<p>Ok. We need someone with more time and skill than me to track down these rankings:</p>
<p>[Boeing</a> to Rank Colleges by Measuring Graduates’ Job Success - Chronicle.com](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i04/04a00102.htm]Boeing”>http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i04/04a00102.htm)</p>
<p>I think we should leave the rankings to the NRC.</p>
<p>this is very interesting, i’d love to see these. They have enough data to see something meaningful. And instead of using predictors like SAT/high school GPA, we can now see a ranking based on results.</p>
<p>I’d be more interested in finding out how they would actually get a numerical ranking. How do you quantitatively judge how valuable an employee is to the company? What kind of data are they using? Are the differences between employees actually due to the college they attended? Or their prior work experiences?</p>
<p>^^^ All reasons why I’m incredibly wary about corporate-assembled college rankings.</p>
<p>Also, see this part:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is “Billy Joe Bob” engineer really who you want to be, or do you want to work for the companies that reward the extraordinary…?</p>
<p>I think it would be an incredibly valuable tool.</p>
<p>
They have enough data to know if this is statistically significant.</p>
<p>The real interesting thing is that I imagine that most schools will just line up rank order due to student intellect. However, the true surprises will be when schools end up higher or lower as compared with student intellect. Maybe Middle Tennessee State truly does have some innovative things in making engineers with ~120 IQ perform just as well as MIT engineers with ~135 IQ. I think some very interesting data can be gleaned from this. I don’t see how a study like this could be <em>bad</em>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate to be a negative nancy but if everyone was extraordinary then nobody would be extraordinary. Most engineers are average engineers, and so maybe it wouldn’t matter to the average engineer if a company rewarded doing something extraordinary.</p>
<p>Further, if you’re extraordinary then by this article you probably wouldn’t consider at all these Boeing rankings because they probably measure the ability of a school to produce the highest percentage of engineers that can do an adequate job.</p>
<p>I wonder how they will do this ranking, in a large environment like Boeing no doubt will lots of redtape, and as a top performer, the performance may not be recognized in their review process and would probably leave after a few years. </p>
<p>Boeing ranking would benefit from heavy a large set of data, but I’m more curious about what the results would be if Google, Microsoft, Intel did a similar study. (I’m assuming higher pay, more innovative firms would have higher retention)</p>
<p>This is interesting. My dad works at Boeing so maybe I’ll ask him about it.</p>
<p>Actually, Lockheed already has such a list…and I posted it in another thread if you’d care to search.</p>
<p>BTW, Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon and others cross-share lots of emploment data for our joint business benefit.</p>
<p>This is the list of universities that Boeing offers scholarships for. You must be a student at one of these universities to recieve a scholarship so I am going to assume that these are the schools that they found their most productive workers come from. I was not able to find the supposed “rank of colleges” by boeing.</p>
<p>Alabama A&M University
Atlanta Consortium (Morehouse College, Spelman College and Clark Atlanta University )
California Polytechnic State Univ.-San Luis Obispo
California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
California State University-Fullerton
California State University-Long Beach
California State University-Los Angeles
California State University-Northridge
Central State University
Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Howard University
Morgan State University
New Mexico State University
North Carolina A&T State University
Prairie View A&M University
Southern University and A&M College
Tennessee State University
Tuskegee University
University of Hawaii at Manoa
University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez</p>
<p>nmsuengineergirl, that is a flawed line of thinking. These schools, to me, look like they are just the ones that are in close proximity to the main Boeing facilities. That list leaves off almost every traditionally highly regarded school.</p>
<p>definitely proves the point about regional recruiting though</p>
<p>^ I think those schools are for Boeing’s “diversity and inclusion” program.</p>
<p>I could care less what a single company feels about certain schools. Each organization will have it’s own culture, it’s own guidance for success, and it’s own recruiting method. If anything, these ratings will only show what type of mentality Boeing likes from it’s recruits and will be no indication of what education is “better”.</p>
<p>Who know, were they to bother to recruit from other organizations or other universities they might actually do better.</p>
<p>that would be a great list to see.</p>
<p>I don’t see University of Washington and it qualifies for being both regional and having quality education. That list is stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that list is just not representative of these Boeing rankings that were announced in 2008 yet no one seems to know where they are. As mentioned by rogracer earlier, they are probably representing Boeing’s “diversity and inclusion” program.</p>
<p>Yes , well that makes more sense since there are many universities absent on that list that really do attract Boeing to their career fairs.</p>
<p>Yes, we have a similar list for Diversity and Inclusion (although about 1/2 the schools). Not to be confused with the Key and Target school list.</p>