Recruiting benchmarks survey_report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Recruiting benchmarks survey_report






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Recruiting benchmarks survey_report Recruiting benchmarks survey_report Document Transcript

  • RecruitingBenchmarksSurvey ReportKey Measures for College Recruiting$160 NACE Member / $260 Nonmember Price2|2013National Association of Colleges and Employers
  • 2 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersIntroductionCollege Relations and Recruiting Departments............................................................................... 6The Scope of College RecruitingFigure 1: Scope of college recruitingDepartment StructureStaff SalariesCollege Recruiting Programs: What Matters Most ........................................................................ 17Aspects of the College Recruiting ProgramFigure 17: Aspects of college recruiting – importance ratingsBranding TechniquesFigure 18: Branding techniques – use rateFigure 19: Percentage of respondents rating branding technique as highly effectiveRecruiting: Operational Details.................................................................................................. 21Target School SelectionFigure 20: Types of colleges/universities at which employers recruitedFigure 21: Selection criteria for target schoolsFigure 22: Target school criteria and offer rateRecruiters and College Career ServicesFigure 23: Campus resources in recruitingTABLE OF CONTENTS
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 3Evaluating On-Campus ProgramsFigure 24: Timeframe for conducting evaluations of on-campus relationshipsFigure 25: Methods used to conduct campus evaluationsCareer FairsFigure 26: Career fairs, by size of companyOn-Campus InterviewsFigure 27: On-campus interviews, by percent of hiresFigure 28: On-campus interviews and hiring, by industryTechnical Applications Used in College RecruitingFigure 29: Technical applications – use and effectivenessThe Hiring Process................................................................................................................... 29Cycle TimeFigure 30: Time from interview to offer in days (2008-2012)Figure 31: Time from interview to offer in days, by industryFigure 32: Time provided from offer to acceptance in days, by industryOffers and AcceptancesFigure 33: Offer rate trend (2008-2012)Figure 34: Offer rate, by industryFigure 35: Acceptance rate by industryDiversity Recruiting.................................................................................................................. 35Figure 36: Percentage of firms with diversity effort (2008-2012)Figure 37: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by regionFigure 38: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by size of companyFigure 39: Populations targeted for diversity recruiting, 2012 vs. 2011Figure 40: Hiring results by diversity populationsFigure 41: Hiring goals for 2013, by diversity populationsFigure 42: Targets for diversity recruitingThe New HireCandidate RetentionFigure 43: One-year retention rates, by industryFigure 44: One-year retention rates, by size of companyFigure 45: Five-year retention rates, by industryFigure 46: Five-year retention rates, by size of companyRotational ProgramsFigure 47: Rotational programs, by size of companyFigure 48: Rotational programs, by industryFigure 49: Percent of new recruits involved in rotational programs, by size of companyFigure 50: Rotational structuresFigure 51: Overall duration of rotational programFigure 52: Overall duration of rotational segmentsSummaryAppendixRespondent DemographicsFigure 53: Respondents, by industryFigure 54: Respondents, by regionFigure 55: Respondents, by size of companyParticipating Firms
  • 4 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersINTRODUCTIONThe 2012 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey was conducted June 15, 2012, through August 15, 2012, among NACEemployer-member organizations. A total of 242 organizations, or 25 percent, took part. (Respondent demographicsand a list of participating organizations are provided in the Appendix.)This annual survey examines key aspects of college recruiting, including how efforts are organized, staffed, focused,and carried out, as well as benchmarks and metrics related to efforts and outcomes.Overall, the current survey collected data related to the 2011-12 recruiting year, but this report also correlates selectedactivities with outcomes, and provides insight into trends by comparing current and previous results.Some highlights from the current survey include:While two-thirds of respondents report that their college recruiting is focused in the United States for U.S.-basedoperations, there is some movement toward global recruiting. This year, 28 percent respondents said they recruit inthe United States and internationally, up from less than one-quarter in the 2011 survey.New college grads accounted for 51.6 percent of entry-level hires in 2011-12—up sharply from 45 percent in2010-11.Employers appear to be trending toward advanced degree students: Current results show that 76 percent of collegehires were bachelor’s degree graduates, down from more than 81 percent in the 2011 survey. New grads withadvanced degrees accounted for approximately 23 percent of new college hires—up from approximately 17percent in 2011.More than three-quarters of respondents have a college relations and recruiting department within theirorganization. In general, the existence of such a department correlates to the size of the organization. Firms with500 or fewer employees are least likely to have a department; organizations with more than 20,000 employeesare most likely to have one.The size of the organization, however, seems to have little effect on the size of the recruiting staff, expect in termsof the smaller firms. Companies with 1,000 or fewer employers average fewer than three recruiting staff members;companies with more than 1,000 employers average between five and 12 staff members.The average recruiter is responsible for approximately 80 new intern and full-time hires. The average, however, issomewhat skewed: The median is approximately 61 new hires, both intern and full time.The average salary for recruiting directors rose 3 percent since the 2011 survey and now stands at $122,050.Respondents identified branding their organization on campuses as the most important aspect of their collegerecruiting program.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 5Campus career fairs are the most widely used mechanisms for branding on campus.The survey looked at how branding techniques correlate to “success” (identified as higher acceptance rates forthose using the technique versus those not using the technique) but found most techniques had little impact. Onlytwo techniques had an effect: faculty relationships (75.7 percent acceptance rate among users versus 65.8 percentacceptance rate for nonusers) and SEO (80.5 percent versus 72.4 percent).While respondents identified quality of programs, majors offered, and recruiting experience at the school as theirmain criteria for selecting target schools, none of these correlate directly to recruiting success. Instead, results showthat organizations that choose schools based on the helpfulness of the career services staff achieve better results,as evidenced by a higher-than-average offer rate. Among those that cited the career center as their chief selectioncriterion, the average offer rate was 70 percent, compared to an overall average offer rate of 40 percent.Respondents indicated that campus relationships—with the career center, faculty, and campus clubs, in particular—are important to them, but less than half evaluate those relationships on a regular schedule. Moreover, evaluationstend to consist of anecdotal information, rather than actual metrics.On average, respondents take 24 days from the time of the interview to extend an offer; in general, they providestudents with about two weeks to accept or reject the offer.On average, respondents extended offers to approximately 40 percent of those they interviewed—up from justunder 35 percent in 2011.Acceptance rates haven’t moved much from 2011 to 2012, and remain high. Respondents reported an averageacceptance rate of 74.8 percent; in 2011, the average was 74.3 percent.Just under 70 percent of respondents said diversity recruitment is an emphasis. Overall, efforts are focused onAfrican-American, Hispanic-American, and female grads.Overall, the new college hire retention rate remains relatively stable at the one-year mark: Respondents to thecurrent survey reported a 90 percent one-year retention rate—close to the rates for 2011 (92 percent) and 2010(91.8 percent).The average five-year retention rate (68.9 percent) is also in line with rates reported in 2011 (69.2 percent) and2010 (67.6 percent).In terms ofonboarding newcollege grads,41 percent ofrespondentssaid they have arotational programfor their new hires.Note: Totals in thisreport may not equal100 percent due torounding.Slice and dice the survey data your wayGet a customized report based on benchmarks and comparisons tailoredto specific criteria you determine.Contact Edwin Koc, NACE Director of Research,
  • 6 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersCOLLEGE RELATIONS AND RECRUITINGDEPARTMENTSTHE SCOPE OF COLLEGE RECRUITINGCollege recruiting continues to be dominated by domestic concerns. Approximately 68 percent of respondents to the2012 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey report that they recruit strictly for operations in the United States, and just under72 percent of respondents restrict their recruiting of new college graduates to U.S. institutions of higher learning.(See Figure 1.)For a second year, respondents were asked to identify the scope of their firm’s college recruiting—whether the recruitingwas done only for U.S. operations or if it included recruiting for operations conducted outside of U.S. soil, and whetherthe recruits came from U.S. colleges or whether they involved institutions of higher learning in foreign nations as well.The distribution of recruiting domestically versus globally did not change a great deal from the last survey, but there wassome growth in the percentage of companies that are recruiting outside of the United States and for operations outsideof this country.The percentage of respondents who restricted their recruiting to U.S. schools fell from 75 percent in the 2011 survey to72 percent currently. The percentage of firms that recruited strictly for the domestic market dropped for the second yearin a row from 72 percent during the 2010 -11 recruiting season to 66 percent during the 2011-12 recruiting season.The increasing pace of globalization is best reflected in the growing percentage of firms that recruit globally and recruitfor both domestic and international operations. This has grown from just under 18 percent in 2010 recruitment survey tojust over 26 percent in this report.Responses % of ResponsesRecruit strictly in the U.S. for U.S.-based operations 157 66.0%Recruit strictly in the U.S. for both U.S.-based andinternational operations14 5.9%Recruit both in the U.S. and internationally for U.S.-basedoperations5 2.1%Recruit both in the U.S. and internationally for both U.S.and international operations62 26.1%Total 238 100.0%Figure 1: Scope of college recruiting
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 7Global college recruiting is focused among firms in terms of industries, size of companies, and even regions of thecountry. Several industries have an unusually high concentration of firms engaged in global recruiting. They arecomputer/electronics manufacturing, computer software consulting, and motor vehicle manufacturing. These industriesall have more than 40 percent of firms that recruit both in the United States and internationally for operations both inand outside of the United States. In the current survey, chemical (pharmaceutical) manufacturing is be added to the list:More than 36 percent of these respondents reported global college recruiting.There also is a relationship with the size of the company, although the relationship is not continuous—rather it is astep function. As Figure 2 shows, companies with fewer than 2,501 employees are not likely to be engaged in globalrecruiting. In companies with more than 2,500 employees, there is significant engagement: At least one-quarter ofthe firms recruit outside of the United States). However, the percentage of firms engaged in global recruiting does notincrease with size above the 2,500 employee threshold.The size difference between firms that recruit globally and those that are restricted to domestic college recruiting isfurther exemplified when compared to the number of total new college hires by the scope of recruiting. Firms engagedin global recruiting averaged 676 new college hires during the 2011-12 recruiting season (610 full-time hires; 66intern hires) compared with an average of 241 total new college hires for firms that recruited strictly within the UnitedStates (111 full-time hires; 130 intern hires).Finally, there is a distinct regional flavor to the firms that report recruiting college graduates outside of the UnitedStates. As has been true since the 2010 survey, firms from the Far West are far more likely to be involved ininternational recruiting than the firms in any other part of the country. Thirty-nine percent of firms from the FarWest report international college recruiting efforts. By comparison, about 20 percent of firms from the South reportinternational recruiting activity.U.S. for U.S.-OperationsU.S. for U.S./InternationalOperationsU.S/International forU.S. OperationsU.S./Internationalfor U.S./InternationalOperationsNumber of Employees % of Responses500 or less 72.0% 12.0% 4.0% 12.0%501 - 1,000 69.6% 13.0% 0.0% 17.4%1,001 - 2,500 80.6% 0.0% 2.8% 16.7%2,501 - 5,000 56.7% 3.3% 3.3% 36.7%5,001 - 10,000 65.1% 2.3% 2.3% 30.2%10,001 - 20,000 60.9% 8.7% 4.3% 26.1%More than 20,000 58.9% 7.1% 0.0% 33.9%Figure 2: Scope of college recruiting, by size of company
  • 8 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and Employers% Total Hires College GradsIndustry Mean MedianOil & Gas Extraction 47.00% 33.00%Utilities 59.40% 75.00%Construction 58.20% 55.00%Food & Beverage Mfg. 48.89% 50.00%Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 48.94% 34.50%Computer & Electronics Mfg. 37.47% 23.00%Motor Vehicle Mfg. 50.00% 45.00%Misc. Mfg. 39.33% 25.00%Retail Trade 46.33% 47.50%Transportation 35.60% 33.00%Information 60.18% 68.00%Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 51.45% 70.00%Accounting Services 82.17% 94.00%Engineering Services 51.92% 50.00%Management Consulting 69.47% 90.00%Misc. Prof. Services 54.25% 56.50%Recreation & Hospitality 41.00% 15.00%Misc. Support Services 40.40% 30.00%Government 41.25% 35.00%Figure 3: Percentage of full-time hires from new college graduates, by industryTHE NEW COLLEGE GRADUATE AND ENTRY-LEVEL HIRESOverall, employers reported that, on average, 51.6 percent of their entry-level hires for 2011-12 were new collegegraduates. This represents a sharp increase from the 2010-11 recruiting season when only 45 percent of all hires camefrom the ranks of new college graduates.The numbers are in line with a decade-long trend. During the period from 2000 to 2007, the average percentage ofentry-level hires that were new college graduates ranged between 28 and 36 percent; in 2009-10, the percentagereached 49 percent.The relatively high percentage of new hires that are college graduates that have been seen in recent years may also bea reflection of the general economy. The recession has given employers the opportunity to place greater emphasis onfinding new hires with stronger skills sets as indicated by an increase in educational and experiential requirements.In the 2011 survey, emphasis on new college grad hiring varied, depending on employer type, size, region, andindustry. In the current survey, there was very little differentiation in the percent of full-time hires that come from thecollege ranks based on either the size of the company or the region of the country in which the employer is located.However, variations based on industry continue to exist.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 9Figure 3 shows that there are some considerable variations among industry sectors when it comes to hiring newcollege graduates. Employers in the professional services sector, including accounting, engineering, and managementconsulting services, were clearly quite dependent on new college graduates in filling entry-level positions in 2011-12.By contrast, employers in the manufacturing arena, particularly computer and electronics manufacturing and the moretraditional areas of miscellaneous manufacturing, were less dependent on new college hires.Respondents also indicated the degree level of the new college graduates recruited. (Note: This was the second yearthis question was posed to respondents, which allows the first indication of any trend in degrees being sought byemployers.) As was true in the 2010-11 recruiting cycle, the dominant degree recruited by the employers respondingto the Recruiting Benchmarks Survey is the bachelor’s degree. More than 75 percent of all new college hires werestudents who had just completed studies for their bachelor’s degree. However, as Figure 4 illustrates, the percentof recruits with a bachelor’s degree is down noticeably from 2011. Meanwhile, the percent coming from all theother degree categories increased, most especially among those with a master’s-level education. Combining M.B.A.grads with all other master’s degree holders, the percentage of recruits at the master’s degree level moved fromapproximately 18 percent in 2010-11 to nearly 23 percent in 2011-12.020406080100 2011 20122.0%Associate Bachelor’s Master’s M.B.A. Ph.D2.8%75.9%9.8%14.5%4.8%1.9%2.2%6.0%81.5%Figure 4: Percentage of new college recruits, by degree level
  • 10 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersDEPARTMENT STRUCTURENearly 76 percent of respondents to this survey have a college relations and recruiting department within theirorganization. This is relatively consistent with the results from previous years: In the 2011 survey, 74 percent ofrespondents and 78 percent of 2010 survey respondents had a defined college relations department as part of theirhuman resources operations.Also consistent with the results from previous years’ surveys is the relationship between a formally structured collegerelations department and the size of company. As Figure 5 shows, there is a fairly clear relationship between size ofcompany and the existence of a formal college relations department. As the figure details, below 2,501 employees,the percentage of firms with formal college relations departments ranges from less than 50 percent for the smallestsize firms to approximately two-thirds of firms in the category with 1,000 to 2,500 employees. More than 80 percentof firms with 2,501 employees or more have a formal college relations department.Whereas size is a major indicator for the existence of a formal college recruiting department, geography and industryare much less so. Region has no effect on whether a firm is likely to have a college relations department, and industryhas a minimal impact.Among respondents reporting a formal recruiting department, the average number of full-time staff fell slightly froman overall average of 8.2 in the 2011 survey to 8.0 in the current survey. In the 2010 survey, the average was 7.7full-time staff per recruiting department.Interestingly, there is little discernible relationship between the size of the company and the size of its recruitingstaff, except at the lowest end of the size scale. As Figure 6 shows, firms with fewer than 1,001 employees averagefewer than three full-time personnel devoted to college recruiting. By comparison, companies with more than 1,000employees tend to have between five and 12 staff members focused on college recruiting.Number of EmployeesCollege Relations DepartmentYes No% of Responses500 or less 44.0% 56.0%501 - 1,000 52.4% 47.6%1,001 - 2,500 67.7% 32.3%2,501 - 5,000 80.8% 19.2%5,001 - 10,000 91.9% 8.1%10,001 - 20,000 80.0% 20.0%More than 20,000 92.0% 8.0%Figure 5: Existence of college relations departments, by size of company
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 11Another way to view staffing is to examine the number of recruiters employed compared to the number ofcollege recruits to be hired. Overall, among firms that reported their number of recruiters, each recruiter hiredan average of 80.1 grads as full-time employees or interns. This number was somewhat skewed by several firmsthat reported very high hire figures compared with the number of recruiters they employed. This is evident froma considerably lower figure: the median number of hires per recruiter—60.7.There are differences in the recruiter staffing ratio based on both the size of the company and the industry of theemployer. Figure 7 shows that there is a linear relationship between size and the number of hires per recruiter—the smaller the employer, the smaller the number of hires per recruiter. The range goes from an average of 25hires per recruiter for firms with fewer than 500 employees to more than 100 hires per recruiter for firms withmore than 10,000 employees.Number of EmployeesFTE StaffMean500 or less501 - 1,0001,001 - 2,5002,501 - 5,0005,001 - 10,00010,001 - 20,000More than 20,000Figure 6: Size of college relations departments, by size of companyHires per RecruiterNumber of Employees Mean Median500 or less 25.21 20.00501 - 1,000 42.97 45.671,001 - 2,500 44.92 32.002,501 - 5,000 56.55 36.675,001 - 10,000 84.77 77.3310,001 - 20,000 142.19 113.75More than 20,000 107.95 75.00Figure 7: Hires per recruiter, by size of company
  • 12 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersHires per RecruiterIndustry Mean MedianOil & Gas Extraction 44.99 43.14Construction 43.60 26.00Food & Beverage Mfg. 92.60 31.67Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 119.39 104.33Computer & Electronics Mfg. 81.34 60.33Misc. Mfg. 67.86 46.89Retail Trade 39.48 32.00Transportation 75.97 69.50Information 102.41 107.69Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 88.96 59.25Engineering Services 86.75 49.00Management Consulting 75.09 72.67Misc. Prof. Services 47.53 53.25Figure 8: Hires per recruiter, by industryThese differences in the hire-to-recruiter ratio suggest significant economies of scale in the talent acquisition process.Since personnel costs are likely to account for a major portion of the overall cost in talent acquisition, the relatively lownumber of recruiters needed to hire new employees for larger companies should translate to a lower cost-per-hire figurefor larger firms. Unfortunately, because the data on cost-per-hire are limited, it is impossible to reliably confirm thisspeculation.There are also variations in this staffing ratio according to industry. Figure 8 shows that the hire-to-recruiter ratio rangesfrom a low of just less than 40 hires per recruiter in the retail trade industry to a high of nearly 120 hires per recruiteramong pharmaceutical firms. Some of this differential across industries is related to the size of the companies in theindustries, but there are also independent variations that appear to relate to industry-wide behaviors.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 13STAFF SALARIESRespondents were also asked to provide salary data for their full-time staff members. Overall, director-levelpositions commanded the highest salaries, averaging $122,050, followed by managers, with salaries averaging$94,785. (See Figure 9.)The average salary shows some changes in the current survey. The average director salary is up approximately 3percent from that reported in the 2011 survey. The averages for all other positions suffered decreases ranging froma high of nearly 5 percent for coordinators to a low of 1.6 percent for managers.Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75Director – SalaryCoordinator – SalaryManager – SalaryRecruiter – SalaryFigure 9: College relations staff: title and salarySalary levels in college recruiting appear to bear little relationship to the size, region, or industry of the organization.Even the relationship with the experience level of the incumbent in a particular position is a bit dicey. Figures 10through 13 show the average experience level and the average salary by position and by the size of the firm.Years of ExperienceNumber of Employees Mean SalaryFigure 10: Director, experience and salary, by size of company
  • 14 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersYears of ExperienceNumber of Employees Mean Salary500 or less 7.00 $55,000501 - 1,000 8.00 $62,0001,001 - 2,500 6.00 $57,4292,501 - 5,000 7.00 $79,3335,001 - 10,000 6.00 $58,20010,001 - 20,000 7.00 $73,000More than 20,000 6.00 $67,200Years of ExperienceNumber of Employees Mean Salary500 or less 7.60 $45,207501 - 1,000 6.88 $45,4001,001 - 2,500 4.07 $51,6362,501 - 5,000 2.11 $45,3755,001 - 10,000 5.67 $44,37510,001 - 20,000 2.80 $42,753More than 20,000 3.70 $46,975Figure 12: Recruiter, experience and salary, by size of companyFigure 13: Coordinator, experience and salary, by size of companyYears of ExperienceNumber of Employees Mean Salary500 or less 14.67 $68,750501 - 1,000 11.71 $92,0001,001 - 2,500 10.67 $89,4442,501 - 5,000 10.55 $94,4445,001 - 10,000 10.82 $100,22210,001 - 20,000 6.92 $96,900More than 20,000 9.91 $99,217Figure 11: Manager, experience and salary, by size of company
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 15COST-PER-HIREThe average cost-per-hire for college recruiting is a number that should be used with some caution. The core problem,which has been around for many years, is that few employers do a sufficient job of allocating costs so that the truecost-per-hire can be properly assessed. This is particularly true for organizations where the college relations departmentis embedded in a larger human relations function with staff sharing activities across functions. For these firms, properlyallocating overhead costs can be a daunting task.Keeping these issues in mind, the average cost of recruiting a new college graduate during the 2011-12 recruitingseason was $5,134; the median cost was $3,333. (See Figure 14.) The wide difference between mean and mediancosts indicates a great deal of variability in the data. In particular, it points to a number of respondents with cost-per-hire figures that were significantly above the norm. Differences such as these can be a source of concern in thatthey may indicate instability in the data. However, the numbers for 2011-12 are comparable with those for 2010-11where the mean was $5,054 and the median was $2,906. This provides some measure of confidence that the limiteddata available are pointing to the same thing and the numbers are being computed by respondents in a more or lessconsistent manner.Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75Cost-Per-HireNumber of Employees Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75500 or less $1,185.71 $7,645.28 $7,645.28 $14,104.84501 - 1,000 $5,149.92 $6,634.85 $5,625.00 $6,323.531,001 - 2,500 $2,636.94 $6,512.14 $3,142.11 $10,154.262,501 - 5,000 $4,655.34 $11,365.37 $6,232.47 $11,363.645,001 - 10,000 $1,770.24 $3,181.87 $2,629.31 $3,014.8210,001 - 20,000 $2,654.58 $3,737.47 $4,021.74 $4,360.00More than 20,000 $1,702.81 $2,885.68 $2,607.14 $3,719.28Figure 14: Cost-per-hire, overallFigure 15: Cost-per-hire, by size of companyThe variability is also a reflection of how cost-per-hire is affected by the size of the company. (See Figure 15.) Asmight be expected, the average cost-per-hire is generally lower for larger companies. The reason is that total costsare generally offset by the far larger number of hires they generate. For these firms, there are economies of scaleinherent in spreading overhead costs, in particular, over a much larger base of new hires.
  • 16 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersRECRUITING BUDGETSHow are costs distributed across different recruiting budget categories? Respondents provided their costs byfunctional recruiting categories.1If the overall cost-per-hire figures should be used with caution, then these estimatedallocations should be treated with even greater levels of trepidation. It is always the case that the component parts ofstatistical relationships have even greater levels of potential error than exist for the whole. Nevertheless, the numbersrespondents provided are helpful for those seeking to understand how recruiting costs are distributed. Figure 16presents the average percentage distribution for recruiting costs across functional categories for 2011-12.1. The specific elements associated with each functional area include the following:a. Cost of college relations/recruitment office: Total cost of office overhead; salaries and benefits of recruiters—prorated if their time is dividedamong other HR functions; expenses associated with recruiter training and professional development, e.g. membership fees, conference/workshop fees.b. Expenditure for prerecruitment activities: Total cost of activities such as resume books, information sessions, related activities, programs forfaculty/career services staff.c. Cost of recruiting trips: Expenses associated with on-campus recruitment, e.g. recruiter travel and accommodations expenses, cost ofequipment rentals.d. Expenditures related to company visits: Expenses for bringing candidates to the organization, including candidates’ travel, lodging, and mealexpenses; and the time of line managers, recruiters, and other staff involved in the visit.e. Hiring and relocation costs: Expenses for new hires visiting the work city to locate housing, temporary lodging costs, moving expenses.f. Advertising expenditures: Expenses associated with recruitment advertising and recruitment literature.3.3%Cost of Advertising25.9%Hiring andRelocation Cost13.7%Company Visits36.7%College Relations/Recruitment Office7.8%PrerecruitingActivities12.7%Recruiting TripsFigure 16: Percentage allocation of recruiting costs across functionalrecruiting categories
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 17Not at AllImportantNot VeryImportantSomewhatImportantVeryImportantExtremelyImportantBranding your organization to campuses 1.7% 2.2% 6.5% 30.0% 59.6%Branding your organization to career centers 1.8% 4.0% 20.7% 43.6% 30.0%Identifying talent early 5.2% 3.5% 12.2% 20.0% 59.1%Measuring results 1.8% 3.9% 23.7% 33.3% 37.3%Diversity .9% 6.9% 18.2% 32.5% 41.6%Interacting with faculty .9% 6.2% 25.2% 43.4% 24.3%Using social networks 8.4% 21.6% 38.3% 22.0% 9.7%Accessing training 2.2% 25.4% 40.4% 23.7% 8.3%Managing campus relations with HR 5.3% 14.9% 25.4% 35.1% 19.3%Demonstrating the value of college relations 2.6% 7.9% 18.9% 33.3% 37.3%Figure 17: Aspects of college recruiting – importance ratingsCOLLEGE RECRUITING PROGRAMS:WHAT MATTERS MOSTASPECTS OF THE COLLEGE RECRUITING PROGRAMAs in previous surveys, employers were asked to rate a number of issues on their importance to their college recruitingprograms.Branding the organization to campuses was far and away the most highly rated aspect of the college recruitingprogram: Nearly 90 percent of respondents rated on-campus branding as very or extremely important. Followingon-campus branding were:• Identifying talent early through an internship program,• Branding directly with the college career center,• Measuring the results of the program,• Measuring diversity recruitment, and• Demonstrating the value of college relations.All of these were rated as very or extremely important aspects of college recruiting by more than 70 percent ofrespondents. (See Figure 17.)
  • 18 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersThere are only two aspects where the majority of respondents did not rate the activity as very or extremely important tothe function of college recruiting. These are accessing training for college relations staff, and using social networks torecruit new college hires: Less than one-third of respondents found these as very important. There were few significantdifferences among different respondent groups as to what they viewed as the most important elements of collegerecruiting.BRANDING TECHNIQUESWith branding clearly identified as a primary function for the college recruiter, the survey attempted to develop apicture of the most widely used and most effective techniques used to market an employer to potential new graduaterecruits.As Figure 18 shows, the most widely used branding mechanisms are appearing at campus career fairs, usingthe corporate website as a marketing device, and developing relationships with faculty. More than 90 percent ofrespondents used each of these mechanisms to brand their firms to potential new graduate recruits.Yes No% of categoryCareer/job fairs 96.8% 3.2%Corporate website 95.4% 4.6%Relationships with faculty 91.0% 9.0%Campus information sessions 85.3% 14.7%Supporting student organizations 81.2% 18.8%Social networking 61.5% 38.5%Campus website 59.2% 40.8%Advertising in job publications 37.4% 62.6%Internet advertising 35.0% 65.0%Search engine optimization 29.3% 70.7%Advertising in general print publications 19.5% 80.5%DVDs 6.5% 93.5%Campus radio stations 2.3% 97.7%Campus TV stations 0.9% 99.1%Figure 18: Branding techniques – use rate
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 1956.1%SupportingStudentOrganizations74.2%RelationshipsWith Faculty73.5%Career Fairs54.3%CampusInformationSessions55.8%CorporateWebsite25.0%InternetAdvertising22.1%Search EngineOptimization24.8%SocialNetworking45.6%CampusWebsite25.0%Advertising inGeneral PrintPublications0.0%CampusRadioStations18.1%Advertising inJobPublications4.0%DVDs0.0%Campus TVStationsFigure 19: Percentage of respondents rating branding technique ashighly effectiveThese results are consistent with the findings from previous surveys. In fact, the most noteworthy changes fromthe 2011 survey are the relative increased use of social networking and search engine optimization as brandingtechniques. Use of both grew, and each moved up one position relative to other techniques on the list of most-usedbranding devices.The perception as to which branding techniques are the most effective is also virtually unchanged since the 2011survey. Once again, the most widely used techniques are generally perceived as the most effective in communicatingthe company’s brand to potential employees. Building relationships with faculty and attendance at career fairs arethe highest-rated techniques in terms of effectiveness, with nearly 75 percent of respondents rating each as highlyeffective. The other branding devices where a majority of the respondents felt the device was highly effective weresupporting student organizations, the employer’s own corporate website, and campus information sessions. (SeeFigure 19.)
  • 20 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersIs there any statistical relationship between the application of employer branding techniques and the acceptance rateof job offers? The hypothesis is that an effective branding technique will be reflected in a higher offer acceptance ratefor employers using the technique than for employers who do not use the device. The thinking here is that a well-branded company will be more attractive and have a higher likelihood that their offer of full-time employment will beaccepted.When comparing the acceptance rates of employers that used these branding devices against those that did notemploy them, very little impact was found from the application of most of these techniques, i.e., the acceptancerate tended to be the same whether or not a company used a particular branding device. However, there were twotechniques that indicated a positive response:Companies that invested time and energy in building direct relationships with key faculty had a better averageacceptance rate (75.7 percent) than those companies that did not employ this form of branding (65.8 percent).Companies that employed SEO—search engine optimization—in a desire to drive web traffic to the company’swebsite had an average acceptance rate of 80.5 percent compared with an average acceptance rate of 72.4percent for companies that did not use SEO.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 210204060801002011 201211.5%2-year schools Traditional 4-yearschoolsFor-profit schools Online schools9.3%99.0% 97.4%12.0% 13.7%4.7% 1.8%Figure 20: Types of colleges/universities at which employers recruitedRECRUITING: OPERATIONAL DETAILSTARGET SCHOOL SELECTIONHow do employers decide what schools they’ll recruit at?This question was asked from two angles for the second year in a row. First, employers were asked which type of schoolthey targeted for recruiting (two-year, four-year, for-profit). Then, respondents were asked which attributes of a schoolwere the most important in choosing a particular college or university as a target institution.Figure 20 shows the types of schools at which survey respondents recruited in 2010-11 and in 2011-12. As wouldbe expected, virtually all respondents recruited at traditional four-year institutions in both the 2010-11 and 2011-12recruiting seasons. However, there is some subtle movement toward examining graduates from for-profit institutions. Inthe 2011 survey, 12 percent of respondents reported recruiting at for-profit schools; in the 2012 report, that percentageincreased slightly to approximately 14 percent.The percent of recruiters focusing on two-year institutions and online degree programs has dropped somewhat duringthe 2011-12 recruiting season. The percent recruiting at two-year schools has gone from 11.5 percent in 2010-11 tojust over 9 percent in 2011-12, while those recruiting at online schools dropped from nearly 5 percent in 2010-11 toless than 2 percent in 2011-12.
  • 22 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and Employers1 2 3 Total PointsQuality of programs 73 40 17 316Majors offered 66 49 15 311Past recruiting experience at school 57 28 37 264Location of school 36 34 37 213Success of school’s alumni in your organization 31 18 25 154Diversity of student body 19 27 25 136National rankings 19 28 14 127Reputation of school 18 19 7 99Accreditation of school 23 6 10 91Interest of school’s graduates in your organization 12 18 17 89Executives are alumni of school 10 12 16 70Retention history with school’s alumni 7 16 13 66Helpfulness of career services staff 4 15 13 55Salary expectations of students 3 12 14 47Respondents were provided with a list of school attributes and asked to rank the three that are most important to them when deciding where theywill recruit. Scores were assigned to each attribute; a first-place vote received three points, a second-place vote got two points, and third place wasawarded one point.Figure 21: Selection criteria for target schoolsIt is interesting to note that while there was no clear relationship with the size of the organization recruiting and thetypes of schools that served as targets, there were notable differences connected with the industry group and thegeographic region from which the recruiting firm originated.Employers located in the Northeast and on the West Coast were far less likely to incorporate two-year institutions,for-profit schools, or online schools into their target mix than were employers in the Southeast or Midwest. For example,less than 10 percent of employers from the Northeast or Far West reported recruiting at two-year schools while nearly30 percent of employers from the Southeastern or Plains states included these institutions in their target mix. Similardifferences existed for high-tech manufacturing, engineering services, and computer consulting services. These industriestended to recruit at two-year and for-profit schools more heavily than all other industry sectors.How do employers choose their target schools? Respondents were provided with a list of school attributes and asked torank the three that are most important to them when deciding where they will recruit. Four attributes stood out, includingthe academic majors offered at the school, the perceived quality of the programs offered at the school, the employer’srecruiting experience at the school, and the school’s location. (See Figure 21.) These are the same four reasons thathave dominated the selection criteria in previous years.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 23The survey also examined the relationship between the selection criteria used to choose target schools and success inrecruiting. Chosen as an indicator of success was the percentage of students interviewed who received an offer of afull-time position. (The rationale: If target schools are well chosen, then recruiters have an effective set of candidatesavailable, resulting in a higher rate of offers per candidates interviewed.)Figure 22 shows the percent of interviews who received offers in relation to the number one criterion used by a firmto select target schools. As Figure 22 shows, the selection criterion connected with the highest average offer rate isthe helpfulness of the career center staff: Employers who choose a target school primarily because of the relationshipsthey have developed with the respective career centers have an average offer rate of nearly 72 percent. Thiscompares with the overall average offer rate of approximately 40 percent.Other criteria that generated high offer rates include the salary expectations of students at the target schools (averageoffer rate of 65 percent) and the firm’s retention with the school’s alumni (offer rate of 60 percent).Interestingly, the three criteria that lead to the highest offer rates are the least employed primary reasons forselecting target schools. The top two reasons for selecting schools—quality of programs and majors offered—demonstrate little impact on the offer rate.Percent of interviewsreceiving offerMeanAccreditation of schoolHelpfulness of career services staffMajors offeredNational rankingsQuality of programsReputation of schoolRetention history with school’s alumniFigure 22: Target school criteria and offer rate
  • 24 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersResponses % of RespondentsEach semester 17 16.0%Once a year 71 67.0%Once every three years 11 10.4%Once every five years 1 0.9%Other timeline 6 5.7%Total 106 100.0%Figure 24: Timeframe for conducting evaluations of on-campusrelationshipsResponses % of RespondentsCareer centersDepartment chairFacultyFraternities and sororitiesOtherFigure 23: Campus resources in recruitingRECRUITERS AND COLLEGE CAREER SERVICESDespite the fact that the helpfulness of the career center is listed so low as a criterion for selecting a target school,recruiters still rely heavily on their relationships with the career center when it comes to recruiting at a particularuniversity. When asked, “which on-campus groups employers work with,” respondents nearly universally indicated thecollege career center as a useful recruiting resource on campus. (See Figure 23.)One thing made clear by Figure 23 is that the great majority of recruiters do not limit themselves to simply onecampus connection. While the career center is the required stop, more than 80 percent of respondents chose to addstudent clubs to their roster of resources, and nearly 76 percent included faculty. Therefore, while the career centerremains a vital link between the employers and potential new graduate recruits, few recruiters view the career centeras a completely satisfactory connection.EVALUATING ON-CAMPUS PROGRAMSGiven the data connecting college faculty with effective branding and the importance of relationships built withcollege career center staff in developing an effective recruiting experience, it would seem essential that employersconduct regular reviews that evaluate their on-campus relationships.Somewhat surprisingly, less than half of respondents (45.9 percent) indicated that their firms conducted regularlyscheduled evaluations of their on-campus relationships. When firms conduct such evaluations, they tend to be doneannually. (See Figure 24.)
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 25Responses % of RespondentsSurveyFocus groupDialogue with campus officialsInterview firm’s campusrepresentativesOther2011-12 Career Fairs 2012-13 Career FairsNumber of Employees Mean500 or less 10 11501 - 1,000 13 131,001 - 2,500 20 222,501 - 5,000 24 235,001 - 10,000 20 2210,001 - 20,000 27 26More than 20,000 58 61Figure 25: Methods used to conduct campus evaluationsFigure 26: Career fairs, by size of companyCAREER FAIRSEmployers expected almost no change in career fair activity during the 2012-13 recruiting season. On average,respondents planned to attend 29 career fairs during the 2012-13 recruiting season; the same group attended anaverage of 28 career fairs during the 2011-12 recruiting season.There are variations in the number of career fairs attended based on the size of the company. As Figure 26 illustrates,the number of career fairs a firm is likely to attend increases with the size of the firm. At firms with fewer than 1,001employees, recruiters are likely to attend approximately a dozen career fairs annually. At firms with more than 1,000employees but below 20,000, the number of career fairs attended doubles to about 24. At the very largest companies,those with more than 20,000 employees, there is a vast expansion in the number of career fairs recruiters attend. Thesefirms are likely to target upward of 60 career fairs during the course of the recruiting season.What do employers use to “measure” their performance on campus? The majority rely on dialogues with bothcampus officials (presumably career center contacts and key faculty) and their own campus representatives to get asense of how well the campus relationship is performing. A relatively small percentage employ actual metrics, eitherin the form of survey results or performance indicators (conversion rates, retention rates, and so forth), to determine iftheir on-campus relationships are effective and producing the desired results. (See Figure 25.)
  • 26 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersON-CAMPUS INTERVIEWSFor the past several years, an interesting and somewhat perplexing trend has developed. First, the percentage ofemployers going on campus to interview prospective recruits has been decreasing. Between 2004 and 2007, theyear-to-year decline was very small, but steady. In 2008, the drop-off was substantial, and, since then, the declinehas been further reinforced. In 2011-12, the percent of firms that conducted on-campus interviews dropped to 75.8percent from 77.4 percent in 2010-11.The second trend is probably an indicator of an improved job market. While the percentage of companies engagingin on-campus interviewing has been steadily decreasing, the percentage of hires emanating from on-campusinterviews generally increased over these years. This upward trend has not been as steady, but the overall change isnoticeable, especially since 2007. The results from the 2011 and 2012 surveys show a turnaround in this trend—thepercent of hires coming from on-campus interviews has declined the last two years. (See Figure 27.) As the numberof new graduates hired grows, the number that comes from direct recruiting on campus is not sufficient to fill all theemployment needs of an employer.40608010089.2% 89.1%80.0%81.2%88.8%2004 2006 2007 2008 2012201120102009% Interviewing on Campus % Hires From On-Campus Interviews75.8%77.4%77.7%61.0%53.9%63.6%62.2%56.6%60.1%62.4%64.1%Figure 27: On-campus interviews, by percent of hires
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 27By industry, oil and gas extraction and accounting services were the most reliant on conducting their hiringinterviews on campus; these sectors hired more than 90 percent of their Class of 2012 recruits from on-campusinterviews. In contrast, on-campus interviews appear to be the least likely path to the job for engineering services,which reported hiring only 20 percent of its total college hires from on-campus interviews. (See Figure 28.)Percent of hires fromon-campus interviewIndustry MeanOil & Gas Extraction 90.80Utilities 56.25Construction 66.50Food & Beverage Mfg. 61.75Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 62.25Computer & Electronics Mfg. 47.23Motor Vehicle Mfg. 47.14Misc. Mfg. 79.29Retail Trade 66.63Transportation 52.75Information 48.50Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 56.33Accounting Services 95.83Engineering Services 19.67Management Consulting 69.00Misc. Prof. Services 62.78Recreation & Hospitality 63.75Misc. Support Services 65.00Government 55.00Figure 28: On-campus interviews and hiring, by industry
  • 28 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersTECHNICAL APPLICATIONS USED IN COLLEGE RECRUITINGBeyond the on-campus recruiting activities, employers use a number of other avenues to identify and attract potentialnew hires from the ranks of recent college graduates, including technical applications. (See Figure 29.)A number of these technical applications are used nearly universally by recruiters. Internet postings on campuswebsites, postings on the company’s own website, and applicant tracking systems are used by more than 85 percent ofrespondents; those numbers have stayed fairly steady for the past several years.Only one other application is used by more than 50 percent of respondents: social networking, which represents amajor growth area, moving from under 50 percent in the 2011 survey to more than 60 percent in the current survey.% of Respondents Using Effectiveness Rating2011 2012 2011 2012Internet job postings - campus website 95.9 99.3 3.9 3.8Internet job postings - own website 89.6 87.7 3.7 3.8Applicant tracking system 83.0 89.9 3.7 3.7Internet job postings - commercial website 51.8 49.6 3.3 3.2Internet advertising 47.4 44.2 3.6 3.3Social networking sites 46.9 61.6 3.1 3.1Searching Internet for resumes (mining) 38.0 35.5 3.2 3.3Preemployment assessment testing 30.7 33.6 3.9 3.5Video interviewing 21.5 27.3 3.6 3.6Company blogs 16.8 19.6 3.2 3.0(1 – 5 scale where 1 = not at all effective, 2 = not very effective, 3 = somewhat effective, 4 = very effective, 5 = extremely effective)Figure 29: Technical applications – use and effectivenessFigure 29 also displays the average effectiveness rating respondents provided for each of these applications. As hasgenerally been true in past surveys, none of the technical applications were rated particularly effective in enhancingan organization’s college recruiting effort. Most of the average ratings are little changed from the 2011 survey. Theone result that does stand out is the consistently modest effectiveness rating garnered by social networking. Even as thisapplication has experienced relatively rapid growth in use over the past several years, respondents indicate very littleenthusiasm for its performance. This suggests that employers are taking on social networking as a recruiting tool moreas a result of its potential without fully understanding how to use it effectively.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 29THE HIRING PROCESSCYCLE TIMEHow long does it take, on average, to bring a new recruit into the company fold? The survey probes this question intwo parts. First, it takes a look at the average number of days respondents report for an offer to be made or a rejectionnotice to be sent from the point of the initial candidate interview. The survey then details the average amount of timeorganizations provide recruits to either accept or reject the offer.The average time from interview to offer in this year’s survey is 24.2 days, and the median time was 15 days. Thesefigures are consistent with the interview-to-offer cycle time from previous years. (See Figure 30.) There is no cleardirection in these times. The only aspect illustrated by Figure 30 is that there is a relatively narrow band in which theoffer follows the interview, i.e., approximately a month in real time or 20 business days.Offer22.2Days25.0Days23.5Days22.5Days24.2DaysInterview20082009201020112012Figure 30: Time from interview to offer in days (2008 – 2012)
  • 30 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersThere are significant differences in the interview-to-offer cycle times across industries. Government agencies, forexample, have traditionally had a much longer turnaround time when it came to delivering a recruit an offer thanemployers in other sectors. As Figure 31 details, government agencies still have one of the longer interview-to-offertimeframes, with a 38-day average; however, recruiters in a few other industries also exhibit similar, lengthy cycletimes. Recreation and hospitality, engineering services, and construction join government in taking an average of30 days or more to deliver an offer. By contrast, recruiters from computer and electronics manufacturers, accountingservices, and miscellaneous support services stand out in delivering their offers in an average of less than 18 days.Cycle Time – OfferIndustry Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75Oil & Gas Extraction 5.00 27.80 14.00 30.00Utilities 15.00 25.83 25.50 30.00Construction 14.00 30.00 20.50 45.00Food & Beverage Mfg. 14.00 26.90 20.50 35.00Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 5.00 19.24 14.00 21.00Computer & Electronics Mfg. 10.00 16.00 14.00 21.00Motor Vehicle Mfg. 7.00 23.36 14.00 30.00Misc. Mfg. 10.00 23.24 14.00 30.00Retail Trade 14.00 21.29 21.00 30.00Transportation 5.00 19.29 10.00 30.00Information 10.00 23.50 16.00 30.00Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 7.00 22.68 20.00 30.00Accounting Services 10.00 17.00 10.00 30.00Engineering Services 6.50 30.33 21.00 55.00Management Consulting 8.50 28.25 21.00 45.00Misc. Prof. Services 14.00 19.70 14.00 21.00Recreation & Hospitality 14.00 39.50 27.00 65.00Misc. Support Services 14.00 17.50 17.00 21.00Government 30.00 38.00 45.00 45.00Figure 31: Time from interview to offer in days, by industry
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 31Once an offer is delivered, how long, on average, does it take to complete the cycle and have the student either acceptor reject the offer? Most recruiters give their recruits approximately two weeks (14.1 days) to accept or reject a joboffer. This portion of the timeline has been consistent across the years, with the exception of when the recession was atits height. In 2009, employers provided their candidates with a somewhat longer time to accept or reject an offer(16 days). Employers gave candidates 14.25 days during the 2010-11 recruiting season, and 14.5 days during the2009-10 recruiting season.Overall, the average time provided from offer to acceptance is similar for most companies regardless of demographics.Size of company or regional location makes virtually no difference in how long an employer gives a student recruitto accept or reject an offer. The one discernible difference is the industry of the employer. (See Figure 32.) Only oneindustry group approaches providing its recruits with nearly a month (20 business days) to respond: miscellaneousbusiness services, at 20.5 days on average. By contrast, there are several industry groups where the average time toaccept an offer is less than two weeks or 10 business days. Engineering services (6.08 days), recreation and hospitality(8.75 days), and utilities (9.33 days) are the industries with particularly short average offer-to-acceptance cycle times.Cycle Time – AcceptanceIndustry Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75UtilitiesConstructionRetail TradeTransportationInformationAccounting ServicesEngineering ServicesManagement ConsultingRecreation & HospitalityGovernmentFigure 32: Time provided from offer to acceptance in days, by industry
  • 32 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersOFFERS AND ACCEPTANCESThe college hiring market continued to show improvement in 2011-12. The NACE Job Outlook survey for the 2011-12recruiting season consistently indicated upswings in the number of opportunities for new college hires.The improvement in the college labor market is consistent with the offer rate responses to the survey. The averagepercentage of students who received a full-time job offer after being interviewed increased significantly in 2011-12 toa rate consistent with pre-recession levels. For 2011-12, it was 39.8 percent, a sizable increase from the 34.8 percentfigure of 2010-11. (See Figure 33.)303540 39.2%37.4%33.9%34.8%39.8%2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Figure 33: Offer rate trend (2008 – 2012)The rate at which students accepted the jobs they were offered continues to stay relatively high even as the markettends to improve. In the current survey, the acceptance rate is 74.8 percent. This is a bit higher than the 2011 surveyfigure (74.3 percent) and well above pre-recession acceptance rates (67.7 percent in 2008). The continuing highacceptance rates may be a reflection of the perception that the market has not recovered yet from the recession andthat any opportunity should not be bypassed in favor of possibly getting a better offer.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 33The relatively broad demographics of size and geography appear to have little relationship with either the offer orthe acceptance rate. When there are variations connected with these rates, they are most likely to be found with theindustrial classification of the employer recruiters. First, offer rates can vary significantly by industry. As Figure 34details, several industry categories (oil and gas, miscellaneous support services, and government) had offer rates ofaround 20 percent during the 2011-12 recruiting season. By comparison, industries such as utilities, retail trade, andmiscellaneous professional services all averaged more than 50 percent in the number of recruits who received offersafter their on-campus interviews.Percent of Interviews Receiving OfferIndustry Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75Oil & Gas Extraction 12.00 20.40 15.00 25.00Utilities 50.00 59.50 55.00 69.00Construction 12.00 38.33 25.00 68.00Food & Beverage Mfg. 10.00 30.40 25.00 50.00Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 20.00 43.75 44.50 62.50Computer & Electronics Mfg. 20.00 38.41 30.00 50.00Motor Vehicle Mfg. 10.00 30.50 25.00 50.00Misc. Mfg. 15.00 37.88 45.00 50.00Retail Trade 25.00 50.83 57.50 75.00Transportation 20.00 45.00 40.00 65.00Information 27.50 39.63 37.00 57.50Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 23.00 39.00 35.00 50.00Accounting Services 27.50 38.75 37.50 50.00Engineering Services 19.50 46.83 45.00 70.00Management Consulting 20.00 44.29 50.00 60.00Misc. Prof. Services 30.00 55.33 65.00 75.00Recreation & Hospitality 25.00 35.67 40.00 42.00Misc. Support Services 12.50 22.75 15.50 33.00Government 11.00 21.20 25.00 30.00Figure 34: Offer rate, by industry
  • 34 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersPercent of Offers AcceptedIndustry Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75Oil & Gas Extraction 80.00 81.00 80.00 85.00Utilities 78.00 74.20 78.00 90.00Construction 80.00 84.00 85.00 90.00Food & Beverage Mfg. 45.00 63.00 75.00 80.00Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 75.00 80.41 82.00 85.00Computer & Electronics Mfg. 67.00 74.53 80.00 85.00Motor Vehicle Mfg. 60.00 72.40 85.00 90.00Misc. Mfg. 65.00 72.94 75.00 80.00Retail Trade 66.00 70.63 77.50 85.00Transportation 75.00 64.60 80.00 80.00Information 65.00 71.56 70.00 75.00Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 70.00 74.94 80.00 90.00Accounting Services 65.00 71.00 70.00 80.00Engineering Services 85.00 89.00 90.00 92.50Management Consulting 60.00 65.63 67.50 76.50Misc. Prof. Services 65.00 72.11 75.00 90.00Recreation & Hospitality 80.00 88.75 88.50 97.50Misc. Support Services 35.00 62.25 74.50 89.50Government 85.00 83.20 85.00 86.00Figure 35: Acceptance rate, by industryAcceptance rates did not vary nearly as much as the offer rates, but there were differences in the average percent ofoffers being accepted connected with different industry categories. (See Figure 35.) Most notably there appears to bea bit of an inverse relationship with the offer rates by industry. That is, some of the industries with the lowest offer ratesgenerate the highest acceptance rates. For example, oil/gas extraction and government are among the list of industrieswith the highest percentage of offers being accepted at more than 80 percent.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 35DIVERSITY RECRUITINGDiversity recruiting is a core element of the college recruiting process. It remains a major concern among surveyrespondents, although the percentage of firms that incorporate a diversity element as a critical aspect of their collegerecruiting is down again this year. (See Figure 36.)60708065.6%72.8%74.1%70.9%69.8%2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Figure 36: Percentage of firms with diversity effort (2008 – 2012)
  • 36 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersThe emphasis on diversity recruiting was all but uniform across geographic regions and employer types in thecurrent survey. Among industry types, only oil and gas extraction and construction stood out for having a majorityof respondents that did not feature a diversity recruiting effort. This was the second year in a row that oil and gasextraction fell at the bottom in featuring diversity recruiting efforts among its companies. As Figure 37 details, in theSouthwest where there is relatively low participation from the oil/gas industry in diversity programs, just 50 percent ofthe responding employers had diversity recruiting components.RegionDiversity Recruiting PriorityYes No% of ResponsesNew EnglandSoutheastSouthwestRocky MountainsFar WestFigure 37: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by regionThe one demographic where there has been a consistent link with diversity is size of the organization. Figure 38 showsthat there is near linear relationship between the size of the firm recruiting and the existence of diversity considerationsin the college recruiting program: The smaller the firm, the less likely it is that the college recruitment program will havea defined diversity recruitment effort. Current respondents can be divided into three categories—those with fewer than2,501 employees, where the percentage of firms with diversity efforts generally falls below 60 percent; those with2,501 to 10,000 employees, where the percentage of firms is between 70 and 75 percent; and those firms with morethan 10,000 employees, where diversity efforts are nearly universal (85 to 90 percent participation).
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 37RegionDiversity Recruiting PriorityYes No% of Responses500 or less 44.0% 56.0%501 - 1,000 65.2% 34.8%1,001 - 2,500 55.6% 44.4%2,501 - 5,000 73.3% 26.7%5,001 - 10,000 72.1% 27.9%10,001 - 20,000 91.3% 8.7%More than 20,000 85.7% 14.3%2012 2011Women 90.8% 88.1%African-Americans 95.1% 93.3%Hispanic-Americans 91.4% 89.6%Asian-Americans 62.0% 60.7%Native-Americans 57.1% 54.8%Physically Challenged 40.5% 35.6%Figure 38: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by size ofcompanyFigure 39: Populations targeted for diversity recruiting, 2012 vs. 2011
  • 38 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersHow successful are the diversity recruitment efforts of most respondents? Figure 40 compares the percentage of newcollege recruits from targeted populations for firms that state they are engaged in diversity recruiting against the genderand ethnic distribution of bachelor’s degree recipients as a whole.2As was true during the 2010-11 recruiting season,the data show a marked difference in the hiring of ethnic minority or physically-challenged candidates between firmsthat engage in diversity recruiting and those that do not. Firms that have diversity recruiting efforts average a higherpercentage of new college graduate recruits from all the targeted categories, with the most significant difference beingthe hiring of African-American graduates.With Diversity EffortBachelor’s DegreesClass of 2011Women 32.3 57.3African-Americans 10.3 9.3Hispanic-Americans 9.4 9.2Asian-Americans 14.4 6.3Native-Americans 1.4 0.6Physically Challenged 2.2 NAFigure 40: Hiring results by diversity populationsEven though current efforts appear to be fairly successful in landing diverse populations in the starting work forces oforganizations with defined diversity programs, survey respondents report that their efforts to recruit underrepresentedminorities will only become more intense in the coming recruiting season. Figure 41 shows the diversity recruitinggoals of organizations with stated diversity efforts. The goal for virtually every population group is greater thanthe percentages actually hired from the Class of 2012, with the exception of Asian-Americans. However, thesestated goals are not significantly different than those stated in previous years. In no previous year was the averagepercentage goal for minority hires ever achieved, with the exception that Asian-American hires traditionally exceededboth the average goal and their overall representation in the college graduating class.2. The gender and ethnic breakouts for bachelor degree recipients are based on data reported to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) forthe Class of 2011. These data were summarized from individual school reports for all four-year public and private, degree-granting institutions.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 390 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40WomenAfrican-AmericanHispanic -AmericanAsian-AmerianNative-AmericanPhysically Challenged35.4%17.8%16.8%13.8%7.8%5.9%Figure 41: Hiring goals for 2013, by diversity populationsResponses % of RespondentsHBCUs 91 80.5%HSIs 39 34.5%Tribal Colleges 6 5.3%INROADS 24 21.2%Women only 22 19.5%Other 38 33.6%Figure 42: Targets for diversity recruitingWhat do employers with diversity programs do to identify and recruit minority talent? The vast majority (79 percent)target selected schools for diversity recruiting. These are schools that serve predominantly minority populations. Figure42 details the kinds of institutions employers used during the 2011-12 recruiting season to maximize their chanceof recruiting minority talent. As the figure shows, by far the most popular source for diversity recruiting was thehistorically black college or university (HBCU). Eighty percent of respondents with a diversity recruiting program hadsuch a school on its target selection list. The second most popular alternative had a significantly lesser representation.With just 34 percent of respondents targeting these institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs, schools where25 percent or more of the enrollment is Hispanic-American) were far less targeted than the schools that served apredominantly African-American population. The number three alternative was not really a target set of schools butrather minority-focused student groups on campuses. Examples include the National Society of Black Engineers, theHispanic Scholarship Fund, and the Society of Women Engineers.
  • 40 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersTHE NEW HIRECANDIDATE RETENTIONOne of the key measures for evaluating a college recruiting program is candidate retention—what percent of newgraduate hires are still with the company one year and five years after their hire date. The greater the degree ofretention, the stronger and more cost effective the recruiting program is perceived to be.The one-year retention rate noted in the 2012 survey—90 percent—was very close to those exhibited in previoussurveys. It was 92.0 percent in 2011 and 91.8 percent in 2010.There were few differences across industries in the current survey. Only one industry sector—miscellaneous supportservices—stood out with a low reported one-year retention rate (54 percent). All other sectors reported at least an 85percent retention rate after one year of service. (See Figure 43.)Industry MeanOil & Gas Extraction 93.60Utilities 100.00Construction 95.56Food & Beverage Mfg. 85.89Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 90.19Computer & Electronics Mfg. 89.00Motor Vehicle Mfg. 89.88Misc. Mfg. 89.75Retail Trade 89.00Figure 43: One-year retention rates, by industryIndustry MeanInformation 95.00Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 92.69Accounting Services 97.50Engineering Services 93.45Management Consulting 96.21Misc. Prof. Services 86.25Recreation & Hospitality 89.00Misc. Support Services 54.00Government 95.20
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 41As for size, smaller firms appear to be more successful than larger firms in holding onto their new hires, but therelationship between size and retention is hardly perfectly linear. Firms with more than 2,500 employees tended tohave somewhat lower retention rates than those with fewer than 2,501 employees. (See Figure 44.)Number of Employees Mean500 or less ..................93.30%500 - 1,000...................93.85%1,001 - 2,500.............. 97.45%2,501 - 5,000.............. 95.56%5,001 - 10,000.............82.36%10,001 - 20,000..........92.31%More than 20,000.....89.51%Figure 44: One-year retention rates, by size of companyThe average retention rate for new graduate hires five years after graduation also is approximately the same as ithas been over the past two surveys. The overall rate for new college hires five years after graduation is 68.9 percentin among current respondents compared with 69.2 percent and 67.6 percent in the 2011 and 2010 surveys,respectively.As with one-year retention rates, there are differences across industries and size classifications in the five-year rates.As Figure 45 shows, four sectors stand out as having relatively high retention rates (80 percent and above) after fiveyears. These are utilities (88 percent), information (87 percent), retail trade (85 percent), and oil and gas extraction(82 percent). By contrast, two industries stood out for their low retention rate at the five-year period. These weremanagement consulting, which managed to retain only 55 percent of its new hires after five years on the job, andmiscellaneous professional services, where the five-year retention rate was even lower at 49 percent. Managementconsulting has been close to the bottom on the five-year retention rate for the past three surveys.
  • 42 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersIndustry MeanOil & Gas Extraction 82.00Utilities 88.20Construction 70.75Food & Beverage Mfg. 65.00Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 70.36Computer & Electronics Mfg. 60.80Motor Vehicle Mfg. 68.60Misc. Mfg. 73.44Retail Trade 85.00Transportation 70.40Information 87.50Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 72.07Accounting Services 75.00Engineering Services 78.67Management Consulting 54.77Misc. Prof. Services 49.29Recreation & Hospitality 66.75Government 77.80Figure 45: Five-year retention rates, by industryThe relationship between company size and retention for the five-year period is very erratic in the current survey.In the past, the five-year rate has generally mirrored the one-year rate in its relationship to size. Currently, there isno clear pattern. The lowest rate was reported for firms with between 5,001 and 10,000 employees at just less than57 percent, while the highest retention rate was for firms in the 1,000 to 2,500 range (77 percent). Overall therewas no clear direction related to the size of the firm. (See Figure 46.)
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 43Number of Employees Mean500 or less ..................67.43%500 - 1,000...................74.33%1,001 - 2,500.............. 77.00%2,501 - 5,000.............. 66.23%5,001 - 10,000.............56.67%10,001 - 20,000..........74.20%More than 20,000.....70.81%Figure 46: Five-year retention rates, by size of companyROTATIONAL PROGRAMSOne factor that may influence the retention rates of different organizations is the onboarding process for new graduatehires.One type of onboarding experience that has generated a considerable amount of interest in recent years is a rotationalprogram. Such a program has candidates move into different departments, positions, or even locations throughout theorganization in their initial period with the company. The idea is to identify the best fit for the individual talents of thenew hire and the needs of the organization. Presumably, identifying this mix will provide a better work experience inthe long run and a longer tenure with the organization.Rotational programs are not uncommon among NACE organizations, but they are also not the norm. This is the secondyear this form of onboarding has been examined, and the percent of firms using rotational programs has stayedapproximately the same, if not showing some indication of decreasing. Forty-one percent of 2012 survey respondentsreported having a rotational program of some sort for their new hires. This compares with the 44 percent who reportedsuch programs in the 2011 survey.
  • 44 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersNumber of EmployeesRotational ProgramYes NoResponses % of Responses Responses % of Responses500 or less 7 28.0% 18 72.0%501 - 1,000 4 17.4% 19 82.6%1,001 - 2,500 16 44.4% 20 55.6%2,501 - 5,000 14 48.3% 15 51.7%5,001 - 10,000 17 39.5% 26 60.5%10,001 - 20,000 11 47.8% 12 52.2%More than 20,000 29 51.8% 27 48.2%Figure 47: Rotational programs, by size of companySize is not the only demographic associated with rotational programs. This form of onboarding is very much alignedwith firms in the manufacturing sector and relatively uncommon among service-sector firms and government agencies.(See Figure 48.) Again, these findings are consistent with those encountered in the 2011 survey.In terms of size, rotational programs can be clearly associated with larger companies. As Figure 47 shows, firms withfewer than 1,001 employees are very unlikely to have a rotational program; it is not until the size of the firm exceeds20,000 employees that a majority of the respondents reported having rotations. The only change from the 2011survey results is that the proportion of firms in the large size categories that report having a rotational program hasdiminished somewhat.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 45IndustryRotational ProgramYes NoResponses % of Responses Responses % of ResponsesOil & Gas Extraction 4 80.0% 1 20.0%Utilities 2 18.2% 9 81.8%Construction 4 40.0% 6 60.0%Food & Beverage Mfg. 3 27.3% 8 72.7%Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 13 59.1% 9 40.9%Computer & Electronics Mfg. 9 39.1% 14 60.9%Motor Vehicle Mfg. 9 81.8% 2 18.2%Misc. Mfg. 13 65.0% 7 35.0%Retail Trade 3 25.0% 9 75.0%Transportation 2 28.6% 5 71.4%Information 4 30.8% 9 69.2%Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 14 60.9% 9 39.1%Accounting Services 0 0.0% 6 100.0%Engineering Services 3 21.4% 11 78.6%Management Consulting 3 17.6% 14 82.4%Misc. Prof. Services 1 8.3% 11 91.7%Recreation & Hospitality 2 50.0% 2 50.0%Misc. Support Services 2 33.3% 4 66.7%Government 3 50.0% 3 50.0%Figure 48: Rotational programs, by industry
  • 46 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersTo provide a sense of how these rotational programs work, respondents with rotational programs answered a seriesof questions about the operation of their programs. Respondents were asked what percentage of new graduatesgoes through their programs. Overall, the average percentage is approximately 61 percent. However, there is aconsiderable range in this percentage. A good deal of the variation appears to be associated with the size of thecompany that has the rotational program. So, while smaller employers are less likely to have a rotational program,those that do will funnel a greater percentage of their new hires through a rotation than their larger counterparts. AsFigure 49 shows, firms with 5,000 employees or less average in a range of between two-thirds and 96 percent ofnew graduate employees being involved in their rotational programs; firms with more than 5,000 employees tend toaverage less than 50 percent of their new hires in the rotational programs.Percent of College Hires in RotationNumber of Employees Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75500 or less 50.00 83.57 100.00 100.00501 - 1,000 92.50 96.25 100.00 100.001,001 - 2,500 50.00 72.20 75.00 100.002,501 - 5,000 40.00 66.15 50.00 100.005,001 - 10,000 15.00 43.00 35.00 62.0010,001 - 20,000 12.00 47.60 19.00 100.00More than 20,000 20.00 53.27 50.00 95.00Figure 49: Percent of new recruits involved in rotational programs, by size of companyThe second question asked whether new recruits rotated through different departments, different positions, and/ordifferent locations within the company. Figure 50 indicates that rotations generally involved a multiplicity of changesfor the new recruit. Almost all respondents with such programs (84 percent) indicated that recruits experiencedwork in different departments within the organization as part of the rotation, while two-thirds had their new hiresexperience different job positions in addition to rotating through the departments. Interestingly, there was even agood deal of change in location that came as part of these programs. More than half of the programs took place atvarious sites in the United States, while approximately 15 percent required the new hires to experience work life indifferent parts of the world.Rotational Structure Responses % of RespondentsDepartment Rotation 81 84.4%Position Rotation 64 66.7%U.S. Location 49 51.0%Global Location 14 14.6%Figure 50: Rotational structures
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 47The final questions asked about the length of rotations and the amount of time new recruits spent in each portion of therotation. Here there was considerable consensus. As Figure 51 shows, most firms using a rotation program have newrecruits stay in the program for more than a year. Nearly 40 percent reported an overall rotation length of one to twoyears, and nearly the same amount reported having a rotation length other than one of the specified choices. It turns outthat virtually all these “other” responses were for durations that exceeded two years—three years being the duration ofchoice among this “other” group.Length of Rotation Program Responses % of Respondents63 to 6 Months6 Months to 1 Year 111 to 2 YearsOther 36Length of Rotation Program Responses % of Respondents3 Weeks or less 6 6.6%3 to 6 Weeks 4 4.4%6 Weeks to 3 Months 11 12.1%3 to 6 Months 31 34.1%Other 39 42.9%Figure 51: Overall duration of rotational programFigure 52: Overall duration of rotational segmentsA similar situation existed for the duration of program segments. As Figure 52 indicates, the plurality of respondents(43 percent) chose the “other” option to indicate that they had rotation segments that lasted beyond six months. Thedominant response in this category was six months to one year for the duration that a new recruit would spend in aparticular segment.
  • 48 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersSUMMARYThe 2011-12 recruiting season was a very stable period for college recruiters. The number of graduates hired for bothfull-time positions and internships increased, but the overall activity level and methods used to recruit these candidateschanged little from 2010-11.The use of social networking in college recruiting did grow again, but this growth did little to impact traditional aspectsof finding and interacting with potential new hires. If there was an effect, it was on the overall cost of advertising relatedto college recruiting, which registered at the smallest percentage of costs related to talent acquisition in this arena (3percent of overall costs).The trend data that stand out in this report is the continuing advance in the skill levels required by employers in theiroverall hiring. Two pieces of data point in this direction. One, the percentage of overall new hires that came fromcollege recruiting increased to 51 percent in 2012—a jump from the 2011 survey of 45 percent. Two, the percentageof new college hires with advanced degrees also increased. Nearly one-fourth of new college hires were students witha master’s degree or above in 2011-12 compared with less than 20 percent in 2010-11.To date, the changes taking place in the focus of college recruiting have had little impact on the techniques and thecosts associated with accessing this talent. Recruiters still target the same type of schools and focus on the same criteriain selecting these institutions. The availability of specific majors and the perception of “quality” in a school’s programare the chief criteria used in selecting a school as a target, even though there is little evidence that these elements makea significant positive difference in better offer and acceptance rates. Continuing to rely on these criteria appears to bemore an article of faith than one based on evidence. Less than half of all employers conduct periodic evaluations of theircampus relationships to determine their efficacy.The cost-per-hire for college recruiting changed little: There was a nominal increase of 1.6 percent in the 2011-12recruiting season over the cost-per-hire in 2010-11. As always, these numbers need to be quoted with a great deal ofcaution as few respondents were able to provide detailed cost information for their recruiting programs.Based on the trends over the past several years, there is every expectation that the 2012-13 will show little differencein most recruiting benchmarks. The interesting aspects to watch closely during 2012-13 are whether the trend to hiringmore students with advanced degrees continues and whether firms undertake more critical evaluations of their programsin an effort to effectively assess their on campus relationships, their branding initiatives to students, and the results oftheir talent acquisition efforts.
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 49APPENDIXRESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICSRespondents were widely distributed across industry types and geographic regions, but were relatively concentratedin terms of size. This profile is consistent with the firms that traditionally field relatively intense college recruiting effortscharacterized by organizational units that are dedicated to college relations and college recruiting.Figure 53 details the distribution of respondents among industry categories. Virtually all types of industrial sectors arerepresented among the respondent group with a couple of categories showing particularly strong representation. Thesecategories include manufacturing (36.4 percent); professional services (20.3 percent); and finance (9.5 percent).3Oneaspect of respondent demographics to note in this survey is the relatively low participation of employers in the publicsector. This is a traditionally strong college recruiting arena, but has diminished recently due to budget constraintsbrought on by the recession and its relatively meager recovery.3. The manufacturing sector includes food and beverage; pharmaceuticals/chemicals; electronics/computer; motor vehicle; and miscellaneousmanufacturers. Professional services is a combination of accounting services; engineering services; management consulting; and miscellaneousprofessional services. Finance is identified as finance and real estate in Figure 53.
  • 50 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersIndustry Responses % of RespondentsAgriculture 1 0.4%Oil & Gas Extraction 5 2.1%Utilities 11 4.5%Construction 10 4.1%Food & Beverage Mfg. 11 4.5%Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 22 9.1%Computer & Electronics Mfg. 23 9.5%Motor Vehicle Mfg. 12 5.0%Misc. Mfg. 20 8.3%Wholesale Trade 4 1.7%Retail Trade 12 5.0%Transportation 7 2.9%Messaging & Warehouse 1 0.4%Information 13 5.4%Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 23 9.5%Accounting Services 6 2.5%Engineering Services 14 5.8%Management Consulting 17 7.0%Misc. Prof. Services 12 5.0%Social Services 2 0.8%Recreation & Hospitality 4 1.7%Misc. Support Services 6 2.5%Government 6 2.5%Total 242 100.0%Figure 53: Respondents, by industry
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 51Region Responses % of RespondentsNew England 19 7.9%Mid-Atlantic 57 23.6%Southeast 23 9.5%Great Lakes 52 21.5%Plains 19 7.9%Southwest 42 17.4%Rocky Mountains 4 1.7%Far West 26 10.7%Total 242 100.0%Figure 54: Respondents, by regionFigure 54 presents the regional representation. The figure shows a concentration of respondents in the northeasternUnited States (approximately one-third of respondents are located in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states), butthere is sufficient representation from most areas of the country with the exception of the Rocky Mountain region.4Finally, Figure 55 shows the distribution of survey respondents by size.5There is a clear concentration among firms ofa relatively large size. Nearly 80 percent of the respondents represent firms or business units with more than 1,000employees and fully 23.7 percent are reporting for firms with over 20,000 employees. However, this distribution isconsistent with the overall employer membership at NACE and with the size of firms most intensely involved in collegerecruiting generally. Survey results based on this respondent profile should be applicable to college relations programsand college recruiting activity for the U.S. as a whole.Number of Employees Responses % of Respondents500 or less 25 10.6%501 - 1,000 23 9.7%1,001 - 2,500 36 15.3%2,500 - 5,000 30 12.7%5,001 - 10,000 43 18.2%10,001 - 20,000 23 9.7%More than 20,000 56 23.7%Total 236 100.0%Figure 55: Respondents, by size of company4. The survey was distributed into regional categories in the following manner: New England – Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,Connecticut; Mid-Atlantic – New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia; Southeast – West Virginia, Virginia, NorthCarolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana; Great Lakes – Ohio, Michigan, Indiana,Illinois, Wisconsin; Plains – Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas; Southwest – Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico,Arizona; Rocky Mountain – Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah; Far West – Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii.5. Size is defined by the number of employees at the business unit or organizational division for which the respondent is reporting.
  • 52 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and EmployersPARTICIPATING FIRMSACCO Brands CorporationAcquity GroupADPAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc.Aetna Inc.AflacAgilent Technologies, Inc.Air Products & Chemicals Inc.Alcatel-LucentAllscriptsAmerican Airlines Inc.American Eagle OutfittersAmgen Inc.ARAMARKARCADIS US Inc.ArupAspen Technology Inc.ATI Allegheny LudlumCorporationAvant Energy ServicesBankers Life & Casualty Co.Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.Black & Veatch CorporationBoy Scouts of AmericaBrocade CommunicationsSystems, Inc.C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.Capital OneCelanese InternationalCenterPoint Energy, Inc.CGI FederalCH2M HILLChampion TechnologiesCharles River AssociatesChevron CorporationChevron Phillips ChemicalCompany LPCitrix Systems, Inc.Cliffs Natural ResourcesCNACNA InsuranceCognizant TechnologySolutionsCompass Group NorthAmericaConAgra Foods, Inc.Consolidated GraphicsContinental AGCostar Group, Inc.Country Insurance & FinancialServicesCovance Inc.Crestron ElectronicsCrossmarkDaymon WorldwideDeere & CompanyDell, Inc.Delphi Automotive Systems,LLCDevon Energy CorporationDewberryDiscover Financial ServicesDow Corning CorporationDRS RSTA - Texas (InfraredTechnologies)Duff & Phelps LLCdunnhumbyUSADuPontEaton CorporationeBay Inc.Ernst & Young LLPExelFederal Energy RegulatoryCommissionFirstEnergy CorporationFirstEnergy CorporationFMC Technologies, Inc.Freddie MacFujitsu NetworkCommunications Inc.GAF CorporationGeneral Mills Inc.Genworth FinancialGeorgia Tech ResearchInstituteGoodrich - AerostructuresGroupGoodrich CorporationGreat Lakes Dredge & DockCompanyH.J. Heinz CompanyHajoca CorporationHallmark CardsHarris CorporationHazen and Sawyer P.C.Hitachi ConsultingHNTB CompaniesHonda R&D Americas, Inc.Horne LLPHuntington Ingalls IndustriesHuron Consulting GroupINEOSIngersoll-Rand CompanyInternational Game TechnologyKearney & CompanyKennedy & Coe LLCKPMG LLPKronosLangan Engineering &Environmental ServicesLiberty Mutual InsuranceCompanyLife Technologies Inc.Longview Fibre Paper andPackaging, Inc.L’Oreal USALowe’s Companies, Inc.Lutron Electronics Co. Inc.Macy’s, Inc.Magellan MidstreamPartners, L.P.MaximusMercerMerck & Co., Inc.Merck & Co., Inc.Meritor Inc.Messer Construction Co.Michelin North AmericaMicron Technology, Inc.Milliken & CompanyN.E.W.National InstrumentsNaval Acquisition CareerCenterNavistar, Inc.Newfield ExplorationCompanyNorfolk Southern Corp.Northrop GrummanCorporationOCCOlsson AssociatesOlympus Corporation of theAmericasOwens CorningOwens-Illinois Inc.Pacific Gas and ElectricCompanyPariveda Solutions Inc.Phillips Plastics CorporationPolaris Industries, Inc.PrimeSource BuildingProducts, Inc.Principal Financial GroupProcter & Gamble Co.Progressive InsuranceProtiviti Inc.PSEGRalcorp Holdings, Inc.Reznick Group, P.C.Rio TintoRolls-Royce CorporationRoss Stores Inc.Roux Associates, Inc.SABIC Innovative PlasticsSanDiskSavannah River NuclearSolutionsSave-A-LotSchlumberger Oilfield ServicesSchneider ElectricShawmut Design andConstructionSouthwestern CompanySuffolk Construction Company,Inc.SWIFTTennessee Valley AuthorityTeradata CorporationTextron Inc.Thales Communications Inc.The Bank of New York MellonCorporationThe Dow Chemical CompanyThe Hershey CompanyThe Kroger Co.The MathWorks Inc.The Northern Trust CompanyThe Rehmann GroupThe Schwan Food CompanyThe Timken CompanyThe Vanguard GroupTIC-The Industrial CompanyTindall CorporationTowers WatsonTurner Construction CompanyU.S. Comptroller of the CurrencyU.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommissionUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.Valero Energy CorporationWarner Robins AirLogistics Ctr.WellPoint, Inc.WESCO International, Inc.Woolpert LLPZachryZS Associates
  • National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 53