<h1>1 Business/Economics</h1>
<h1>1 Finance</h1>
<h1>3 Computer Science</h1>
<h1>6 Accounting</h1>
<h1>6 Engineering</h1>
<h1>7 Marketing</h1>
<p>School</a> Rankings by College Major – Job Recruiter Top Picks - WSJ.com</p>
<p>Of course, this rating has its flaws. How can MIT not be #1 for Engineering and Wharton #1 for Finance. But still, it is nice to see Michigan get some credit.</p>
<p>Lol</p>
<p>Bucktard university #2 and rutgers #3 for business hahahahahaha let’s ask GS MS JPM or MBB how many grads from these non-targets they have in their classes lol… What a joke of a ranking</p>
<p>Maybe it’s because the ranking is by all employers as opposed to the elite employers we usually target. If you were to create another ranking only done by the elite employers, the rankings would change considerably. What do you think? I don’t know how they do their rankings…</p>
<p>But then that renders the ranking useless. Obviously if you were to ask the biggest ohio trucking company if they prefer recruiting bucktard university or harvard, they would say BTU, but that doesn’t mean the recruiter would prefer a bucktard grad over a harvard grad all else being equal. It just means that the recruiter would have better results recruiting at BTU than at Harvard because a typical harvard grad has better choice than an obscure job in nowhere ohio while a typical BTU grad has no choice. Surveying anything outside of elite employers would result in statistics non representative of a school’s attractiveness from the recruiting perspective</p>
<p>Yes, that’s the idea. I agree. However, I never assumed that the rankings were useful, so I don’t think that that particular conclusion invalidates the explanation. If you try to explain why these people created this set of rankings, you will have a much harder time doing so if you assume that they are logical and rational. Regardless of what I think of their line of reasoning, I think I guessed it correctly. It’s hard to see things the way they do because their point of view is very… different.</p>
<p>In this economy anyone offering you a job is an “elite employer”.</p>
<p>^ Only subpar candidates would use lame excuses like “in this economy”. Good (by good I do mean good) candidates are still getting courted as hard as they used to by elite employers</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No offense buddy, but just because you’re a “good” candidate and have a sweet job lined up doesn’t mean that anyone just as good as you will be courted by elite employers. I know quite a few kids that are pretty damn smart and still looking for employment, or settling for other less “elite” jobs when they are deserving of those “elite” jobs. </p>
<p>For every kid that has an awesome banking/consulting job lined up, there are many others still looking for employment/settling for other things just so they have a job. Be thankful for what you have and don’t put others down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are ways to get your point across without being condescending.</p>
<p>“Only subpar candidates would use lame excuses like “in this economy”. Good (by good I do mean good) candidates are still getting courted as hard as they used to by elite employers.”</p>
<p>That is not true bearcats. Recruitment activity, particularly on college campuses, is down (has been for the last 2 years). Look at recruitment figures at Wharton, Ross, Sloan, Haas etc… Of course, those are main hunting grounds, so the 2009 figures will not be much lower than the 2008 figures, but the drop is still noticeable. 2010 will not be any better than 2009 I am affraid. The damage done by Financiers around the world over the last 25 years will take years to fix. That’s what happens when you let your compensation schemes run wild.</p>
<p>At any rate, the WSJ ranking should not be taken seriously. It is fun, but nothing more.</p>
<p>For years I was a hiring manager for a large multinational (one that many on CC would consider elite), in the “salad days” we often hired 10-20 college grads a year. Last year the same group hired 0; the year before that 1. The quality of the candidates hasn’t changed, if anything it has gone up; but thanks to the economy there are many qualified candidates with quantifiable experience that are now available at the same price as wet behind the ears college grads. From what I hear, great candidates are getting one or two offers whereas in years past they would have 5 or 6.</p>
<p>Bearcats makes a name for himself, such as it is, as a provocateur; if he or anyone else is so economically inept that they can’t see that the world around them has changed, then I would suggest clamping onto the first job offer you receive, because there aren’t likely to be many more.</p>