Recruiting benchmarks survey_report

Recruiting
Benchmarks
Survey Report
Key Measures for College Recruiting
$160 NACE Member / $260 Nonmember Price
2|2013
National Association of Colleges and Employers

2 | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | National Association of Colleges and Employers
Introduction
College Relations and Recruiting Departments............................................................................... 6
The Scope of College Recruiting
Figure 1: Scope of college recruiting
Department Structure
Staff Salaries
College Recruiting Programs: What Matters Most ........................................................................ 17
Aspects of the College Recruiting Program
Figure 17: Aspects of college recruiting – importance ratings
Branding Techniques
Figure 18: Branding techniques – use rate
Figure 19: Percentage of respondents rating branding technique as highly effective
Recruiting: Operational Details.................................................................................................. 21
Target School Selection
Figure 20: Types of colleges/universities at which employers recruited
Figure 21: Selection criteria for target schools
Figure 22: Target school criteria and offer rate
Recruiters and College Career Services
Figure 23: Campus resources in recruiting
TABLE OF CONTENTS

National Association of Colleges and Employers | Recruiting Benchmarks Survey Report | 3
Evaluating On-Campus Programs
Figure 24: Timeframe for conducting evaluations of on-campus relationships
Figure 25: Methods used to conduct campus evaluations
Career Fairs
Figure 26: Career fairs, by size of company
On-Campus Interviews
Figure 27: On-campus interviews, by percent of hires
Figure 28: On-campus interviews and hiring, by industry
Technical Applications Used in College Recruiting
Figure 29: Technical applications – use and effectiveness
The Hiring Process................................................................................................................... 29
Cycle Time
Figure 30: Time from interview to offer in days (2008-2012)
Figure 31: Time from interview to offer in days, by industry
Figure 32: Time provided from offer to acceptance in days, by industry
Offers and Acceptances
Figure 33: Offer rate trend (2008-2012)
Figure 34: Offer rate, by industry
Figure 35: Acceptance rate by industry
Diversity Recruiting.................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 36: Percentage of firms with diversity effort (2008-2012)
Figure 37: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by region
Figure 38: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by size of company
Figure 39: Populations targeted for diversity recruiting, 2012 vs. 2011
Figure 40: Hiring results by diversity populations
Figure 41: Hiring goals for 2013, by diversity populations
Figure 42: Targets for diversity recruiting
The New Hire
Candidate Retention
Figure 43: One-year retention rates, by industry
Figure 44: One-year retention rates, by size of company
Figure 45: Five-year retention rates, by industry
Figure 46: Five-year retention rates, by size of company
Rotational Programs
Figure 47: Rotational programs, by size of company
Figure 48: Rotational programs, by industry
Figure 49: Percent of new recruits involved in rotational programs, by size of company
Figure 50: Rotational structures
Figure 51: Overall duration of rotational program
Figure 52: Overall duration of rotational segments
Summary
Appendix
Respondent Demographics
Figure 53: Respondents, by industry
Figure 54: Respondents, by region
Figure 55: Respondents, by size of company
Participating Firms

INTRODUCTION
The 2012 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey was conducted June 15, 2012, through August 15, 2012, among NACE
employer-member organizations. A total of 242 organizations, or 25 percent, took part. (Respondent demographics
and 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 selected
activities 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.-based
operations, there is some movement toward global recruiting. This year, 28 percent respondents said they recruit in
the 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 in
2010-11.
Employers appear to be trending toward advanced degree students: Current results show that 76 percent of college
hires were bachelor’s degree graduates, down from more than 81 percent in the 2011 survey. New grads with
advanced degrees accounted for approximately 23 percent of new college hires—up from approximately 17
percent in 2011.
More than three-quarters of respondents have a college relations and recruiting department within their
organization. In general, the existence of such a department correlates to the size of the organization. Firms with
500 or fewer employees are least likely to have a department; organizations with more than 20,000 employees
are 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 terms
of 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, is
somewhat 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 college
recruiting program.

Campus 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 for
those using the technique versus those not using the technique) but found most techniques had little impact. Only
two techniques had an effect: faculty relationships (75.7 percent acceptance rate among users versus 65.8 percent
acceptance 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 their
main criteria for selecting target schools, none of these correlate directly to recruiting success. Instead, results show
that 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 selection
criterion, 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, evaluations
tend 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 provide
students 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 just
under 35 percent in 2011.
Acceptance rates haven’t moved much from 2011 to 2012, and remain high. Respondents reported an average
acceptance 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 on
African-American, Hispanic-American, and female grads.
Overall, the new college hire retention rate remains relatively stable at the one-year mark: Respondents to the
current 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) and
2010 (67.6 percent).
In terms of
onboarding new
college grads,
41 percent of
respondents
said they have a
rotational program
for their new hires.
Note: Totals in this
report may not equal
100 percent due to
rounding.
Slice and dice the survey data your way
Get a customized report based on benchmarks and comparisons tailored
to specific criteria you determine.
Contact Edwin Koc, NACE Director of Research, ekoc@naceweb.org.

COLLEGE RELATIONS AND RECRUITING
DEPARTMENTS
THE SCOPE OF COLLEGE RECRUITING
College recruiting continues to be dominated by domestic concerns. Approximately 68 percent of respondents to the
2012 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey report that they recruit strictly for operations in the United States, and just under
72 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 recruiting
was done only for U.S. operations or if it included recruiting for operations conducted outside of U.S. soil, and whether
the 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 was
some growth in the percentage of companies that are recruiting outside of the United States and for operations outside
of this country.
The percentage of respondents who restricted their recruiting to U.S. schools fell from 75 percent in the 2011 survey to
72 percent currently. The percentage of firms that recruited strictly for the domestic market dropped for the second year
in 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 recruit
for both domestic and international operations. This has grown from just under 18 percent in 2010 recruitment survey to
just over 26 percent in this report.
Responses % of Responses
Recruit strictly in the U.S. for U.S.-based operations 157 66.0%
Recruit strictly in the U.S. for both U.S.-based and
international operations
14 5.9%
Recruit both in the U.S. and internationally for U.S.-based
operations
5 2.1%
Recruit both in the U.S. and internationally for both U.S.
and international operations
62 26.1%
Total 238 100.0%
Figure 1: Scope of college recruiting

Global college recruiting is focused among firms in terms of industries, size of companies, and even regions of the
country. Several industries have an unusually high concentration of firms engaged in global recruiting. They are
computer/electronics manufacturing, computer software consulting, and motor vehicle manufacturing. These industries
all have more than 40 percent of firms that recruit both in the United States and internationally for operations both in
and 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 a
step function. As Figure 2 shows, companies with fewer than 2,501 employees are not likely to be engaged in global
recruiting. In companies with more than 2,500 employees, there is significant engagement: At least one-quarter of
the firms recruit outside of the United States). However, the percentage of firms engaged in global recruiting does not
increase 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 is
further exemplified when compared to the number of total new college hires by the scope of recruiting. Firms engaged
in global recruiting averaged 676 new college hires during the 2011-12 recruiting season (610 full-time hires; 66
intern hires) compared with an average of 241 total new college hires for firms that recruited strictly within the United
States (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 United
States. As has been true since the 2010 survey, firms from the Far West are far more likely to be involved in
international recruiting than the firms in any other part of the country. Thirty-nine percent of firms from the Far
West report international college recruiting efforts. By comparison, about 20 percent of firms from the South report
international recruiting activity.
U.S. for U.S.-
Operations
U.S. for U.S./
International
Operations
U.S/International for
U.S. Operations
U.S./International
for U.S./International
Operations
Number of Employees % of Responses
500 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

% Total Hires College Grads
Industry Mean Median
Oil & 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 industry
THE NEW COLLEGE GRADUATE AND ENTRY-LEVEL HIRES
Overall, employers reported that, on average, 51.6 percent of their entry-level hires for 2011-12 were new college
graduates. This represents a sharp increase from the 2010-11 recruiting season when only 45 percent of all hires came
from 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 of
entry-level hires that were new college graduates ranged between 28 and 36 percent; in 2009-10, the percentage
reached 49 percent.
The relatively high percentage of new hires that are college graduates that have been seen in recent years may also be
a reﬂection of the general economy. The recession has given employers the opportunity to place greater emphasis on
ﬁnding 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, and
industry. In the current survey, there was very little differentiation in the percent of full-time hires that come from the
college 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.

Figure 3 shows that there are some considerable variations among industry sectors when it comes to hiring new
college graduates. Employers in the professional services sector, including accounting, engineering, and management
consulting 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 more
traditional 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 year
this question was posed to respondents, which allows the ﬁrst indication of any trend in degrees being sought by
employers.) As was true in the 2010-11 recruiting cycle, the dominant degree recruited by the employers responding
to the Recruiting Benchmarks Survey is the bachelor’s degree. More than 75 percent of all new college hires were
students who had just completed studies for their bachelor’s degree. However, as Figure 4 illustrates, the percent
of recruits with a bachelor’s degree is down noticeably from 2011. Meanwhile, the percent coming from all the
other 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 from
approximately 18 percent in 2010-11 to nearly 23 percent in 2011-12.
0
20
40
60
80
100 2011 2012
2.0%
Associate Bachelor’s Master’s M.B.A. Ph.D
2.8%
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

DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE
Nearly 76 percent of respondents to this survey have a college relations and recruiting department within their
organization. This is relatively consistent with the results from previous years: In the 2011 survey, 74 percent of
respondents and 78 percent of 2010 survey respondents had a defined college relations department as part of their
human resources operations.
Also consistent with the results from previous years’ surveys is the relationship between a formally structured college
relations department and the size of company. As Figure 5 shows, there is a fairly clear relationship between size of
company 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 smallest
size firms to approximately two-thirds of firms in the category with 1,000 to 2,500 employees. More than 80 percent
of 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 industry
are much less so. Region has no effect on whether a firm is likely to have a college relations department, and industry
has a minimal impact.
Among respondents reporting a formal recruiting department, the average number of full-time staff fell slightly from
an overall average of 8.2 in the 2011 survey to 8.0 in the current survey. In the 2010 survey, the average was 7.7
full-time staff per recruiting department.
Interestingly, there is little discernible relationship between the size of the company and the size of its recruiting
staff, except at the lowest end of the size scale. As Figure 6 shows, firms with fewer than 1,001 employees average
fewer than three full-time personnel devoted to college recruiting. By comparison, companies with more than 1,000
employees tend to have between five and 12 staff members focused on college recruiting.
Number of Employees
College Relations Department
Yes No
% of Responses
500 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

Another way to view staffing is to examine the number of recruiters employed compared to the number of
college recruits to be hired. Overall, among firms that reported their number of recruiters, each recruiter hired
an average of 80.1 grads as full-time employees or interns. This number was somewhat skewed by several firms
that reported very high hire figures compared with the number of recruiters they employed. This is evident from
a 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 the
employer. 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 25
hires per recruiter for firms with fewer than 500 employees to more than 100 hires per recruiter for firms with
more than 10,000 employees.
Number of Employees
FTE Staff
Mean
500 or less
501 - 1,000
1,001 - 2,500
2,501 - 5,000
5,001 - 10,000
10,001 - 20,000
More than 20,000
Figure 6: Size of college relations departments, by size of company
Hires per Recruiter
Number of Employees Mean Median
500 or less 25.21 20.00
501 - 1,000 42.97 45.67
1,001 - 2,500 44.92 32.00
2,501 - 5,000 56.55 36.67
5,001 - 10,000 84.77 77.33
10,001 - 20,000 142.19 113.75
More than 20,000 107.95 75.00
Figure 7: Hires per recruiter, by size of company

Hires per Recruiter
Industry Mean Median
Oil & Gas Extraction 44.99 43.14
Construction 43.60 26.00
Food & Beverage Mfg. 92.60 31.67
Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 119.39 104.33
Computer & Electronics Mfg. 81.34 60.33
Misc. Mfg. 67.86 46.89
Retail Trade 39.48 32.00
Transportation 75.97 69.50
Information 102.41 107.69
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 88.96 59.25
Engineering Services 86.75 49.00
Management Consulting 75.09 72.67
Misc. Prof. Services 47.53 53.25
Figure 8: Hires per recruiter, by industry
These 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 low
number of recruiters needed to hire new employees for larger companies should translate to a lower cost-per-hire figure
for larger firms. Unfortunately, because the data on cost-per-hire are limited, it is impossible to reliably confirm this
speculation.
There are also variations in this staffing ratio according to industry. Figure 8 shows that the hire-to-recruiter ratio ranges
from a low of just less than 40 hires per recruiter in the retail trade industry to a high of nearly 120 hires per recruiter
among pharmaceutical firms. Some of this differential across industries is related to the size of the companies in the
industries, but there are also independent variations that appear to relate to industry-wide behaviors.

STAFF SALARIES
Respondents were also asked to provide salary data for their full-time staff members. Overall, director-level
positions 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 3
percent from that reported in the 2011 survey. The averages for all other positions suffered decreases ranging from
a high of nearly 5 percent for coordinators to a low of 1.6 percent for managers.
Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75
Director – Salary
Coordinator – Salary
Manager – Salary
Recruiter – Salary
Figure 9: College relations staff: title and salary
Salary 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 10
through 13 show the average experience level and the average salary by position and by the size of the ﬁrm.
Years of Experience
Number of Employees Mean Salary
Figure 10: Director, experience and salary, by size of company

Years of Experience
500 or less 7.00 $55,000
501 - 1,000 8.00 $62,000
1,001 - 2,500 6.00 $57,429
2,501 - 5,000 7.00 $79,333
5,001 - 10,000 6.00 $58,200
10,001 - 20,000 7.00 $73,000
More than 20,000 6.00 $67,200
Years of Experience
500 or less 7.60 $45,207
501 - 1,000 6.88 $45,400
1,001 - 2,500 4.07 $51,636
2,501 - 5,000 2.11 $45,375
5,001 - 10,000 5.67 $44,375
10,001 - 20,000 2.80 $42,753
More than 20,000 3.70 $46,975
Figure 12: Recruiter, experience and salary, by size of company
Figure 13: Coordinator, experience and salary, by size of company
Years of Experience
500 or less 14.67 $68,750
501 - 1,000 11.71 $92,000
1,001 - 2,500 10.67 $89,444
2,501 - 5,000 10.55 $94,444
5,001 - 10,000 10.82 $100,222
10,001 - 20,000 6.92 $96,900
More than 20,000 9.91 $99,217
Figure 11: Manager, experience and salary, by size of company

COST-PER-HIRE
The 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 true
cost-per-hire can be properly assessed. This is particularly true for organizations where the college relations department
is embedded in a larger human relations function with staff sharing activities across functions. For these firms, properly
allocating 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 recruiting
season was $5,134; the median cost was $3,333. (See Figure 14.) The wide difference between mean and median
costs 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 that
they may indicate instability in the data. However, the numbers for 2011-12 are comparable with those for 2010-11
where the mean was $5,054 and the median was $2,906. This provides some measure of confidence that the limited
data available are pointing to the same thing and the numbers are being computed by respondents in a more or less
consistent manner.
Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75
Cost-Per-Hire
Number of Employees Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75
500 or less $1,185.71 $7,645.28 $7,645.28 $14,104.84
501 - 1,000 $5,149.92 $6,634.85 $5,625.00 $6,323.53
1,001 - 2,500 $2,636.94 $6,512.14 $3,142.11 $10,154.26
2,501 - 5,000 $4,655.34 $11,365.37 $6,232.47 $11,363.64
5,001 - 10,000 $1,770.24 $3,181.87 $2,629.31 $3,014.82
10,001 - 20,000 $2,654.58 $3,737.47 $4,021.74 $4,360.00
More than 20,000 $1,702.81 $2,885.68 $2,607.14 $3,719.28
Figure 14: Cost-per-hire, overall
Figure 15: Cost-per-hire, by size of company
The variability is also a reflection of how cost-per-hire is affected by the size of the company. (See Figure 15.) As
might be expected, the average cost-per-hire is generally lower for larger companies. The reason is that total costs
are generally offset by the far larger number of hires they generate. For these firms, there are economies of scale
inherent in spreading overhead costs, in particular, over a much larger base of new hires.

RECRUITING BUDGETS
How are costs distributed across different recruiting budget categories? Respondents provided their costs by
functional recruiting categories.1
If the overall cost-per-hire figures should be used with caution, then these estimated
allocations should be treated with even greater levels of trepidation. It is always the case that the component parts of
statistical relationships have even greater levels of potential error than exist for the whole. Nevertheless, the numbers
respondents provided are helpful for those seeking to understand how recruiting costs are distributed. Figure 16
presents 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 divided
among 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 for
faculty/career services staff.
c. Cost of recruiting trips: Expenses associated with on-campus recruitment, e.g. recruiter travel and accommodations expenses, cost of
equipment rentals.
d. Expenditures related to company visits: Expenses for bringing candidates to the organization, including candidates’ travel, lodging, and meal
expenses; 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 Advertising
25.9%
Hiring and
Relocation Cost
13.7%
Company Visits
36.7%
College Relations/
Recruitment Office
7.8%
Prerecruiting
Activities
12.7%
Recruiting Trips
Figure 16: Percentage allocation of recruiting costs across functional
recruiting categories

Not at All
Important
Not Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
Branding 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 ratings
COLLEGE RECRUITING PROGRAMS:
WHAT MATTERS MOST
ASPECTS OF THE COLLEGE RECRUITING PROGRAM
As in previous surveys, employers were asked to rate a number of issues on their importance to their college recruiting
programs.
Branding the organization to campuses was far and away the most highly rated aspect of the college recruiting
program: Nearly 90 percent of respondents rated on-campus branding as very or extremely important. Following
on-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 of
respondents. (See Figure 17.)

There are only two aspects where the majority of respondents did not rate the activity as very or extremely important to
the function of college recruiting. These are accessing training for college relations staff, and using social networks to
recruit new college hires: Less than one-third of respondents found these as very important. There were few significant
differences among different respondent groups as to what they viewed as the most important elements of college
recruiting.
BRANDING TECHNIQUES
With branding clearly identified as a primary function for the college recruiter, the survey attempted to develop a
picture of the most widely used and most effective techniques used to market an employer to potential new graduate
recruits.
As Figure 18 shows, the most widely used branding mechanisms are appearing at campus career fairs, using
the corporate website as a marketing device, and developing relationships with faculty. More than 90 percent of
respondents used each of these mechanisms to brand their firms to potential new graduate recruits.
Yes No
% of category
Career/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

56.1%
Supporting
Student
Organizations
74.2%
Relationships
With Faculty
73.5%
Career Fairs
54.3%
Campus
Information
Sessions
55.8%
Corporate
Website
25.0%
Internet
Advertising
22.1%
Search Engine
Optimization
24.8%
Social
Networking
45.6%
Campus
Website
25.0%
Advertising in
General Print
Publications
0.0%
Campus
Radio
Stations
18.1%
Advertising in
Job
Publications
4.0%
DVDs
0.0%
Campus TV
Stations
Figure 19: Percentage of respondents rating branding technique as
highly effective
These results are consistent with the ﬁndings from previous surveys. In fact, the most noteworthy changes from
the 2011 survey are the relative increased use of social networking and search engine optimization as branding
techniques. Use of both grew, and each moved up one position relative to other techniques on the list of most-used
branding devices.
The perception as to which branding techniques are the most effective is also virtually unchanged since the 2011
survey. Once again, the most widely used techniques are generally perceived as the most effective in communicating
the company’s brand to potential employees. Building relationships with faculty and attendance at career fairs are
the highest-rated techniques in terms of effectiveness, with nearly 75 percent of respondents rating each as highly
effective. The other branding devices where a majority of the respondents felt the device was highly effective were
supporting student organizations, the employer’s own corporate website, and campus information sessions. (See
Figure 19.)

Is there any statistical relationship between the application of employer branding techniques and the acceptance rate
of job offers? The hypothesis is that an effective branding technique will be reﬂected in a higher offer acceptance rate
for 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 be
accepted.
When comparing the acceptance rates of employers that used these branding devices against those that did not
employ them, very little impact was found from the application of most of these techniques, i.e., the acceptance
rate tended to be the same whether or not a company used a particular branding device. However, there were two
techniques that indicated a positive response:
Companies that invested time and energy in building direct relationships with key faculty had a better average
acceptance 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’s
website had an average acceptance rate of 80.5 percent compared with an average acceptance rate of 72.4
percent for companies that did not use SEO.

0
20
40
60
80
100
2011 2012
11.5%
2-year schools Traditional 4-year
schools
For-profit schools Online schools
9.3%
99.0% 97.4%
12.0% 13.7%
4.7% 1.8%
Figure 20: Types of colleges/universities at which employers recruited
RECRUITING: OPERATIONAL DETAILS
TARGET SCHOOL SELECTION
How 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 school
they targeted for recruiting (two-year, four-year, for-profit). Then, respondents were asked which attributes of a school
were 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 would
be expected, virtually all respondents recruited at traditional four-year institutions in both the 2010-11 and 2011-12
recruiting seasons. However, there is some subtle movement toward examining graduates from for-profit institutions. In
the 2011 survey, 12 percent of respondents reported recruiting at for-profit schools; in the 2012 report, that percentage
increased slightly to approximately 14 percent.
The percent of recruiters focusing on two-year institutions and online degree programs has dropped somewhat during
the 2011-12 recruiting season. The percent recruiting at two-year schools has gone from 11.5 percent in 2010-11 to
just over 9 percent in 2011-12, while those recruiting at online schools dropped from nearly 5 percent in 2010-11 to
less than 2 percent in 2011-12.

1 2 3 Total Points
Quality of programs 73 40 17 316
Majors offered 66 49 15 311
Past recruiting experience at school 57 28 37 264
Location of school 36 34 37 213
Success of school’s alumni in your organization 31 18 25 154
Diversity of student body 19 27 25 136
National rankings 19 28 14 127
Reputation of school 18 19 7 99
Accreditation of school 23 6 10 91
Interest of school’s graduates in your organization 12 18 17 89
Executives are alumni of school 10 12 16 70
Retention history with school’s alumni 7 16 13 66
Helpfulness of career services staff 4 15 13 55
Salary expectations of students 3 12 14 47
Respondents were provided with a list of school attributes and asked to rank the three that are most important to them when deciding where they
will recruit. Scores were assigned to each attribute; a first-place vote received three points, a second-place vote got two points, and third place was
awarded one point.
Figure 21: Selection criteria for target schools
It is interesting to note that while there was no clear relationship with the size of the organization recruiting and the
types of schools that served as targets, there were notable differences connected with the industry group and the
geographic 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 nearly
30 percent of employers from the Southeastern or Plains states included these institutions in their target mix. Similar
differences existed for high-tech manufacturing, engineering services, and computer consulting services. These industries
tended 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 to
rank the three that are most important to them when deciding where they will recruit. Four attributes stood out, including
the academic majors offered at the school, the perceived quality of the programs offered at the school, the employer’s
recruiting experience at the school, and the school’s location. (See Figure 21.) These are the same four reasons that
have dominated the selection criteria in previous years.

The survey also examined the relationship between the selection criteria used to choose target schools and success in
recruiting. Chosen as an indicator of success was the percentage of students interviewed who received an offer of a
full-time position. (The rationale: If target schools are well chosen, then recruiters have an effective set of candidates
available, 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 ﬁrm
to select target schools. As Figure 22 shows, the selection criterion connected with the highest average offer rate is
the helpfulness of the career center staff: Employers who choose a target school primarily because of the relationships
they have developed with the respective career centers have an average offer rate of nearly 72 percent. This
compares 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 (average
offer 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 for
selecting target schools. The top two reasons for selecting schools—quality of programs and majors offered—
demonstrate little impact on the offer rate.
Percent of interviews
receiving offer
Mean
Accreditation of school
Helpfulness of career services staff
Majors offered
National rankings
Quality of programs
Reputation of school
Retention history with school’s alumni
Figure 22: Target school criteria and offer rate

Responses % of Respondents
Each 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-campus
relationships
Career centers
Department chair
Faculty
Fraternities and sororities
Other
Figure 23: Campus resources in recruiting
RECRUITERS AND COLLEGE CAREER SERVICES
Despite 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 particular
university. When asked, “which on-campus groups employers work with,” respondents nearly universally indicated the
college 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 one
campus connection. While the career center is the required stop, more than 80 percent of respondents chose to add
student clubs to their roster of resources, and nearly 76 percent included faculty. Therefore, while the career center
remains a vital link between the employers and potential new graduate recruits, few recruiters view the career center
as a completely satisfactory connection.
EVALUATING ON-CAMPUS PROGRAMS
Given the data connecting college faculty with effective branding and the importance of relationships built with
college career center staff in developing an effective recruiting experience, it would seem essential that employers
conduct regular reviews that evaluate their on-campus relationships.
Somewhat surprisingly, less than half of respondents (45.9 percent) indicated that their firms conducted regularly
scheduled evaluations of their on-campus relationships. When firms conduct such evaluations, they tend to be done
annually. (See Figure 24.)

Survey
Focus group
Dialogue with campus officials
Interview firm’s campus
representatives
Other
2011-12 Career Fairs 2012-13 Career Fairs
Number of Employees Mean
500 or less 10 11
501 - 1,000 13 13
1,001 - 2,500 20 22
2,501 - 5,000 24 23
5,001 - 10,000 20 22
10,001 - 20,000 27 26
More than 20,000 58 61
Figure 25: Methods used to conduct campus evaluations
Figure 26: Career fairs, by size of company
CAREER FAIRS
Employers 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 an
average 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 1,001
employees, recruiters are likely to attend approximately a dozen career fairs annually. At firms with more than 1,000
employees 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. These
firms 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 both
campus officials (presumably career center contacts and key faculty) and their own campus representatives to get a
sense of how well the campus relationship is performing. A relatively small percentage employ actual metrics, either
in the form of survey results or performance indicators (conversion rates, retention rates, and so forth), to determine if
their on-campus relationships are effective and producing the desired results. (See Figure 25.)

ON-CAMPUS INTERVIEWS
For the past several years, an interesting and somewhat perplexing trend has developed. First, the percentage of
employers going on campus to interview prospective recruits has been decreasing. Between 2004 and 2007, the
year-to-year decline was very small, but steady. In 2008, the drop-off was substantial, and, since then, the decline
has been further reinforced. In 2011-12, the percent of firms that conducted on-campus interviews dropped to 75.8
percent from 77.4 percent in 2010-11.
The second trend is probably an indicator of an improved job market. While the percentage of companies engaging
in on-campus interviewing has been steadily decreasing, the percentage of hires emanating from on-campus
interviews generally increased over these years. This upward trend has not been as steady, but the overall change is
noticeable, especially since 2007. The results from the 2011 and 2012 surveys show a turnaround in this trend—the
percent of hires coming from on-campus interviews has declined the last two years. (See Figure 27.) As the number
of new graduates hired grows, the number that comes from direct recruiting on campus is not sufficient to fill all the
employment needs of an employer.
40
60
80
100
89.2% 89.1%
80.0%81.2%
88.8%
2004 2006 2007 2008 2012201120102009
% Interviewing on Campus % Hires From On-Campus Interviews
75.8%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

By industry, oil and gas extraction and accounting services were the most reliant on conducting their hiring
interviews on campus; these sectors hired more than 90 percent of their Class of 2012 recruits from on-campus
interviews. 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 from
on-campus interview
Industry Mean
Oil & Gas Extraction 90.80
Utilities 56.25
Construction 66.50
Food & Beverage Mfg. 61.75
Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 62.25
Computer & Electronics Mfg. 47.23
Motor Vehicle Mfg. 47.14
Misc. Mfg. 79.29
Retail Trade 66.63
Transportation 52.75
Information 48.50
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 56.33
Accounting Services 95.83
Engineering Services 19.67
Management Consulting 69.00
Misc. Prof. Services 62.78
Recreation & Hospitality 63.75
Misc. Support Services 65.00
Government 55.00
Figure 28: On-campus interviews and hiring, by industry

TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS USED IN COLLEGE RECRUITING
Beyond the on-campus recruiting activities, employers use a number of other avenues to identify and attract potential
new 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 campus
websites, postings on the company’s own website, and applicant tracking systems are used by more than 85 percent of
respondents; 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 a
major growth area, moving from under 50 percent in the 2011 survey to more than 60 percent in the current survey.
% of Respondents Using Effectiveness Rating
2011 2012 2011 2012
Internet job postings - campus website 95.9 99.3 3.9 3.8
Internet job postings - own website 89.6 87.7 3.7 3.8
Applicant tracking system 83.0 89.9 3.7 3.7
Internet job postings - commercial website 51.8 49.6 3.3 3.2
Internet advertising 47.4 44.2 3.6 3.3
Social networking sites 46.9 61.6 3.1 3.1
Searching Internet for resumes (mining) 38.0 35.5 3.2 3.3
Preemployment assessment testing 30.7 33.6 3.9 3.5
Video interviewing 21.5 27.3 3.6 3.6
Company 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 effectiveness
Figure 29 also displays the average effectiveness rating respondents provided for each of these applications. As has
generally been true in past surveys, none of the technical applications were rated particularly effective in enhancing
an organization’s college recruiting effort. Most of the average ratings are little changed from the 2011 survey. The
one result that does stand out is the consistently modest effectiveness rating garnered by social networking. Even as this
application has experienced relatively rapid growth in use over the past several years, respondents indicate very little
enthusiasm for its performance. This suggests that employers are taking on social networking as a recruiting tool more
as a result of its potential without fully understanding how to use it effectively.

THE HIRING PROCESS
CYCLE TIME
How long does it take, on average, to bring a new recruit into the company fold? The survey probes this question in
two parts. First, it takes a look at the average number of days respondents report for an offer to be made or a rejection
notice to be sent from the point of the initial candidate interview. The survey then details the average amount of time
organizations 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. These
ﬁgures are consistent with the interview-to-offer cycle time from previous years. (See Figure 30.) There is no clear
direction in these times. The only aspect illustrated by Figure 30 is that there is a relatively narrow band in which the
offer follows the interview, i.e., approximately a month in real time or 20 business days.
Offer
22.2Days
25.0Days
23.5Days
22.5Days
24.2Days
Interview
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Figure 30: Time from interview to offer in days (2008 – 2012)

There are signiﬁcant differences in the interview-to-offer cycle times across industries. Government agencies, for
example, have traditionally had a much longer turnaround time when it came to delivering a recruit an offer than
employers in other sectors. As Figure 31 details, government agencies still have one of the longer interview-to-offer
timeframes, with a 38-day average; however, recruiters in a few other industries also exhibit similar, lengthy cycle
times. Recreation and hospitality, engineering services, and construction join government in taking an average of
30 days or more to deliver an offer. By contrast, recruiters from computer and electronics manufacturers, accounting
services, and miscellaneous support services stand out in delivering their offers in an average of less than 18 days.
Cycle Time – Offer
Industry Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75
Oil & Gas Extraction 5.00 27.80 14.00 30.00
Utilities 15.00 25.83 25.50 30.00
Construction 14.00 30.00 20.50 45.00
Food & Beverage Mfg. 14.00 26.90 20.50 35.00
Chemical (Pharmaceutical) Mfg. 5.00 19.24 14.00 21.00
Computer & Electronics Mfg. 10.00 16.00 14.00 21.00
Motor Vehicle Mfg. 7.00 23.36 14.00 30.00
Misc. Mfg. 10.00 23.24 14.00 30.00
Retail Trade 14.00 21.29 21.00 30.00
Transportation 5.00 19.29 10.00 30.00
Information 10.00 23.50 16.00 30.00
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 7.00 22.68 20.00 30.00
Accounting Services 10.00 17.00 10.00 30.00
Engineering Services 6.50 30.33 21.00 55.00
Management Consulting 8.50 28.25 21.00 45.00
Misc. Prof. Services 14.00 19.70 14.00 21.00
Recreation & Hospitality 14.00 39.50 27.00 65.00
Misc. Support Services 14.00 17.50 17.00 21.00
Government 30.00 38.00 45.00 45.00
Figure 31: Time from interview to offer in days, by industry

Once an offer is delivered, how long, on average, does it take to complete the cycle and have the student either accept
or reject the offer? Most recruiters give their recruits approximately two weeks (14.1 days) to accept or reject a job
offer. This portion of the timeline has been consistent across the years, with the exception of when the recession was at
its 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 the
2009-10 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 recruit
to accept or reject an offer. The one discernible difference is the industry of the employer. (See Figure 32.) Only one
industry group approaches providing its recruits with nearly a month (20 business days) to respond: miscellaneous
business services, at 20.5 days on average. By contrast, there are several industry groups where the average time to
accept 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 – Acceptance
Utilities
Construction
Retail Trade
Transportation
Information
Accounting Services
Engineering Services
Management Consulting
Recreation & Hospitality
Government
Figure 32: Time provided from offer to acceptance in days, by industry

OFFERS AND ACCEPTANCES
The college hiring market continued to show improvement in 2011-12. The NACE Job Outlook survey for the 2011-12
recruiting 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 average
percentage of students who received a full-time job offer after being interviewed increased significantly in 2011-12 to
a rate consistent with pre-recession levels. For 2011-12, it was 39.8 percent, a sizable increase from the 34.8 percent
figure of 2010-11. (See Figure 33.)
30
35
40 39.2%
37.4%
33.9%
34.8%
39.8%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 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 market
tends to improve. In the current survey, the acceptance rate is 74.8 percent. This is a bit higher than the 2011 survey
figure (74.3 percent) and well above pre-recession acceptance rates (67.7 percent in 2008). The continuing high
acceptance rates may be a reflection of the perception that the market has not recovered yet from the recession and
that any opportunity should not be bypassed in favor of possibly getting a better offer.

The relatively broad demographics of size and geography appear to have little relationship with either the offer or
the acceptance rate. When there are variations connected with these rates, they are most likely to be found with the
industrial classiﬁcation of the employer recruiters. First, offer rates can vary signiﬁcantly by industry. As Figure 34
details, several industry categories (oil and gas, miscellaneous support services, and government) had offer rates of
around 20 percent during the 2011-12 recruiting season. By comparison, industries such as utilities, retail trade, and
miscellaneous professional services all averaged more than 50 percent in the number of recruits who received offers
after their on-campus interviews.
Percent of Interviews Receiving Offer
Utilities 50.00 59.50 55.00 69.00
Construction 12.00 38.33 25.00 68.00
Misc. Mfg. 15.00 37.88 45.00 50.00
Retail Trade 25.00 50.83 57.50 75.00
Transportation 20.00 45.00 40.00 65.00
Information 27.50 39.63 37.00 57.50
Government 11.00 21.20 25.00 30.00
Figure 34: Offer rate, by industry

Percent of Offers Accepted
Utilities 78.00 74.20 78.00 90.00
Construction 80.00 84.00 85.00 90.00
Misc. Mfg. 65.00 72.94 75.00 80.00
Retail Trade 66.00 70.63 77.50 85.00
Transportation 75.00 64.60 80.00 80.00
Information 65.00 71.56 70.00 75.00
Government 85.00 83.20 85.00 86.00
Figure 35: Acceptance rate, by industry
Acceptance rates did not vary nearly as much as the offer rates, but there were differences in the average percent of
offers being accepted connected with different industry categories. (See Figure 35.) Most notably there appears to be
a bit of an inverse relationship with the offer rates by industry. That is, some of the industries with the lowest offer rates
generate the highest acceptance rates. For example, oil/gas extraction and government are among the list of industries
with the highest percentage of offers being accepted at more than 80 percent.

DIVERSITY RECRUITING
Diversity recruiting is a core element of the college recruiting process. It remains a major concern among survey
respondents, although the percentage of ﬁrms that incorporate a diversity element as a critical aspect of their college
recruiting is down again this year. (See Figure 36.)
60
70
80
65.6%
72.8%
74.1%
70.9%
69.8%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 36: Percentage of ﬁrms with diversity effort (2008 – 2012)

The emphasis on diversity recruiting was all but uniform across geographic regions and employer types in the
current survey. Among industry types, only oil and gas extraction and construction stood out for having a majority
of respondents that did not feature a diversity recruiting effort. This was the second year in a row that oil and gas
extraction fell at the bottom in featuring diversity recruiting efforts among its companies. As Figure 37 details, in the
Southwest where there is relatively low participation from the oil/gas industry in diversity programs, just 50 percent of
the responding employers had diversity recruiting components.
Region
Diversity Recruiting Priority
Yes No
% of Responses
New England
Southeast
Southwest
Rocky Mountains
Far West
Figure 37: Percentage of firms with diversity effort, by region
The one demographic where there has been a consistent link with diversity is size of the organization. Figure 38 shows
that there is near linear relationship between the size of the firm recruiting and the existence of diversity considerations
in the college recruiting program: The smaller the firm, the less likely it is that the college recruitment program will have
a defined diversity recruitment effort. Current respondents can be divided into three categories—those with fewer than
2,501 employees, where the percentage of firms with diversity efforts generally falls below 60 percent; those with
2,501 to 10,000 employees, where the percentage of firms is between 70 and 75 percent; and those firms with more
than 10,000 employees, where diversity efforts are nearly universal (85 to 90 percent participation).

Region
Diversity Recruiting Priority
Yes No
% of Responses
500 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 2011
Women 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 of
company
Figure 39: Populations targeted for diversity recruiting, 2012 vs. 2011

How successful are the diversity recruitment efforts of most respondents? Figure 40 compares the percentage of new
college recruits from targeted populations for firms that state they are engaged in diversity recruiting against the gender
and ethnic distribution of bachelor’s degree recipients as a whole.2
As 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 firms
that engage in diversity recruiting and those that do not. Firms that have diversity recruiting efforts average a higher
percentage of new college graduate recruits from all the targeted categories, with the most significant difference being
the hiring of African-American graduates.
With Diversity Effort
Bachelor’s Degrees
Class of 2011
Women 32.3 57.3
African-Americans 10.3 9.3
Hispanic-Americans 9.4 9.2
Asian-Americans 14.4 6.3
Native-Americans 1.4 0.6
Physically Challenged 2.2 NA
Figure 40: Hiring results by diversity populations
Even though current efforts appear to be fairly successful in landing diverse populations in the starting work forces of
organizations with defined diversity programs, survey respondents report that their efforts to recruit underrepresented
minorities will only become more intense in the coming recruiting season. Figure 41 shows the diversity recruiting
goals of organizations with stated diversity efforts. The goal for virtually every population group is greater than
the percentages actually hired from the Class of 2012, with the exception of Asian-Americans. However, these
stated goals are not significantly different than those stated in previous years. In no previous year was the average
percentage goal for minority hires ever achieved, with the exception that Asian-American hires traditionally exceeded
both 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) for
the Class of 2011. These data were summarized from individual school reports for all four-year public and private, degree-granting institutions.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Women
African-American
Hispanic -American
Asian-Amerian
Native-American
Physically Challenged
35.4%
17.8%
16.8%
13.8%
7.8%
5.9%
Figure 41: Hiring goals for 2013, by diversity populations
HBCUs 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 recruiting
What 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. Figure
42 details the kinds of institutions employers used during the 2011-12 recruiting season to maximize their chance
of recruiting minority talent. As the ﬁgure shows, by far the most popular source for diversity recruiting was the
historically black college or university (HBCU). Eighty percent of respondents with a diversity recruiting program had
such 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 where
25 percent or more of the enrollment is Hispanic-American) were far less targeted than the schools that served a
predominantly African-American population. The number three alternative was not really a target set of schools but
rather minority-focused student groups on campuses. Examples include the National Society of Black Engineers, the
Hispanic Scholarship Fund, and the Society of Women Engineers.

THE NEW HIRE
CANDIDATE RETENTION
One of the key measures for evaluating a college recruiting program is candidate retention—what percent of new
graduate hires are still with the company one year and ﬁve years after their hire date. The greater the degree of
retention, 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 previous
surveys. 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 support
services—stood out with a low reported one-year retention rate (54 percent). All other sectors reported at least an 85
percent retention rate after one year of service. (See Figure 43.)
Industry Mean
Utilities 100.00
Construction 95.56
Misc. Mfg. 89.75
Retail Trade 89.00
Figure 43: One-year retention rates, by industry
Industry Mean
Information 95.00
Misc. Support Services 54.00
Government 95.20

As for size, smaller firms appear to be more successful than larger firms in holding onto their new hires, but the
relationship between size and retention is hardly perfectly linear. Firms with more than 2,500 employees tended to
have somewhat lower retention rates than those with fewer than 2,501 employees. (See Figure 44.)
500 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 company
The average retention rate for new graduate hires five years after graduation also is approximately the same as it
has been over the past two surveys. The overall rate for new college hires five years after graduation is 68.9 percent
in 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 five
years. 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 were
management consulting, which managed to retain only 55 percent of its new hires after five years on the job, and
miscellaneous professional services, where the five-year retention rate was even lower at 49 percent. Management
consulting has been close to the bottom on the five-year retention rate for the past three surveys.

Industry Mean
Utilities 88.20
Construction 70.75
Misc. Mfg. 73.44
Retail Trade 85.00
Transportation 70.40
Information 87.50
Government 77.80
Figure 45: Five-year retention rates, by industry
The 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 is
no clear pattern. The lowest rate was reported for firms with between 5,001 and 10,000 employees at just less than
57 percent, while the highest retention rate was for firms in the 1,000 to 2,500 range (77 percent). Overall there
was no clear direction related to the size of the firm. (See Figure 46.)

500 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 company
ROTATIONAL PROGRAMS
One factor that may influence the retention rates of different organizations is the onboarding process for new graduate
hires.
One type of onboarding experience that has generated a considerable amount of interest in recent years is a rotational
program. Such a program has candidates move into different departments, positions, or even locations throughout the
organization in their initial period with the company. The idea is to identify the best fit for the individual talents of the
new hire and the needs of the organization. Presumably, identifying this mix will provide a better work experience in
the 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 second
year this form of onboarding has been examined, and the percent of firms using rotational programs has stayed
approximately the same, if not showing some indication of decreasing. Forty-one percent of 2012 survey respondents
reported having a rotational program of some sort for their new hires. This compares with the 44 percent who reported
such programs in the 2011 survey.

Number of Employees
Rotational Program
Yes No
Responses % of Responses Responses % of Responses
500 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 company
Size is not the only demographic associated with rotational programs. This form of onboarding is very much aligned
with 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 with
fewer than 1,001 employees are very unlikely to have a rotational program; it is not until the size of the firm exceeds
20,000 employees that a majority of the respondents reported having rotations. The only change from the 2011
survey results is that the proportion of firms in the large size categories that report having a rotational program has
diminished somewhat.

Industry
Rotational Program
Yes No
Responses % of Responses Responses % of Responses
Oil & 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

To provide a sense of how these rotational programs work, respondents with rotational programs answered a series
of questions about the operation of their programs. Respondents were asked what percentage of new graduates
goes through their programs. Overall, the average percentage is approximately 61 percent. However, there is a
considerable range in this percentage. A good deal of the variation appears to be associated with the size of the
company 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. As
Figure 49 shows, ﬁrms with 5,000 employees or less average in a range of between two-thirds and 96 percent of
new graduate employees being involved in their rotational programs; ﬁrms with more than 5,000 employees tend to
average less than 50 percent of their new hires in the rotational programs.
Percent of College Hires in Rotation
Number of Employees Percentile 25 Mean Median Percentile 75
500 or less 50.00 83.57 100.00 100.00
501 - 1,000 92.50 96.25 100.00 100.00
1,001 - 2,500 50.00 72.20 75.00 100.00
2,501 - 5,000 40.00 66.15 50.00 100.00
5,001 - 10,000 15.00 43.00 35.00 62.00
10,001 - 20,000 12.00 47.60 19.00 100.00
More than 20,000 20.00 53.27 50.00 95.00
Figure 49: Percent of new recruits involved in rotational programs, by size of company
The second question asked whether new recruits rotated through different departments, different positions, and/or
different locations within the company. Figure 50 indicates that rotations generally involved a multiplicity of changes
for the new recruit. Almost all respondents with such programs (84 percent) indicated that recruits experienced
work in different departments within the organization as part of the rotation, while two-thirds had their new hires
experience different job positions in addition to rotating through the departments. Interestingly, there was even a
good deal of change in location that came as part of these programs. More than half of the programs took place at
various sites in the United States, while approximately 15 percent required the new hires to experience work life in
different parts of the world.
Rotational Structure Responses % of Respondents
Department Rotation 81 84.4%
Position Rotation 64 66.7%
U.S. Location 49 51.0%
Global Location 14 14.6%
Figure 50: Rotational structures

The final questions asked about the length of rotations and the amount of time new recruits spent in each portion of the
rotation. Here there was considerable consensus. As Figure 51 shows, most firms using a rotation program have new
recruits stay in the program for more than a year. Nearly 40 percent reported an overall rotation length of one to two
years, and nearly the same amount reported having a rotation length other than one of the specified choices. It turns out
that virtually all these “other” responses were for durations that exceeded two years—three years being the duration of
choice among this “other” group.
Length of Rotation Program Responses % of Respondents
6
3 to 6 Months
6 Months to 1 Year 11
1 to 2 Years
Other 36
Length of Rotation Program Responses % of Respondents
3 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 program
Figure 52: Overall duration of rotational segments
A 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. The
dominant response in this category was six months to one year for the duration that a new recruit would spend in a
particular segment.

SUMMARY
The 2011-12 recruiting season was a very stable period for college recruiters. The number of graduates hired for both
full-time positions and internships increased, but the overall activity level and methods used to recruit these candidates
changed little from 2010-11.
The use of social networking in college recruiting did grow again, but this growth did little to impact traditional aspects
of finding and interacting with potential new hires. If there was an effect, it was on the overall cost of advertising related
to college recruiting, which registered at the smallest percentage of costs related to talent acquisition in this arena (3
percent of overall costs).
The trend data that stand out in this report is the continuing advance in the skill levels required by employers in their
overall hiring. Two pieces of data point in this direction. One, the percentage of overall new hires that came from
college recruiting increased to 51 percent in 2012—a jump from the 2011 survey of 45 percent. Two, the percentage
of new college hires with advanced degrees also increased. Nearly one-fourth of new college hires were students with
a 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 the
costs associated with accessing this talent. Recruiters still target the same type of schools and focus on the same criteria
in selecting these institutions. The availability of specific majors and the perception of “quality” in a school’s program
are the chief criteria used in selecting a school as a target, even though there is little evidence that these elements make
a significant positive difference in better offer and acceptance rates. Continuing to rely on these criteria appears to be
more an article of faith than one based on evidence. Less than half of all employers conduct periodic evaluations of their
campus 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 2011-12
recruiting season over the cost-per-hire in 2010-11. As always, these numbers need to be quoted with a great deal of
caution 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 difference
in most recruiting benchmarks. The interesting aspects to watch closely during 2012-13 are whether the trend to hiring
more students with advanced degrees continues and whether firms undertake more critical evaluations of their programs
in an effort to effectively assess their on campus relationships, their branding initiatives to students, and the results of
their talent acquisition efforts.

APPENDIX
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
Respondents were widely distributed across industry types and geographic regions, but were relatively concentrated
in terms of size. This profile is consistent with the firms that traditionally field relatively intense college recruiting efforts
characterized 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 are
represented among the respondent group with a couple of categories showing particularly strong representation. These
categories include manufacturing (36.4 percent); professional services (20.3 percent); and finance (9.5 percent).3
One
aspect of respondent demographics to note in this survey is the relatively low participation of employers in the public
sector. This is a traditionally strong college recruiting arena, but has diminished recently due to budget constraints
brought on by the recession and its relatively meager recovery.
3. The manufacturing sector includes food and beverage; pharmaceuticals/chemicals; electronics/computer; motor vehicle; and miscellaneous
manufacturers. Professional services is a combination of accounting services; engineering services; management consulting; and miscellaneous
professional services. Finance is identified as finance and real estate in Figure 53.

Industry Responses % of Respondents
Agriculture 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

Region Responses % of Respondents
New 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 region
Figure 54 presents the regional representation. The figure shows a concentration of respondents in the northeastern
United States (approximately one-third of respondents are located in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states), but
there is sufficient representation from most areas of the country with the exception of the Rocky Mountain region.4
Finally, Figure 55 shows the distribution of survey respondents by size.5
There is a clear concentration among firms of
a relatively large size. Nearly 80 percent of the respondents represent firms or business units with more than 1,000
employees and fully 23.7 percent are reporting for firms with over 20,000 employees. However, this distribution is
consistent with the overall employer membership at NACE and with the size of firms most intensely involved in college
recruiting generally. Survey results based on this respondent profile should be applicable to college relations programs
and college recruiting activity for the U.S. as a whole.
Number of Employees Responses % of Respondents
500 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 company
4. 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, North
Carolina, 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.

PARTICIPATING FIRMS
ACCO Brands Corporation
Acquity Group
ADP
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Aetna Inc.
Aflac
Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Air Products & Chemicals Inc.
Alcatel-Lucent
Allscripts
American Airlines Inc.
American Eagle Outfitters
Amgen Inc.
ARAMARK
ARCADIS US Inc.
Arup
Aspen Technology Inc.
ATI Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation
Avant Energy Services
Bankers Life & Casualty Co.
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Black & Veatch Corporation
Boy Scouts of America
Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc.
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.
Capital One
Celanese International
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
CGI Federal
CH2M HILL
Champion Technologies
Charles River Associates
Chevron Corporation
Chevron Phillips Chemical
Company LP
Citrix Systems, Inc.
Cliffs Natural Resources
CNA
CNA Insurance
Cognizant Technology
Solutions
Compass Group North
America
ConAgra Foods, Inc.
Consolidated Graphics
Continental AG
Costar Group, Inc.
Country Insurance & Financial
Services
Covance Inc.
Crestron Electronics
Crossmark
Daymon Worldwide
Deere & Company
Dell, Inc.
Delphi Automotive Systems,
LLC
Devon Energy Corporation
Dewberry
Discover Financial Services
Dow Corning Corporation
DRS RSTA - Texas (Infrared
Technologies)
Duff & Phelps LLC
dunnhumbyUSA
DuPont
Eaton Corporation
eBay Inc.
Ernst & Young LLP
Exel
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
FirstEnergy Corporation
FirstEnergy Corporation
FMC Technologies, Inc.
Freddie Mac
Fujitsu Network
Communications Inc.
GAF Corporation
General Mills Inc.
Genworth Financial
Georgia Tech Research
Institute
Goodrich - Aerostructures
Group
Goodrich Corporation
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Company
H.J. Heinz Company
Hajoca Corporation
Hallmark Cards
Harris Corporation
Hazen and Sawyer P.C.
Hitachi Consulting
HNTB Companies
Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
Horne LLP
Huntington Ingalls Industries
Huron Consulting Group
INEOS
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Game Technology
Kearney & Company
Kennedy & Coe LLC
KPMG LLP
Kronos
Langan Engineering &
Environmental Services
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company
Life Technologies Inc.
Longview Fibre Paper and
Packaging, Inc.
L’Oreal USA
Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
Lutron Electronics Co. Inc.
Macy’s, Inc.
Magellan Midstream
Partners, L.P.
Maximus
Mercer
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Meritor Inc.
Messer Construction Co.
Michelin North America
Micron Technology, Inc.
Milliken & Company
N.E.W.
National Instruments
Naval Acquisition Career
Center
Navistar, Inc.
Newfield Exploration
Company
Norfolk Southern Corp.
Northrop Grumman
Corporation
OCC
Olsson Associates
Olympus Corporation of the
Americas
Owens Corning
Owens-Illinois Inc.
Pacific Gas and Electric
Company
Pariveda Solutions Inc.
Phillips Plastics Corporation
Polaris Industries, Inc.
PrimeSource Building
Products, Inc.
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Co.
Progressive Insurance
Protiviti Inc.
PSEG
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.
Reznick Group, P.C.
Rio Tinto
Rolls-Royce Corporation
Ross Stores Inc.
Roux Associates, Inc.
SABIC Innovative Plastics
SanDisk
Savannah River Nuclear
Solutions
Save-A-Lot
Schlumberger Oilfield Services
Schneider Electric
Shawmut Design and
Construction
Southwestern Company
Suffolk Construction Company,
Inc.
SWIFT
Tennessee Valley Authority
Teradata Corporation
Textron Inc.
Thales Communications Inc.
The Bank of New York Mellon
Corporation
The Dow Chemical Company
The Hershey Company
The Kroger Co.
The MathWorks Inc.
The Northern Trust Company
The Rehmann Group
The Schwan Food Company
The Timken Company
The Vanguard Group
TIC-The Industrial Company
Tindall Corporation
Towers Watson
Turner Construction Company
U.S. Comptroller of the Currency
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Valero Energy Corporation
Warner Robins Air
Logistics Ctr.
WellPoint, Inc.
WESCO International, Inc.
Woolpert LLP
Zachry
ZS Associates

Recruiting benchmarks survey_report

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Recruiting benchmarks survey_report

More from Andres Traslavina

Recruiting benchmarks survey_report