again, University of Indiana was specifically mentioned in the article…but it won’t make the list because it isn’t selective enough. Doesn’t make much sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

I did read the article. The question cannot be answered directly because we don't know exactly what was asked or what companies were surveyed.

But, generally, the most colleges a company hires from can be due to location rather than anything else, so asking the question "which college do you mostly hire from" may not be an indication of what that the article was addressing, which is that more and more hiring managers view the state flagships and the lesser tiered privates a lot more favorably than 5 years ago.

If you graduated from an Ivy, your lack of reading comprehension is telling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

It's about the hiring manager's perception, which is key.

It comes down to preparedness. Some 37% of those with hiring authority in our survey said state universities were doing better than five years ago in preparing job candidates and 31% thought non-Ivy League private colleges had improved. Just 14% had similar praise for the Ivy League, while 20% said they’re doing worse, making this the only segment in which negative appraisals of the trend in job readiness exceeded positive ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

I did read the article. The question cannot be answered directly because we don't know exactly what was asked or what companies were surveyed.

But, generally, the most colleges a company hires from can be due to location rather than anything else, so asking the question "which college do you mostly hire from" may not be an indication of what that the article was addressing, which is that more and more hiring managers view the state flagships and the lesser tiered privates a lot more favorably than 5 years ago.

You don’t think the bulk of our S Ct Justices, prominent senators and other politicians and some might time talking heads have a lot to do with taking the shine off the ivy apple? At least the protestors have the excuse of youth.