Recruiting 2019. 2019 Top Football Recruits: Analyzing the Chase for Recruiting Champions

Which college football programs secured the top recruits in 2019. How did the 247Sports Composite rankings shape up for the nation’s elite teams. What factors influenced the recruitment landscape that year.

Table of Contents

The Power of 247Sports Composite Rankings in College Football Recruitment

The 247Sports Composite rankings play a crucial role in evaluating college football recruiting classes. These rankings combine assessments from multiple reputable recruiting services to provide a comprehensive overview of each program’s incoming talent. In 2019, the battle for recruiting supremacy was fierce, with several top programs vying for the nation’s best high school prospects.

Understanding the 247Sports Composite Score

The 247Sports Composite score is a numerical representation of a team’s recruiting class quality. It takes into account both the quantity and quality of recruits, with higher scores indicating stronger classes. In 2019, the top programs achieved scores ranging from 90.60 to 94.38, showcasing the intense competition for elite talent.

Breaking Down the Top Recruiting Classes of 2019

The 2019 recruiting cycle saw several powerhouse programs emerge with exceptional classes. Here’s a closer look at the top performers:

Program 1: 94.38 composite score (3 five-stars, 23 four-stars, 1 three-star)
Program 2: 93.32 composite score (5 five-stars, 15 four-stars, 4 three-stars)
Program 3: 91.19 composite score (2 five-stars, 15 four-stars, 9 three-stars)
Program 4: 90.85 composite score (2 five-stars, 13 four-stars, 11 three-stars)
Program 5: 90.75 composite score (3 five-stars, 11 four-stars, 10 three-stars)
Program 6: 91.20 composite score (3 five-stars, 13 four-stars, 8 three-stars)
Program 7: 90.60 composite score (1 five-star, 11 four-stars, 14 three-stars)

The Impact of Five-Star Recruits on Program Rankings

Five-star recruits are the crown jewels of any recruiting class, often serving as program-changing talents. In 2019, the distribution of five-star prospects among top programs varied significantly. Program 2 led the pack with an impressive haul of 5 five-star recruits, while Program 7 managed to secure just one. This disparity in elite talent acquisition can have far-reaching implications for a team’s future success.

Do five-star recruits guarantee program success?

While five-star recruits are undoubtedly valuable assets, they do not guarantee immediate or long-term success. Factors such as player development, coaching, and team chemistry also play crucial roles in determining a program’s trajectory. However, consistently landing multiple five-star prospects year after year can significantly elevate a program’s talent level and competitive potential.

The Significance of Four-Star Recruits in Building Depth

Four-star recruits form the backbone of most top recruiting classes, providing both immediate impact players and developmental prospects. In 2019, the number of four-star signees ranged from 11 to 23 among the top programs. This depth of talent can be instrumental in sustaining success over multiple seasons and weathering injuries or early departures to the NFL.

Balancing quantity and quality in four-star recruitment

Programs must strike a delicate balance between pursuing a high number of four-star recruits and maintaining overall class quality. While Program 1 secured an impressive 23 four-star prospects, other top classes like Program 2 and Program 3 focused on a mix of five-star and four-star talents. This strategic approach to recruitment can help programs address specific positional needs while still competing for elite prospects.

The Role of Three-Star Recruits in Rounding Out Classes

Three-star recruits often fly under the radar but can become valuable contributors to successful programs. In 2019, the number of three-star signees among top classes ranged from 1 to 14. These players frequently outperform their initial rankings, becoming key rotational pieces or even unexpected stars.

Identifying hidden gems among three-star prospects

Successful programs excel at evaluating and developing three-star talents. Coaches and recruiting staff must look beyond raw rankings to identify prospects with high ceilings or specific skill sets that fit their systems. Programs like Program 7, which signed 14 three-star recruits, may be banking on their ability to mold these players into future contributors.

Analyzing Recruiting Strategies: Quality vs. Quantity

The 2019 recruiting cycle highlighted different approaches to class building among top programs. Some teams prioritized a high number of total signees, while others focused on securing a smaller group of elite prospects. These strategies can be influenced by factors such as available scholarships, program needs, and coaching philosophies.

Comparing class sizes among top programs

The total number of recruits in each class varied significantly among the top programs in 2019:

Program 1: 27 total recruits
Program 2: 24 total recruits
Program 3: 26 total recruits
Program 4: 26 total recruits
Program 5: 24 total recruits
Program 6: 24 total recruits
Program 7: 26 total recruits

These differences in class size can impact a program’s ability to address immediate needs and build for the future. Larger classes may provide more opportunities to find unexpected contributors, while smaller, more selective classes might offer a higher concentration of elite talent.

Geographic Distribution of Top Recruits in 2019

The 2019 recruiting cycle saw top prospects hailing from various regions across the country. Traditional football hotbeds like Texas, Florida, and California continued to produce a high volume of elite recruits. However, programs also found success mining talent from less-heralded areas, showcasing the increasingly national nature of college football recruitment.

Expanding recruiting footprints

Top programs in 2019 demonstrated an ability to recruit nationally, often venturing outside their traditional geographic strongholds. This expanded focus allows teams to compete for the best talents regardless of location, but it also requires significant resources and a strong national brand to execute effectively.

The Influence of Early Signing Period on 2019 Recruitment

The 2019 recruiting cycle was significantly impacted by the early signing period, which allowed prospects to sign with programs in December rather than waiting until February. This shift in the recruiting calendar altered strategies for both programs and players, leading to earlier commitments and a more condensed recruitment process.

Adapting to the new recruiting timeline

Programs that excelled in the 2019 cycle demonstrated an ability to adapt to the early signing period. This adaptation often involved accelerated evaluation processes, earlier official visits, and a greater emphasis on building long-term relationships with prospects. The compressed timeline also put pressure on coaching staffs to secure commitments earlier in the process, potentially influencing the final composition of recruiting classes.

Long-Term Implications of the 2019 Recruiting Class

The true impact of a recruiting class often takes years to fully materialize. As the 2019 recruits progress through their college careers, their collective performances will shape the fortunes of their respective programs. Factors such as player development, retention, and on-field success will ultimately determine the legacy of this recruiting cycle.

Projecting future success based on recruiting rankings

While recruiting rankings provide valuable insights into the potential of incoming classes, they are not infallible predictors of future success. Programs must still develop their talents, implement effective schemes, and navigate the challenges of college athletics. However, consistently strong recruiting classes, like those seen in 2019, can provide a solid foundation for sustained competitiveness at the highest levels of college football.

As we continue to monitor the progress of the 2019 recruiting class, it will be fascinating to see which programs maximize the potential of their signees and translate recruiting success into on-field achievements. The battle for recruiting supremacy is an ongoing process, with each cycle presenting new opportunities and challenges for college football’s elite programs.

2019 Football Team Rankings

The Chase for the Recruiting Champion powered by 247Sports Composite

94.38
- 5-Star
  3
- 4-Star
  23
- 3-Star
  1
93. 32
- 5-Star
  5
- 4-Star
  15
- 3-Star
  4
91.19
- 5-Star
  2
- 4-Star
  15
- 3-Star
  9
90. 85
- 5-Star
  2
- 4-Star
  13
- 3-Star
  11
90.75
- 5-Star
  3
- 4-Star
  11
- 3-Star
  10
91. 20
- 5-Star
  3
- 4-Star
  13
- 3-Star
  8
90.60
- 5-Star
  1
- 4-Star
  11
- 3-Star
  14
90. 78
- 5-Star
  2
- 4-Star
  14
- 3-Star
  10
90.56
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  17
- 3-Star
  8
89. 76
- 5-Star
  1
- 4-Star
  12
- 3-Star
  15
91.16
- 5-Star
  2
- 4-Star
  12
- 3-Star
  7
91. 01
- 5-Star
  1
- 4-Star
  17
- 3-Star
  5
90.46
- 5-Star
  2
- 4-Star
  10
- 3-Star
  10
91. 87
- 5-Star
  3
- 4-Star
  9
- 3-Star
  5
90.60
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  16
- 3-Star
  6
90. 10
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  15
- 3-Star
  8
88.50
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  7
- 3-Star
  21
89. 09
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  9
- 3-Star
  12
88.16
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  8
- 3-Star
  14
88. 56
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  7
- 3-Star
  16
88.90
- 5-Star
  1
- 4-Star
  4
- 3-Star
  17
87. 66
- 5-Star
  1
- 4-Star
  7
- 3-Star
  23
88.54
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  11
- 3-Star
  14
88. 34
- 5-Star
  1
- 4-Star
  5
- 3-Star
  16
86.63
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  4
- 3-Star
  22
87. 39
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  7
- 3-Star
  16
88.07
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  7
- 3-Star
  11
86. 75
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  5
- 3-Star
  19
87.86
- 5-Star
  1
- 4-Star
  2
- 3-Star
  16
86. 23
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  5
- 3-Star
  18
86.53
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  4
- 3-Star
  23
86. 70
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  4
- 3-Star
  19
87.49
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  2
- 3-Star
  17
86. 55
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  3
- 3-Star
  19
85.95
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  2
- 3-Star
  21
85. 77
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  3
- 3-Star
  18
86.23
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  3
- 3-Star
  19
86. 01
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  3
- 3-Star
  18
85.71
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  1
- 3-Star
  22
85. 69
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  1
- 3-Star
  20
85.94
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  3
- 3-Star
  19
86. 12
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  4
- 3-Star
  14
85.64
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  1
- 3-Star
  23
84. 91
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  1
- 3-Star
  25
85.79
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  0
- 3-Star
  20
85. 33
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  2
- 3-Star
  21
85.73
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  3
- 3-Star
  15
85. 74
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  2
- 3-Star
  19
85.38
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  1
- 3-Star
  20
85. 53
- 5-Star
  0
- 4-Star
  1
- 3-Star
  20
Load More

ESPN Football Recruiting – Player Rankings

RK	PLAYER	POS	HOMETOWN	HT	WT	STARS	GRADE	SCHOOL
1		DE	Westlake Village, CA Oaks Christian High School	6’5”	234		92	Oregon Signed
2		DE	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	6’3”	234		92	Georgia Signed
3		OT	Humble, TX Atascocita High School	6’5”	318		91	Texas A&M Signed
4		OT	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	6’8”	365		91	Alabama Signed
5		OT	Huntington, WV Huntington High School	6’6”	300		91	Tennessee Signed
6		WR	Ellenwood, GA Cedar Grove High School	6’3”	189		91	Oklahoma Signed
7		OT	Trussville, AL Hewitt-Trussville High School	6’5”	284		91	Alabama Signed
8		OLB	Loganville, GA Grayson High School	6’1”	209		91	Auburn Signed
9		OT	Loganville, GA Grayson High School	6’6”	293		91	Tennessee Signed
10		DE	Lewis Center, OH Olentangy Orange High School	6’6”	244		90	Ohio State Signed
11		RB	Destrehan, LA Destrehan High School	5’11”	202		90	LSU Signed
12		OT	Belleville, MI Belleville High School	6’5”	304		90	Michigan St Signed
13		S	Tulsa, OK Booker T. Washington High School	6’1”	187		90	Michigan Signed
14		OC	Oxford, AL Oxford High School	6’4”	307		90	Georgia Signed
15		OT	Kentwood, MI East Kentwood High School	6’5”	295		89	Wisconsin Signed
16		RB	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	6’0”	216		88	Alabama Signed
17		WR	Austin, TX Lake Travis High School	6’1”	181		88	Ohio State Signed
18		CB	Baton Rouge, LA The Dunham School	6’1”	193		87	LSU Signed
19		RB	Jackson, MS Jackson Preparatory School	5’9”	192		87	Ole Miss Signed
20		DE	Anderson, SC T. L. Hanna High School	6’4”	265		86	S Carolina Signed
21		QB-PP	Overland Park, KS Blue Valley North High School	6’3”	205		86	Wisconsin Signed
22		OLB	Mineral, VA Louisa County High School	6’4”	225		86	Penn State Signed
23		QB-PP	Pinson, AL Pinson Valley High School	6’2”	204		86	Auburn Signed
24		OLB	Horn Lake, MS Horn Lake High School	6’0”	216		86	Georgia Signed
25		CB	Lancaster, CA Antelope Valley High School	5’11”	179		86	Oregon Signed
26		OC	Buford, GA Buford High School	6’4”	317		86	Ohio State Signed
27		ATH	Santa Ana, CA Mater Dei High School	6’3”	205		86	Texas Signed
28		DT	Colonia, NJ Colonia High School	6’4”	275		86	Alabama Signed
29		QB-DT	Phoenix, AZ Pinnacle High School	6’1”	173		86	Oklahoma Signed
30		OT	Alabaster, AL Thompson High School	6’7”	307		86	Alabama Signed
31		DE	Forest Park, GA Forest Park High School	6’5”	263		86	Alabama Signed
32		OT	Conroe, TX Oak Ridge High School	6’4”	295		86	Texas Signed
33		WR	Allen, TX Allen High School	6’3”	202		86	Oklahoma Signed
34		CB	Lawrenceville, GA Archer High School	6’0”	187		86	Clemson Signed
35		S	Cedar Hill, TX Trinity Christian School	6’2”	181		86	Georgia Signed
36		WR	Marietta, GA Walton High School	6’1”	187		86	Georgia Signed
37		CB	Mansfield, TX Mansfield Legacy High School	6’0”	182		86	Alabama Signed
38		WR	Homestead, FL South Dade High School	6’3”	178		86	Clemson Signed
39		DT	Amite, LA Amite High School	6’4”	330		86	Alabama Signed
40		ATH	Cuero, TX Cuero High School	6’1”	198		86	Texas Signed
41		S	Dallas, TX Bishop Dunne High School	6’1”	211		86	Texas A&M Signed
42		ATH	Charlotte, NC Harding High School	6’1”	222		86	Tennessee Signed
43		DT	Winter Park, FL Winter Park High School	6’3”	286		86	S Carolina Signed
44		QB-DT	San Bernardino, CA Cajon High School	6’2”	157		86	Arizona St Signed
45		DT	Kentwood, MI East Kentwood High School	6’3”	285		86	Michigan Signed
46		DE	Thomaston, GA Upson-Lee High School	6’5”	263		85	Georgia Signed
47		OLB	Concord, CA De La Salle High School	6’2”	225		85	Tennessee Signed
48		DT	Norcross, GA Greater Atlanta Christian School	6’4”	274		85	Michigan Signed
49		OG	Hogansville, GA Callaway High School	6’4”	341		85	Auburn Signed
50		DE	Clayton, NC Clayton High School	6’3”	245		85	NC State Signed
51		DT	Pittsburg, CA Pittsburg High School	6’3”	294		85	Washington Signed
52		TE-Y	Little Rock, AR Pulaski Academy	6’5”	225		85	Arkansas Signed
53		OLB	Santa Ana, CA Mater Dei High School	6’2”	245		85	Oregon Signed
54		WR	Birmingham, AL Hoover High School	6’4”	190		85	Georgia Signed
55		OLB	Westlake Village, CA Westlake High School	6’2”	226		85	Texas Signed
56		OG	Baton Rouge, LA Southern University Lab	6’3”	354		85	LSU Signed
57		WR	Orange, CA Orange Lutheran High School	6’2”	209		85	USC Signed
58		DT	Apopka, FL Wekiva High School	6’2”	293		85	Clemson Signed
59		ATH	North Palm Beach, FL The Benjamin School	6’1”	182		85	Florida Signed
60		DT	Converse, TX Judson High School	6’4”	275		85	Texas A&M Signed
61		WR	Neptune Beach, FL Fletcher Senior High School	6’1”	190		85	Miami Signed
62		TE-H	Lakeland, FL Lakeland High School	6’3”	242		85	Florida Signed
63		QB-PP	Mission Viejo, CA Mission Viejo High School	6’3”	223		85	Arizona St Signed
64		CB	Belleville, MI Belleville High School	6’2”	197		85	Michigan St Signed
65		TE-Y	Brock, TX Brock High School	6’5”	235		84	Texas A&M Signed
66		QB-PP	Orange, CA Orange Lutheran High School	6’4”	222		84	S Carolina Signed
67		CB	Oxford, MS Lafayette High School	6’0”	180		84	Alabama Signed
68		ATH	Santa Ana, CA Mater Dei High School	6’0”	188		84	Oklahoma Signed
69		RB	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	5’11”	209		84	Penn State Signed
70		TE-Y	Plano, TX Prestonwood Christian Academy	6’6”	232		84	Oklahoma Signed
71		DE	West Lafayette, IN West Lafayette High School	6’4”	260		84	Purdue Signed
72		OT	Huntington, WV Spring Valley High School	6’7”	320		84	Virginia Tech Signed
73		ILB	Baltimore, MD St. Frances Academy	6’0”	253		84	Alabama Signed
74		WR	Wayne, NJ DePaul Catholic High School	6’2”	202		84	Ohio State Signed
75		DT	Cincinnati, OH Walnut Hills High School	6’2”	290		84	Virginia Signed
76		WR	Scottsdale, AZ Notre Dame Prepatory	6’0”	185		84	Texas Signed
77		ILB	Homerville, GA Clinch County High School	6’1”	220		84	Georgia Signed
78		DT	Seminary, MS Seminary Attendance Center	6’4”	286		84	Miss. St Signed
79		ATH	Baton Rouge, LA University Laboratory School	6’1”	225		84	Alabama Signed
80		DE	Brooklyn, NY Canarsie High School	6’5”	210		84	Penn State Signed
81		OLB	Fort Lauderdale, FL Saint Thomas Aquinas High School	6’0”	192		84	Michigan Signed
82		WR	Warren, AR Warren High School	6’2”	190		84	Arkansas Signed
83		CB	Loganville, GA Grayson High School	6’2”	183		84	Texas Signed
84		OT	Laurel, MS Laurel High School Watkins Campus	6’5”	260		84	Miss. St Signed
85		WR	Nashville, TN Franklin Road Academy	6’2”	180		84	Oregon Signed
86		OLB	Flower Mound, TX Marcus High School	6’2”	200		84	LSU Signed
87		CB	Duncanville, TX Duncanville High School	5’10”	174		84	Illinois Signed
88		DT	Honolulu, HI Saint Louis School	6’3”	285		84	Washington Signed
89		CB	Miami, FL Miami Southridge Senior High School	6’1”	188		84	Georgia Signed
90		WR	Richmond, TX Travis High School	6’1”	183		84	Florida Signed
91		DE	Loganville, GA Grayson High School	6’4”	217		84	Alabama Signed
92		S	Fort Lauderdale, FL Saint Thomas Aquinas High School	6’1”	187		84	Alabama Signed
93		CB	Wellington, FL Palm Beach Central High School	5’11”	176		84	Florida St Signed
94		ATH	Saint Louis, MO Trinity Catholic High School	5’10”	170		84	Illinois Signed
95		CB	Bellflower, CA St. John Bosco High School	6’2”	182		84	Florida Signed
96		ATH	Baton Rouge, LA University Laboratory School	6’1”	210		84	Georgia Signed
97		WR	Mesquite, TX West Mesquite High School	6’3”	188		84	Texas A&M Signed
98		OT	Harbor City, CA Narbonne High School	6’6”	317		84	Oregon Signed
99		CB	Houston, TX George Bush High School	6’0”	206		84	Texas A&M Signed
100		DT	Louisville, MS Louisville High School	6’4”	265		84	Auburn Signed
101		RB	Westlake Village, CA Oaks Christian High School	6’2”	220		84	Michigan Signed
102		OLB	Apopka, FL Wekiva High School	6’3”	233		84	Georgia Signed
103		WR	Saint Louis, MO Cardinal Ritter College Prep	6’2”	171		84	Ohio State Signed
104		QB-DT	Port Neches, TX Port Neches-Groves High School	6’1”	203		84	Texas Signed
105		DE	Laurel, MS West Jones High School	6’4”	255		84	Alabama Signed
106		OC	Baltimore, MD St. Frances Academy	6’3”	299		84	Alabama Signed
107		S	Memphis, TN Memphis University School	5’11”	200		84	LSU Signed
108		CB	Norfolk, VA Maury High School	6’0”	167		84	Clemson Signed
109		QB-PP	Chandler, AZ Chandler High School	6’1”	195		84	BYU Signed
110		OG	Lakeland, FL Lakeland High School	6’4”	345		84	Florida Signed
111		OLB	Deerfield Beach, FL Deerfield Beach High School	6’1”	217		84	Oregon Signed
112		WR	Austin, TX Bowie High School	6’3”	215		84	Stanford Signed
113		S	Lakeland, FL Kathleen High School	6’1”	186		84	Florida St Signed
114		WR	Marietta, GA Marietta High School	6’2”	186		84	Tennessee Signed
115		DT	Bowling Green, KY South Warren High School	6’3”	287		84	Notre Dame Signed
116		QB-PP	Graham, WA Graham-Kapowsin High School	6’1”	194		84	Washington Signed
117		OG	Tampa Bay, FL Plant Senior High School	6’4”	265		84	Clemson Signed
118		ATH	Griffin, GA Spalding High School	5’11”	194		84	Auburn Signed
119		ILB	Honolulu, HI Punahou School	6’3”	226		84	USC Signed
120		QB-PP	Monroe, NC Sun Valley High School	6’2”	225		84	N Carolina Signed
121		OT	Memphis, TN Christian Brothers High School	6’5”	270		84	Georgia Signed
122		OLB	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	6’1”	230		84	Florida St Signed
123		RB	Klein, TX Klein Collins High School	6’1”	193		84	Texas A&M Signed
124		DE	Fort Lauderdale, FL Saint Thomas Aquinas High School	6’4”	270		84	Alabama Signed
125		ILB	Katy, TX Cinco Ranch High School	6’0”	213		84	Texas Signed
126		S	Hyattsville, MD DeMatha Catholic High School	6’1”	208		84	Maryland Signed
127		DE	Hattiesburg, MS Hattiesburg High School	6’4”	270		84	Auburn Signed
128		ATH	Hyattsville, MD DeMatha Catholic High School	6’1”	203		84	Alabama Signed
129		ILB	Baton Rouge, LA University Laboratory School	6’3”	207		84	Clemson Signed
130		WR	Saint Louis, MO Trinity Catholic High School	6’2”	193		84	Texas Signed
131		ATH	Bellflower, CA St. John Bosco High School	5’10”	180		84	Washington Signed
132		DE	Washington, DC Gonzaga College High School	6’4”	220		83	Oklahoma Signed
133		WR	Kentwood, LA Kentwood High School	6’0”	179		83	LSU Signed
134		OT	San Juan Capistrano, CA San Juan Hills High School	6’5”	300		83	UCLA Signed
135		DE	Jackson, MS Provine High School	6’4”	216		83	Miss. St Signed
136		OLB	Marrero, LA John Ehret High School	6’1”	208		83	LSU Signed
137		QB-PP	San Antonio, TX John Jay High School	6’3”	188		83	Baylor Signed
138		S	Waxahachie, TX Waxahachie High School	6’1”	203		83	Texas A&M Signed
139		RB	Naples, FL Naples High School	5’11”	195		83	Clemson Signed
140		ATH	Gulfport, MS Gulfport High School	6’4”	217		83	Auburn Signed
141		QB-DT	Highlands Ranch, CO Valor Christian High School	6’2”	183		83	Nebraska Signed
142		DE	Corona, CA Centennial High School	6’4”	260		83	USC Signed
143		QB-DT	Alabaster, AL Thompson High School	6’0”	204		83	Alabama Signed
144		WR	Calabasas, CA Calabasas High School	5’11”	200		83	Oregon Signed
145		QB-DT	Charlotte, NC Charlotte Christian School	6’5”	199		83	Miss. St Signed
146		RB	Stafford, VA North Stafford High School	6’0”	191		83	Penn State Signed
147		WR	Delray Beach, FL Chaminade-Madonna College Preparatory School	6’2”	172		83	Penn State Signed
148		OC	Cincinnati, OH Anderson High School	6’4”	267		83	Notre Dame Signed
149		OLB	Saint Louis, MO Trinity Catholic High School	6’2”	205		83	Illinois Signed
150		DE	Lakeland, FL Lakeland High School	6’5”	210		83	Florida Signed
151		TE-Y	Kennesaw, GA Kennesaw Mountain High School	6’7”	238		83	Georgia Signed
152		OC	Crandall, TX Crandall High School	6’4”	295		83	Stanford Signed
153		WR	Carrollton, TX Hebron High School	6’1”	175		83	Oklahoma Signed
154		ATH	Wellington, FL Wellington Community High School	6’1”	190		83	Auburn Signed
155		OLB	Fort Lauderdale, FL Cardinal Gibbons High School	6’4”	207		83	Florida Signed
156		ATH	West Linn, OR West Linn High School	6’2”	212		83	Arizona St Signed
157		S	Tallahassee, FL Florida State University	6’1”	191		83	Florida St Signed
158		DE	Gray, GA Jones County High School	6’1”	238		83	Louisville Signed
159		WR	Folsom, CA Folsom High School	6’2”	200		83	Clemson Signed
160		DE	LaGrange, GA Troup County Comprehensive High Sch	6’5”	222		83	Alabama Signed
161		CB	Madison, FL Madison County High	6’2”	180		83	Florida St Signed
162		WR	Colleyville, TX Colleyville Heritage High School	6’0”	170		83	Texas A&M Signed
163		ATH	St. Simons Island, GA Frederica Academy	6’2”	175		83	Auburn Signed
164		RB	Santa Ana, CA Mater Dei High School	5’9”	191		83	Oregon Signed
165		S	Atlanta, GA Marist School	6’4”	188		83	Notre Dame Signed
166		OT	Warwick, RI Bishop Hendricken High School	6’8”	350		83	Georgia Signed
167		DE	Katy, TX James E. Taylor High School	6’4”	223		83	Texas A&M Committed 04/07/2018
168		QB-PP	Avon, CT Avon Old Farms School For Boys	6’3”	197		83	Clemson Signed
169		RB	Oakland, CA Bishop O’Dowd High School	5’11”	190		83	Stanford Signed
170		S	Powder Springs, GA Hillgrove High School	6’0”	194		83	Tennessee Signed
171		OT	Crystal Lake, IL Crystal Lake South High School	6’6”	310		83	Michigan Signed
172		DE	Louisville, KY Trinity High School	6’4”	244		83	Stanford Signed
173		OT	Citra, FL North Marion High School	6’5”	290		83	Florida Signed
174		S	Daphne, AL Daphne High School	6’0”	182		83	Miami Signed
175		OLB	Charlotte, NC Providence Day School	6’1”	220		83	Notre Dame Signed
176		CB	Fort Lauderdale, FL Saint Thomas Aquinas High School	5’10”	166		83	Oklahoma Signed
177		OT	Edina, MN Edina High School	6’6”	290		83	Notre Dame Signed
178		OLB	Auburn, AL Auburn High School	6’4”	218		83	Florida Signed
179		DT	Pinson, AL Clay-Chalkville High School	6’4”	323		83	Alabama Signed
180		WR	Upper Marlboro, MD Dr. Henry A. Wise, Jr. High School	6’0”	188		83	Maryland Signed
181		RB	Katy, TX Katy High School	5’10”	190		83	Oklahoma St Signed
182		OG	Akron, OH Archbishop Hoban High School	6’3”	310		83	Michigan Signed
183		CB	Gardena, CA Junipero Serra High School	5’9”	170		83	USC Signed
184		QB-DT	Phenix City, AL Central High School	6’1”	198		83	LSU Signed
185		DT	Salt Lake City, UT East High School	6’3”	361		83	LSU Signed
186		RB	Washington, DC St. John’s College High School	5’10”	186		82	Alabama Signed
187		TE-Y	Collinsville, OK Collinsville High School	6’6”	228		82	Oklahoma St Signed
188		OT	Ruston, LA Ruston High School	6’4”	275		82	LSU Signed
189		ATH	Alexandria, VA Episcopal High School	6’0”	177		82	Stanford Signed
190		RB	Buford, GA Buford High School	5’10”	179		82	Texas Signed
191		QB-PP	Kettering, OH Archbishop Alter High School	6’3”	207		82	Missouri Signed
192		OG	Princeton, NJ The Hun School Of Princeton	6’5”	313		82	Penn State Signed
193		ATH	Cornelius, NC Hough High School	5’10”	182		82	Tennessee Signed
194		DT	Lehigh Acres, FL Lehigh Senior High School	6’4”	277		82	Florida St Signed
195		OLB	Savannah, GA Islands High School	6’0”	203		82	Florida St Signed
196		ATH	Chesterfield, VA Lloyd C. Bird High School	6’2”	190		82	Virginia Tech Signed
197		QB-DT	Houston, TX Langham Creek High	6’1”	192		82	Kansas St Signed
198		ATH	Brandon, MS Northwest Rankin High School	6’0”	190		82	Miss. St Signed
199		QB-DT	Eugene, OR Sheldon High School	6’3”	192		82	Penn State Signed
200		QB-DT	Wayne, NJ DePaul Catholic High School	6’1”	193		82	Penn State Signed
201		WR	Houston, TX St. Pius X High School	6’3”	197		82	Arizona Signed
202		OT	Loganville, GA Grayson High School	6’5”	282		82	Michigan Signed
203		QB-DT	Richmond, VA Henrico High School	6’4”	203		82	Florida Signed
204		OT	Kahuku, HI Kahuku High School	6’5”	286		82	Ohio State Signed
205		S	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	5’11”	179		82	USC Signed
206		OT	Mentor, OH Mentor High School	6’4”	260		82	Ohio State Signed
207		DE	Twin City, GA Emanuel County Institute	6’2”	251		82	Florida St Signed
208		QB-DT	New Orleans, LA Warren Easton High School	6’1”	205		82	Maryland Signed
209		DE	Concord, CA De La Salle High School	6’5”	233		82	Notre Dame Signed
210		WR	Houston, TX St. Pius X High School	5’11”	176		82	Texas A&M Signed
211		OLB	Roswell, GA Roswell High School	6’2”	206		82	Florida Signed
212		OG	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	6’4”	333		82	Florida St Signed
213		CB	New Orleans, LA Edna Karr High School	5’11”	183		82	Arkansas Signed
214		WR	Charlotte, NC West Mecklenburg High School	6’0”	170		82	N Carolina Signed
215		CB	Hollywood, FL Chaminade-Madonna College Preparatory School	5’10”	148		82	Miami Signed
216		WR	Sumrall, MS Sumrall High School	6’0”	170		82	Ole Miss Signed
217		DT	Lawrenceville, GA Mountain View High School	6’3”	303		82	Florida Signed
218		CB	Atlanta, GA The Lovett School	5’10”	185		82	Notre Dame Signed
219		OG	Nashville, TN Montgomery Bell Academy	6’3”	299		82	Tennessee Signed
220		QB-PP	Walled Lake, MI Walled Lake Western High School	6’4”	191		82	Boston College Signed
221		TE-Y	Cartersville, GA Cartersville High School	6’4”	240		82	Tennessee Signed
222		OT	Glasgow, KY Glasgow High School	6’5”	273		82	Alabama Signed
223		RB	Fort Lauderdale, FL NSU University School	6’1”	216		82	Georgia Signed
224		CB	Chesapeake, VA Oscar Frommel Smith High School	6’0”	195		82	Auburn Signed
225		OG	Allen, TX Allen High School	6’4”	322		82	Oklahoma Signed
226		WR	Indianapolis, IN Warren Central High School	6’1”	185		82	Purdue Signed
227		S	Milton, GA Milton High School	6’1”	190		82	Clemson Signed
228		OT	Gibsonia, PA Pine-Richland High School	6’5”	265		82	Notre Dame Signed
229		WR	Houston, TX Saint John’s High School	6’5”	206		82	Nrthwestrn Signed
230		RB	Avon, IN Avon High School	6’0”	200		82	Indiana Signed
231		S	Hollywood, FL Chaminade-Madonna College Preparatory School	5’11”	195		82	Miami Signed
232		OT	Jonesboro, AR Jonesboro Senior High School	6’6”	308		82	Ole Miss Signed
233		ATH	Odessa, TX Permian High School	6’2”	182		82	Baylor Signed
234		DE	Carmichael, CA Jesuit High School	6’5”	237		81	Washington Signed
235		CB	Dacula, GA Dacula High School	6’0”	180		81	Michigan Signed
236		WR	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	6’0”	181		81	Oregon Signed
237		DE	Carmel, IN Carmel High School	6’4”	240		81	Indiana Signed
238		RB	Baton Rouge, LA Southern University Lab	6’1”	227		81	LSU Signed
239		WR	Greenwich, CT Brunswick School	6’3”	197		81	Michigan Signed
240		DE	Murfreesboro, TN Siegel High School	6’4”	260		81	S Carolina Signed
241		OT	Metuchen, NJ St. Joseph High School	6’5”	290		81	Notre Dame Signed
242		WR	Amite, LA Amite High School	6’1”	205		81	LSU Signed
243		OLB	Orlando, FL Jones High School	6’1”	215		81	Texas Signed
244		ATH	Frankfort, KY Western Hills High School	5’10”	179		81	Nebraska Signed
245		WR	Bellflower, CA St. John Bosco High School	6’2”	191		81	Stanford Signed
246		S	Havelock, NC Havelock High School	6’0”	180		81	Tennessee Committed 06/08/2018
247		ATH	Roswell, GA Blessed Trinity High School	6’1”	210		81	Ohio State Signed
248		RB	Oklahoma City, OK Millwood High School	6’0”	185		81	Oklahoma Signed
249		WR	Pearl, MS Brandon High School	6’0”	195		81	Ole Miss Signed
250		OT	Norwalk, IA Norwalk Community High School	6’6”	289		81	Iowa Signed
251		DE	Mountain View, CA Saint Francis High School	6’3”	257		81	Stanford Signed
252		OG	Georgetown, KY Scott County High School	6’4”	295		81	Virginia Tech Signed
253		QB-PP	Reno, NV Damonte Ranch High School	6’1”	203		81	Michigan Signed
254		WR	Roebuck, SC Dorman High School	6’2”	206		81	Virginia Tech Signed
255		DE	Fort Worth, TX Nolan Catholic High School	6’4”	231		81	Notre Dame Signed
256		RB	Sebring, FL Sebring High School	5’10”	210		81	Auburn Signed
257		DT	Fort Myers, FL Dunbar High School	6’4”	276		81	Texas A&M Signed
258		DE	Nashville, TN Davidson Academy	6’4”	230		81	Miss. St Signed
259		ILB	Nashville, TN Christ Presbyterian Academy	6’1”	220		81	Clemson Signed
260		S	Gilbert, AZ Williams Field High School	6’0”	180		81	Nebraska Signed
261		QB-DT	Hattiesburg, MS Oak Grove High School	6’1”	185		81	Ole Miss Signed
262		OT	Holstein, IA Ridge View High School	6’6”	308		81	Iowa Signed
263		RB	Memphis, TN Lausanne Collegiate School	5’10”	191		81	Tennessee Signed
264		WR	Columbia, MD Wilde Lake High School	6’1”	195		81	W Virginia Signed
265		QB-PP	Murrieta, CA Murrieta Valley High School	6’3”	188		81	Boise State Signed
266		OT	Fort Washington, MD National Christian Academy	6’5”	312		81	Florida Signed
267		ILB	Westlake Village, CA Oaks Christian High School	6’2”	215		81	Washington Signed
268		OLB	Lexington, OH Lexington High School	6’4”	220		81	Ohio State Signed
269		DE	Wichita, KS Wichita Northwest High School	6’6”	241		81	Oklahoma Signed
270		S	Alexandria, VA Episcopal High School	6’0”	188		81	Notre Dame Signed
271		WR	Murfreesboro, TN Blackman High School	6’4”	210		81	Arkansas Signed
272		DE	Sachse, TX Sachse High School	6’4”	267		81	Notre Dame Signed
273		OT	Springfield, IL Sacred Heart-Griffin High School	6’5”	280		81	Ole Miss Signed
274		CB	Bradenton, FL IMG Academy	6’0”	165		81	Michigan Signed
275		OT	Lakeville, MN Lakeville North High School	6’8”	290		81	Nebraska Signed
276		DT	New London, NC North Stanly High School	6’3”	308		81	NC State Signed
277		WR	Moorpark, CA Moorpark High School	6’4”	205		81	USC Signed
278		CB	Houston, TX Andy Dekaney High School	6’0”	166		81	Alabama Signed
279		OLB	Brawley, CA Brawley Union High School	6’4”	210		81	Boise State Signed
280		WR	Louisville, KY Christian Academy Of Louisville	6’2”	190		81	Purdue Signed
281		S	Wexford, PA North Allegheny Sr. High School	6’2”	187		81	Penn State Signed
282		DE	Blairstown, NJ Blair Academy	6’5”	233		81	Michigan Signed
283		TE-H	Chandler, AZ Chandler High School	6’5”	214		81	Texas Signed
284		S	Saint Louis, MO Parkway North High School	6’2”	170		80	Missouri Signed
285		ILB	Birmingham, AL Jackson-Olin High School	6’1”	218		80	Clemson Signed
286		DT	Ellenwood, GA Cedar Grove High School	6’2”	262		80	Minnesota Signed
287		CB	Cedar Hill, TX Trinity Christian School	6’0”	178		80	S Carolina Signed
288		OT	Hesperia, CA Oak Hills High School	6’5”	320		80	USC Signed
289		S	Lakewood, CA Mayfair High School	6’2”	192		80	Texas Signed
290		RB	Valdosta, GA Lowndes High School	5’9”	166		80	Kentucky Signed
291		OT	Brunswick, GA Brunswick High School	6’5”	304		80	Georgia Signed
292		ILB	Chantilly, VA Westfield High School	6’1”	210		80	N Carolina Signed
293		S	Lanett, AL Lanett High School	6’3”	180		80	Oregon Signed
294		OLB	Omaha, NE Harry A. Burke High School	6’3”	195		80	Nebraska Signed
295		QB-PP	Trussville, AL Hewitt-Trussville High School	6’5”	213		80	Alabama Signed
296		CB	Blythewood, SC Westwood High School	6’1”	171		80	S Carolina Signed
297		OG	Honolulu, HI Kaimuki High School	6’4”	325		80	Washington Signed
298		WR	East Orem, UT Orem High School	6’2”	194		80	Washington Committed 02/10/2019
299		OLB	Birmingham, AL Carver High School	6’0”	200		80	Texas A&M Signed
300		ATH	Lawrence, KS Lawrence Free State High School	5’11”	175		80	Kansas St Signed

2019 Team Rankings
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2019 Team Rankings

2019 Team

Rankings

Certain data provided by STATS, LLC
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2019 Rivals250 Prospect Ranking

Certain data provided by STATS, LLC
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Your Approach to Hiring Is All Wrong

Idea in Brief

The Problem

Employers continue to hire at a high rate and spend enormous sums to do it. But they don’t know whether their approaches are effective at finding and selecting good candidates.

The Root Causes

Businesses focus on external candidates and don’t track the results of their approaches. They often use outside vendors and high-tech tools that are unproven and have inherent flaws.

The Solution

Return to filling most positions by promoting from within. Measure the results produced by vendors and new tools, and be on the lookout for discrimination and privacy violations.

Businesses have never done as much hiring as they do today. They’ve never spent as much money doing it. And they’ve never done a worse job of it.

For most of the post–World War II era, large corporations went about hiring this way: Human resources experts prepared a detailed job analysis to determine what tasks the job required and what attributes a good candidate should have. Next they did a job evaluation to determine how the job fit into the organizational chart and how much it should pay, especially compared with other jobs. Ads were posted, and applicants applied. Then came the task of sorting through the applicants. That included skills tests, reference checks, maybe personality and IQ tests, and extensive interviews to learn more about them as people. William H. Whyte, in The Organization Man, described this process as going on for as long as a week before the winning candidate was offered the job. The vast majority of non-entry-level openings were filled from within.

Today’s approach couldn’t be more different. Census data shows, for example, that the majority of people who took a new job last year weren’t searching for one: Somebody came and got them. Companies seek to fill their recruiting funnel with as many candidates as possible, especially “passive candidates,” who aren’t looking to move. Often employers advertise jobs that don’t exist, hoping to find people who might be useful later on or in a different context.

The recruiting and hiring function has been eviscerated. Many U.S. companies—about 40%, according to research by Korn Ferry—have outsourced much if not all of the hiring process to “recruitment process outsourcers,” which in turn often use subcontractors, typically in India and the Philippines. The subcontractors scour LinkedIn and social media to find potential candidates. They sometimes contact them directly to see whether they can be persuaded to apply for a position and negotiate the salary they’re willing to accept. (The recruiters get incentive pay if they negotiate the amount down.) To hire programmers, for example, these subcontractors can scan websites that programmers might visit, trace their “digital exhaust” from cookies and other user-tracking measures to identify who they are, and then examine their curricula vitae.

At companies that still do their own recruitment and hiring, managers trying to fill open positions are largely left to figure out what the jobs require and what the ads should say. When applications come—always electronically—applicant-tracking software sifts through them for key words that the hiring managers want to see. Then the process moves into the Wild West, where a new industry of vendors offer an astonishing array of smart-sounding tools that claim to predict who will be a good hire. They use voice recognition, body language, clues on social media, and especially machine learning algorithms—everything but tea leaves. Entire publications are devoted to what these vendors are doing.

The big problem with all these new practices is that we don’t know whether they actually produce satisfactory hires. Only about a third of U.S. companies report that they monitor whether their hiring practices lead to good employees; few of them do so carefully, and only a minority even track cost per hire and time to hire. Imagine if the CEO asked how an advertising campaign had gone, and the response was “We have a good idea how long it took to roll out and what it cost, but we haven’t looked to see whether we’re selling more.”

Hiring talent remains the number one concern of CEOs in the most recent Conference Board Annual Survey; it’s also the top concern of the entire executive suite. PwC’s 2017 CEO survey reports that chief executives view the unavailability of talent and skills as the biggest threat to their business. Employers also spend an enormous amount on hiring—an average of $4,129 per job in the United States, according to Society for Human Resource Management estimates, and many times that amount for managerial roles—and the United States fills a staggering 66 million jobs a year. Most of the $20 billion that companies spend on human resources vendors goes to hiring.

Why do employers spend so much on something so important while knowing so little about whether it works?

Where the Problem Starts

Survey after survey finds employers complaining about how difficult hiring is. There may be many explanations, such as their having become very picky about candidates, especially in the slack labor market of the Great Recession. But clearly they are hiring much more than at any other time in modern history, for two reasons.

The first is that openings are now filled more often by hiring from the outside than by promoting from within. In the era of lifetime employment, from the end of World War II through the 1970s, corporations filled roughly 90% of their vacancies through promotions and lateral assignments. Today the figure is a third or less. When they hire from outside, organizations don’t have to pay to train and develop their employees. Since the restructuring waves of the early 1980s, it has been relatively easy to find experienced talent outside. Only 28% of talent acquisition leaders today report that internal candidates are an important source of people to fill vacancies—presumably because of less internal development and fewer clear career ladders.

Less promotion internally means that hiring efforts are no longer concentrated on entry-level jobs and recent graduates. (If you doubt this, go to the “careers” link on any company website and look for a job opening that doesn’t require prior experience.) Now companies must be good at hiring across most levels, because the candidates they want are already doing the job somewhere else. These people don’t need training, so they may be ready to contribute right away, but they are much harder to find.

The second reason hiring is so difficult is that retention has become tough: Companies hire from their competitors and vice versa, so they have to keep replacing people who leave. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that 95% of hiring is done to fill existing positions. Most of those vacancies are caused by voluntary turnover. LinkedIn data indicates that the most common reason employees consider a position elsewhere is career advancement—which is surely related to employers’ not promoting to fill vacancies.

The root cause of most hiring, therefore, is drastically poor retention. Here are some simple ways to fix that:

Track the percentage of openings filled from within.

An adage of business is that we manage what we measure, but companies don’t seem to be applying that maxim to tracking hires. Most are shocked to learn how few of their openings are filled from within—is it really the case that their people can’t handle different and bigger roles?

Require that all openings be posted internally.

Internal job boards were created during the dot-com boom to reduce turnover by making it easier for people to find new jobs within their existing employer. Managers weren’t even allowed to know if a subordinate was looking to move within the company, for fear that they would try to block that person and he or she would leave. But during the Great Recession employees weren’t quitting, and many companies slid back to the old model whereby managers could prevent their subordinates from moving internally. JR Keller, of Cornell University, has found that when managers could fill a vacancy with someone they already had in mind, they ended up with employees who performed more poorly than those hired when the job had been posted and anyone could apply. The commonsense explanation for this is that few enterprises really know what talent and capabilities they have.

Recognize the costs of outside hiring.

In addition to the time and effort of hiring, my colleague Matthew Bidwell found, outside hires take three years to perform as well as internal hires in the same job, while internal hires take seven years to earn as much as outside hires are paid. Outside hiring also causes current employees to spend time and energy positioning themselves for jobs elsewhere. It disrupts the culture and burdens peers who must help new hires figure out how things work.

None of this is to suggest that outside hiring is necessarily a bad idea. But unless your company is a Silicon Valley gazelle, adding new jobs at a furious pace, you should ask yourself some serious questions if most of your openings are being filled from outside.

Employers are obsessed with new technologies and driving down costs.

A different approach for dealing with retention (which seems creepy to some) is to try to determine who is interested in leaving and then intervene. Vendors like Jobvite comb social media and public sites for clues, such as LinkedIn profile updates. Measuring “flight risk” is one of the most common goals of companies that do their own sophisticated HR analytics. This is reminiscent of the early days of job boards, when employers would try to find out who was posting résumés and either punish them or embrace them, depending on leadership’s mood.

Whether companies should be examining social media content in relation to hiring or any other employment action is a challenging ethical question. On one hand, the information is essentially public and may reveal relevant information. On the other hand, it is invasive, and candidates are rarely asked for permission to scrutinize their information. Hiring a private detective to shadow a candidate would also gather public information that might be relevant, yet most people would view it as an unacceptable invasion of privacy.

The Hiring Process

When we turn to hiring itself, we find that employers are missing the forest for the trees: Obsessed with new technologies and driving down costs, they largely ignore the ultimate goal: making the best possible hires. Here’s how the process should be revamped:

Don’t post “phantom jobs.”

It costs nothing to post job openings on a company website, which are then scooped up by Indeed and other online companies and pushed out to potential job seekers around the world. Thus it may be unsurprising that some of these jobs don’t really exist. Employers may simply be fishing for candidates. (“Let’s see if someone really great is out there, and if so, we’ll create a position for him or her.”) Often job ads stay up even after positions have been filled, to keep collecting candidates for future vacancies or just because it takes more effort to pull the ad down than to leave it up. Sometimes ads are posted by unscrupulous recruiters looking for résumés to pitch to clients elsewhere. Because these phantom jobs make the labor market look tighter than it really is, they are a problem for economic policy makers as well as for frustrated job seekers. Companies should take ads down when jobs are filled.

Design jobs with realistic requirements.

Figuring out what the requirements of a job should be—and the corresponding attributes candidates must have—is a bigger challenge now, because so many companies have reduced the number of internal recruiters whose function, in part, is to push back on hiring managers’ wish lists. (“That job doesn’t require 10 years of experience,” or “No one with all those qualifications will be willing to accept the salary you’re proposing to pay.”) My earlier research found that companies piled on job requirements, baked them into the applicant-tracking software that sorted résumés according to binary decisions (yes, it has the key word; no, it doesn’t), and then found that virtually no applicants met all the criteria. Trimming recruiters, who have expertise in hiring, and handing the process over to hiring managers is a prime example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Reconsider your focus on passive candidates.

The recruiting process begins with a search for experienced people who aren’t looking to move. This is based on the notion that something may be wrong with anyone who wants to leave his or her current job. (Of the more than 20,000 talent professionals who responded to a LinkedIn survey in 2015, 86% said their recruiting organizations focused “very much so” or “to some extent” on passive candidates; I suspect that if anything, that number has since grown. ) Recruiters know that the vast majority of people are open to moving at the right price: Surveys of employees find that only about 15% are not open to moving. As the economist Harold Demsetz said when asked by a competing university if he was happy working where he was: “Make me unhappy.”

Fascinating evidence from the LinkedIn survey cited above shows that although self-identified “passive” job seekers are different from “active” job seekers, it’s not in the way we might think. The number one factor that would encourage the former to move is more money. For active candidates the top factor is better work and career opportunities. More active than passive job seekers report that they are passionate about their work, engaged in improving their skills, and reasonably satisfied with their current jobs. They seem interested in moving because they are ambitious, not because they want higher pay.

Employers spend a vastly disproportionate amount of their budgets on recruiters who chase passive candidates, but on average they fill only 11% of their positions with individually targeted people, according to research by Gerry Crispin and Chris Hoyt, of CareerXroads. I know of no evidence that passive candidates become better employees, let alone that the process is cost-effective. If you focus on passive candidates, think carefully about what that actually gets you. Better yet, check your data to find out.

Understand the limits of referrals.

The most popular channel for finding new hires is through employee referrals; up to 48% come from them, according to LinkedIn research. It seems like a cheap way to go, but does it produce better hires? Many employers think so. It’s hard to know whether that’s true, however, given that they don’t check. And research by Emilio Castilla and colleagues suggests otherwise: They find that when referrals work out better than other hires, it’s because their referrers look after them and essentially onboard them. If a referrer leaves before the new hire begins, the latter’s performance is no better than that of nonreferrals, which is why it makes sense to pay referral bonuses six months or so after the person is hired—if he or she is still there.

A downside to referrals, of course, is that they can lead to a homogeneous workforce, because the people we know tend to be like us. This matters greatly for organizations interested in diversity, since recruiting is the only avenue allowed under U.S. law to increase diversity in a workforce. The Supreme Court has ruled that demographic criteria cannot be used even to break ties among candidates.

Measure the results.

Few employers know which channel produces the best candidates at the lowest cost because they don’t track the outcomes. Tata is an exception: It has long done what I advocate. For college recruiting, for example, it calculates which schools send it employees who perform the best, stay the longest, and are paid the lowest starting wage. Other employers should follow suit and monitor recruiting channels and employees’ performance to identify which sources produce the best results.

Persuade fewer people to apply.

The hiring industry pays a great deal of attention to “the funnel,” whereby readers of a company’s job postings become applicants, are interviewed, and ultimately are offered jobs. Contrary to the popular belief that the U.S. job market is extremely tight right now, most jobs still get lots of applicants. Recruiting and hiring consultants and vendors estimate that about 2% of applicants receive offers. Unfortunately, the main effort to improve hiring—virtually always aimed at making it faster and cheaper—has been to shovel more applicants into the funnel. Employers do that primarily through marketing, trying to get out the word that they are great places to work. Whether doing this is a misguided way of trying to attract better hires or just meant to make the organization feel more desirable isn’t clear.

Much better to go in the other direction: Create a smaller but better-qualified applicant pool to improve the yield. Here’s why: Every applicant costs you money—especially now, in a labor market where applicants have started to “ghost” employers, abandoning their applications midway through the process. Every application also exposes a company to legal risk, because the company has obligations to candidates (not to discriminate, for example) just as it does to employees. And collecting lots of applicants in a wide funnel means that a great many of them won’t fit the job or the company, so employers have to rely on the next step of the hiring process—selection—to weed them out. As we will see, employers aren’t good at that.

Once people are candidates, they may not be completely honest about their skills or interests—because they want to be hired—and employers’ ability to find out the truth is limited. More than a generation ago the psychologist John Wanous proposed giving applicants a realistic preview of what the job is like. That still makes sense as a way to head off those who would end up being unhappy in the job. It’s not surprising that Google has found a way to do this with gamification: Job seekers see what the work would be like by playing a game version of it. Marriott has done the same, even for low-level employees. Its My Marriott Hotel game targets young people in developing countries who may have had little experience in hotels to show them what it’s like and to steer them to the recruiting site if they score well on the game. The key for any company, though, is that the preview should make clear what is difficult and challenging about the work as well as why it’s fun so that candidates who don’t fit won’t apply.

It should be easy for candidates to learn about a company and a job, but making it really easy to apply, just to fill up that funnel, doesn’t make much sense. During the dot-com boom Texas Instruments cleverly introduced a preemployment test that allowed applicants to see their scores before they applied. If their scores weren’t high enough for the company to take their applications seriously, they tended not to proceed, and the company saved the cost of having to process their applications.

If the goal is to get better hires in a cost-effective manner, it’s more important to scare away candidates who don’t fit than to jam more candidates into the recruiting funnel.

Test candidates’ standard skills.

How to determine which candidates to hire—what predicts who will be a good employee—has been rigorously studied at least since World War I. The personnel psychologists who investigated this have learned much about predicting good hires that contemporary organizations have since forgotten, such as that neither college grades nor unstructured sequential interviews (hopping from office to office) are a good predictor, whereas past performance is.

Since it can be difficult (if not impossible) to glean sufficient information about an outside applicant’s past performance, what other predictors are good? There is remarkably little consensus even among experts. That’s mainly because a typical job can have so many tasks and aspects, and different factors predict success at different tasks.

There is general agreement, however, that testing to see whether individuals have standard skills is about the best we can do. Can the candidate speak French? Can she do simple programming tasks? And so forth. But just doing the tests is not enough. The economists Mitchell Hoffman, Lisa B. Kahn, and Danielle Li found that even when companies conduct such tests, hiring managers often ignore them—and when they do, they get worse hires. The psychologist Nathan Kuncel and colleagues discovered that even when hiring managers use objective criteria and tests, applying their own weights and judgment to those criteria leads them to pick worse candidates than if they had used a standard formula. Only 40% of employers, however, do any tests of skills or general abilities, including IQ. What are they doing instead? Seventy-four percent do drug tests, including for marijuana use; even employers in states where recreational use is now legal still seem to do so.

Be wary of vendors bearing high-tech gifts.

Into the testing void has come a new group of entrepreneurs who either are data scientists or have them in tow. They bring a fresh approach to the hiring process—but often with little understanding of how hiring actually works. John Sumser, of HRExaminer, an online newsletter that focuses on HR technology, estimates that on average, companies get five to seven pitches every day—almost all of them about hiring—from vendors using data science to address HR issues. These vendors have all sorts of cool-sounding assessments, such as computer games that can be scored to predict who will be a good hire. We don’t know whether any of these actually lead to better hires, because few of them are validated against actual job performance. That aside, these assessments have spawned a counterwave of vendors who help candidates learn how to score well on them. Lloyds Bank, for example, developed a virtual-reality-based assessment of candidate potential, and JobTestPrep offers to teach potential candidates how to do well on it. Especially for IT and technical jobs, cheating on skills tests and even video interviews (where colleagues off camera give help) is such a concern that eTeki and other specialized vendors help employers figure out who is cheating in real time.

Revamp your interviewing process.

The amount of time employers spend on interviews has almost doubled since 2009, according to research from Glassdoor. How much of that increase represents delays in setting up those interviews is impossible to tell, but it provides at least a partial explanation for why it takes longer to fill jobs now. Interviews are arguably the most difficult technique to get right, because interviewers should stick to questions that predict good hires—mainly about past behavior or performance that’s relevant to the tasks of the job—and ask them consistently across candidates. Just winging it and asking whatever comes to mind is next to useless.

More important, interviews are where biases most easily show up, because interviewers do usually decide on the fly what to ask of whom and how to interpret the answer. Everyone knows some executive who is absolutely certain he knows the one question that will really predict good candidates (“If you were stranded on a desert island…”). The sociologist Lauren Rivera’s examination of interviews for elite positions, such as those in professional services firms, indicates that hobbies, particularly those associated with the rich, feature prominently as a selection criterion.

Interviews are most important for assessing “fit with our culture,” which is the number one hiring criterion employers report using, according to research from the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s also one of the squishiest attributes to measure, because few organizations have an accurate and consistent view of their own culture—and even if they do, understanding what attributes represent a good fit is not straightforward. For example, does the fact that an applicant belonged to a fraternity reflect experience working with others or elitism or bad attitudes toward women? Should it be completely irrelevant? Letting someone with no experience or training make such calls is a recipe for bad hires and, of course, discriminatory behavior. Think hard about whether your interviewing protocols make any sense and resist the urge to bring even more managers into the interview process.

Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of machine learning models.

Culture fit is another area into which new vendors are swarming. Typically they collect data from current employees, create a machine learning model to predict the attributes of the best ones, and then use that model to hire candidates with the same attributes.

As with many other things in this new industry, that sounds good until you think about it; then it becomes replete with problems. Given the best performers of the past, the algorithm will almost certainly include white and male as key variables. If it’s restricted from using that category, it will come up with attributes associated with being a white male, such as playing rugby.

Interviews are where biases most easily show up.

Machine learning models do have the potential to find important but previously unconsidered relationships. Psychologists, who have dominated research on hiring, have been keen to study attributes relevant to their interests, such as personality, rather than asking the broader question “What identifies a potential good hire?” Their results gloss over the fact that they often have only a trivial ability to predict who will be a good performer, particularly when many factors are involved. Machine learning, in contrast, can come up with highly predictive factors. Research by Evolv, a workforce analytics pioneer (now part of Cornerstone OnDemand), found that expected commuting distance for the candidate predicted turnover very well. But that’s not a question the psychological models thought to ask. (And even that question has problems.)

The advice on selection is straightforward: Test for skills. Ask assessments vendors to show evidence that they can actually predict who the good employees will be. Do fewer, more-consistent interviews.

The Way Forward

It’s impossible to get better at hiring if you can’t tell whether the candidates you select become good employees. If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there. You must have a way to measure which employees are the best ones.

Why is that not getting through to companies? Surveyed employers say the main reason they don’t examine whether their practices lead to better hires is that measuring employee performance is difficult. Surely this is a prime example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Some aspects of performance are not difficult to measure: Do employees quit? Are they absent? Virtually all employers conduct performance appraisals. If you don’t trust them, try something simpler. Ask supervisors, “Do you regret hiring this individual? Would you hire him again?”

Organizations that don’t check to see how well their practices predict the quality of their hires are lacking in one of the most consequential aspects of modern business.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article named three recruitment process outsourcing companies, and stated that they utilized subcontractors in India and the Philippines. We have removed the company names after learning that the specifics of their subcontracting practices had not been verified.

A version of this article appeared in the May–June 2019 issue (pp.48–58) of Harvard Business Review.

3 Trends That Will Shape Recruiting in 2019

Page Content

In 2019, employers will entice applicants by hiring for soft skills and potential, offering more-flexible work options, and being more open about pay.

When surveyed by LinkedIn for the professional networking site’s Global Talent Trends 2019 report, more than 5,000 recruiters and hiring managers in 35 countries identified these three trends, among others, as creating the greatest change in the workplace.

Workers expect more from employers—more transparency, accountability and trust, said Mark Lobosco, vice president of talent solutions for LinkedIn. “And you need more from your employees—not only their technical skills, but also their ability to think creatively, collaborate effectively and adapt quickly.”

Hiring for Soft Skills and Potential

While hard skills are important, competencies like creativity, adaptability and ability to learn on the job are crucial for successful hires. They are also among the most difficult traits to accurately measure.

“Soft skills can make or break a hire—and they can also make or break a company,” Lobosco said. “As automation and AI [artificial intelligence] continue to reshape entire industries, companies and jobs, strong soft skills—the one thing that machines can’t replace—are becoming absolutely vital.”

Ninety-two percent of respondents told LinkedIn that they value soft skills as much or more than hard skills upon hire. But while companies agree that soft skills are valuable, most struggle to assess them accurately. Just 41 percent have a formal process in place to measure them. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said the main way they judge soft skills is by observation during interviews.

“Employers should be looking for soft skills more and training for hard skills, but we struggle with that,” said Tim Sackett, SHRM-SCP, president of HRU Technical Resources, an engineering and design staffing firm based in Lansing, Mich. He is also author of The Talent Fix: A Leader’s Guide to Recruiting Great Talent (SHRM, 2018.) “Organizations still post jobs that are hard-skills-based, because they don’t truly know how to interview for soft skills,” he said.

Evaluating candidates’ technical background is still a priority at EY, depending on the role, said Larry Nash, the director of U.S. recruiting for the consulting firm. “If they have experience, we look to see what their technical background is because that’s what our clients are looking for—expertise,” he said. “But technical skills are not solely what we look at. We look at the full picture of competencies and skill sets that a person has, including critical thinking, teamwork, a global mindset, diverse thinking. If we’re hiring straight from school, in addition to a candidates’ field of study, we consider soft skills like listening and the ability to build strong relationships.”

Despite the importance of soft skills, interviewers aren’t sure how to measure for them, usually relying on behavioral-based questions and observations of candidates’ body language.

“Interviewers struggle with pulling out someone’s personality, especially because everyone shows up in interview mode,” Sackett said. “You need an extended period of time to really find out who someone is, or you could give them work samples, which are hard to manage and expensive to produce. Personality assessments don’t really deliver what we’re looking for in terms of soft skills either.”

Courtney Storz, head of global campus recruiting at financial services firm Citi, said her team uses problem-solving case studies and group exercises to showcase candidates’ collaboration, communication and leadership skills, as well as an AI-powered soft-skills assessment, which measures a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. “Putting a premium on soft skills has allowed Citi to significantly expand its entry-level talent pipeline beyond the usual core schools, creating a more diverse workforce and reducing bias,” she said.

Those efforts are also helpful to the employers who are hiring for potential when candidates lack experience. Due to the low unemployment rate, experts believe that employers will continue to loosen educational and experience requirements to fill open positions.

Scott Gutz, the CEO of global job site Monster, suggested filtering applicants to ensure they meet the minimum requirements for a role, then searching for the best possible fit based on more flexible criteria. “In a tight labor market, you can’t only consider candidates who meet every single requirement,” he said. “You also need to consider candidates who might not meet every single one of the requirements but have high potential for impact.”

Nash said that as the talent pool becomes more competitive, EY doesn’t “shy away from [its] standards but also sees where things can be learned instead of bought.” The company offers its employees a talent development program called EY Badges, focused on emerging skill sets like robotics, AI and data analytics.

Offering Work Flexibility

The squeezed labor market will move more employers to increase wages and offer creative benefits, such as unlimited paid time off or flexible work schedules, to differentiate their brands and create a more attractive workplace.

“Work flexibility is becoming the norm,” said Jason Phillips, vice president of digital HR and global chief of staff at computer technology firm Cisco. “The challenge is how fast can organizations provide it. Those that can are going to be in a far better position to [attract] and retain top talent over the next three to five years.”

Technology has taken work beyond the traditional 9-to-5 office hours. And as the younger generations become a larger presence in the workplace, employers will have to adapt to those workers’ preferences for nontraditional work experiences. Greater flexibility to work where and when they want has become a top priority for candidates, and employers are increasingly promoting their flex options in job posts. Since 2016, there’s been a 78 percent increase in job posts on LinkedIn that mention work flexibility.

A recent Indeed survey found that nearly half (47 percent) of employees say remote work policies are an important factor in choosing a job, and 40 percent of employees whose employers don’t currently offer remote work say they would consider taking a pay cut for that option.

“Across most industries, companies have started to adapt to a more agile work environment and offering greater workplace flexibility has become commonplace,” said Jodi Chavez, group president of Randstad Professionals, a staffing and recruitment provider of finance and accounting talent. “It’s now common for employees to engage with social media during work hours and do work during off hours,” she said.

Nash said EY “offers a full array of formal flexible work arrangements like remote work or reduced schedules.” He added that more importantly, the idea of flexibility is baked into the culture. “It’s OK to talk about flexibility among teams, so people don’t feel like they can’t talk about it. We embrace flexibility.”

He added that flexibility is also about acknowledging that people at different stages of their careers prefer different types of work relationships, so the company created a site listing project-based work opportunities to make it easier for those seeking gig work to find it.

Being Transparent About Pay

As it becomes easier for people to see and share salaries on sites like PayScale, Glassdoor and LinkedIn, more companies will choose to own the conversation by sharing salary information.

But the taboo of talking about salary is hard to break, and employers are concerned that disclosing compensation will encourage talent poaching and limit their ability to negotiate.

Seventy-five percent of the respondents to the LinkedIn survey who work at companies without pay transparency say it would ignite salary disputes.

In 2017, EY decided to stop asking about candidates’ salary history—and basing compensation on the applicant’s last job—but “we’re not at the point where we publish salary in our job descriptions,” Nash said. “There are a lot of factors that go into compensation that would raise more questions. Maybe that will change over time.”

Lobosco said that employee pay has always been a confidential topic in the workplace, “but leaving people in the dark can make candidates uneasy and employees distrustful because most people incorrectly believe they’re being underpaid relative to their market position.”

A majority of organizations (73 percent) are still not ready to share salary information during the hiring process, according to LinkedIn. Of the 27 percent of respondents who said their company is transparent about pay, 67 percent share salary ranges with candidates early in the hiring process, 59 percent share ranges with employees, and 48 percent share ranges publicly on job posts. “Those who do share salary ranges cite many benefits—especially when it comes to speeding up the hiring process,” Lobosco said.

In addition to streamlining negotiations and filtering out applicants who would eventually drop out of the process, job posts with salary information will get more traffic than the same post without salary information, Sackett said. “Google is saying that if you want your jobs to show up higher on search results, you better have a salary in a structured data field,” he added.

Finally, advocates believe that salary transparency helps ensure fair pay across the organization.

“Right now, transparency is a competitive advantage for us—it’s the right thing to do, and employees and candidates want it,” said Jeremy Tolley, chief people officer at CareHere, a Nashville, Tenn.-based company that manages more than 200 employer-sponsored health and wellness centers in 26 states.

Tolley said that CareHere adopted a three-year pay transparency plan in 2017 to build the company’s employer brand and boost retention. “Despite their above-market salaries, employees often assumed they were being paid unfairly—concerns that managers didn’t know how to address,” he said. “In 2018, we started telling employees the salary range for their own role, sharing ranges with candidates, and training managers to discuss salaries. By the end of 2019, CareHere hopes to have open salary ranges for all roles internally and on job posts. Most importantly, we want employees to have open, honest discussions with their managers about pay—especially if they’re thinking about leaving.”

Ranking Top 25 Recruiting Classes in 2019 After High School All-American Games | Bleacher Report

0 of 9

Michael Reaves/Getty Images

Another wave of incoming freshman in college football made their commitments this past week during some of the All-American games. A handful of teams were able to shoot up the rankings because of these commitments, shaking up the current recruiting landscape.

The Sooners might have been the biggest winners of the week, landing the commitment of the top wide receiver in the country. The USC Trojans were also coming away from the weekend ecstatic, landing their only two 5-star recruits.

Even some of the smaller programs were able to land their biggest commitments of the year, so let’s take a look at the top 25 recruiting classes following the All-American games.

1 of 9

25. Nebraska Cornhuskers

Class size: 25 (six 4-stars)

All-purpose back Wandale Robinson showed some impressive toughness and dove out for a couple of nice catches in the All-American Bowl on Saturday. Scott Frost doesn’t have the most dominant class this year, but no one will be surprised when these incoming freshmen develop into productive college players.

24. Purdue Boilermakers

Class size: 26 (five 4-stars)

Rondale Moore proved to be one of the most electric freshmen in college football this season. He’ll have some extra help in 2019 now 4-star wide receiver David Bell has committed to the Boilermakers. Purdue had a pair of All-American commits between Bell and George Karlaftis play on Saturday, so things are looking up for a team that is trying to make some noise in the Big Ten.

23. Ole Miss Rebels

Class size: 29 (five 4-stars)

The Rebels are looking to reload and retool their offense in 2019. They were able to land a top-50 recruit in running back Jerrion Ealy, while also grabbing two 4-star receivers (Dannis Jackson and Jonathan Mingo). The Rebels have produced some legitimate NFL players at those positions, so those three freshmen will be hoping they can keep that trend going.

22. South Carolina Gamecocks

Class size: 20 (one 5-star, four 4-stars)

South Carolina has our first 5-star commitment in these rankings thanks to strong-side defensive end Zacch Pickens. He’s going to be terrifying SEC offenses in the coming years, but the Gamecocks were also able to get All-American quarterback Ryan Hilinski, who will have a good chance to become their starter sooner instead of later.

21. Arkansas Razorbacks

Class size: 27 (eight 4-stars)

Another Henry brother is heading to play tight end at Arkansas. The brother of Hunter Henry, Hudson Henry will be looking to make an impact right away as the No. 2 tight end in the country. The Razorbacks will be getting a couple of 4-star wide receivers as well, along with an explosive dual-threat quarterback in KJ Jefferson.

2 of 9

20. Mississippi State Bulldogs

Class size: 22 (seven 4-stars)

Offensive tackle Charles Cross highlights the Bulldogs’ recruiting class as their only top-100 commitment. Dual-threat QB Garrett Shrader will be another name to keep an eye on to see if he’s able to compete to replace Nick Fitzgerald under center.

19. Washington Huskies

Class size: 20 (11 4-stars)

The Huskies were able to grab a pair of top-100 defensive tackles in the 2019 class thanks to the commitments of Faatui Tuitele and Jacob Bandes. The top player in the state of Washington is also coming to play for the Huskies, so fans will be interested to see quarterback Dylan Morris in the coming seasons.

18. Stanford Cardinal

Class size: 23 (eight 4-stars)

Stanford’s offense got a need infusion of talent in this recruiting class with top-100 commitments from RB Austin Jones and WR Elijah Higgins. On defense, the Cardinal was able to get the top player in the state of Kentucky in weak-side defensive end Stephen Herron Jr..

17. Florida State Seminoles

Class size: 19 (one 5-star, nine 4-stars)

Head coach Willie Taggart’s first full recruiting cycle can be considered a success. Not only was he able to land a 5-star recruit (CB Akeem Dent), but they were also able to add two more promising safeties that are also ranked in the top 100 with Nick Cross and Brendan Gant.

16. Tennessee Volunteers

Class size: 21 (one 5-star, eight 4-stars)

The Volunteers have a chance to snag two of the best offensive tackles in the country this year. They already have a commitment from 5-star OT Wanya Morris, but they also have a top-10 recruit and another 5-star tackle Darnell Wright who is considering joining the Volunteers.

3 of 9

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

15. Notre Dame Fighting Irish

Class size: 21 (15 4-stars)

Brian Kelly may not have any recruits inside the top 100, but he does have six in the top 200. Three of those players are offensive linemen, including the top player in the state of Minnesota, offensive tackle Quinn Carroll. It’s not the best recruiting class we’ve seen for Notre Dame, but it’s certainly not a bad group of young men.

14. Ohio State Buckeyes

Class size: 16 (three 5-stars, eight 4-stars)

Even with Urban Meyer retiring, the Buckeyes are still getting a lot of really good talent, focusing on quality over quantity so far. The second-ranked wide receiver in this class, Garrett Wilson, looked like a stud in the All-American Bowl with a pair of touchdowns. With two other 5-star recruits and incoming transfer quarterback Justin Fields, this team is set for the new post-Meyer era.

13. Auburn Tigers

Class size: 17 (one 5-star, 10 4-star)

The Tigers were able to land Owen Pappoe, a 5-star recruit and the top outside linebacker in the country. Dual-threat quarterback Bo Nix will be looking to compete for the starting QB job now Jarrett Stidham is heading to the NFL.

12. Florida Gators

Class size: 23 (15 4-stars)

It was a great week for the Gators, who were able to add their two highest-rated recruits in CB Chris Steele and WR Arjei Henderson. If they can land another 4-star cornerback in Kaiir Elam, who 247Sports.com predicts is very likely to choose Florida, then this is going to be a terrific recruiting class for the Gators.

11. USC Trojans

Class size: 22 (two 5-stars, nine 4-stars)

No team had more to celebrate about after the All-American Bowl than the USC Trojans. Not only were they able to add a 5-star recruit in WR Kyle Ford, but they also added the top athlete and a top-10 player in Bru McCoy. If Kliff Kingsbury stays at USC, he’s going to have a lot of fun utilizing these two guys.

4 of 9

10. Penn State Nittany Lions

Class size: 18 (one 5-star, 16 4-stars)

Hoping to continue contending in the Big Ten, James Franklin’s recruiting class is helping them reload on both sides of the ball. The top player in the state of Virginia, Brandon Smith, will be a future centerpiece of the defense, while 4-star running back Noah Cain is hoping to fill the shoes of previous backs like Saquon Barkley.

9. Texans Longhorns

Class size: 23 (14 4-stars)

Inside linebacker recruit De’Gabriel Floyd was all over the place in the All-American Bowl, playing well against some good competition. That’s an exciting snag for Tom Herman, who was also able to land some solid 4-star recruits on offense, including a pair of offensive tackles and another pair of wide receivers.

8. Oregon Ducks

Class size: 22 (one 5-star, 11 4-stars)

This year’s class for the Ducks is highlighted by Kayvon Thibodeaux, the No. 2 overall player in this year’s recruiting class. The Oregon defense should be much more intimidating when you also consider the commitments of top-50 recruits in CB Mykael Wright and ILB Mase Funa.

7. Michigan Wolverines

Class size: 27 (one 5-star, 15 4-stars)

The drama surrounding 5-star recruit Daxton Hill seems to have subsided now he has recommitted to the Wolverines. That’s a huge get for Jim Harbaugh and his only top-10 recruit in this class. Michigan was also able to add RB Zach Charbonnet and DT Chris Hinton as their other two top-50 commits.

6. Clemson Tigers

Class size: 27 (two 5-stars, 11 4-stars)

Considering how many talented underclassmen the Tigers have, not having a top-five recruiting class is by no means the end of the world for Dabo Swinney’s team. The good news is that both 5-star recruits, Andrew Booth and Frank Ladson, will continue the long line of great cornerbacks and wide receivers to come out of the program.

5 of 9

Class size: 21 (three 5-stars, 10 4-stars)

One of the best programs at producing NFL-caliber talent at running back will be getting another big name. John Emery Jr. is the second-ranked RB in the class and will be staying in his home state to try to prove himself to NFL scouts over the next couple of years.

LSU already has two 5-star recruits but is waiting on a third in Ishmael Sopsher, hoping he will choose the Tigers over the Crimson Tide to help them jump ahead of a couple of teams currently ranked ahead of them in this recruiting class.

6 of 9

Michael Reaves/Getty Images

Class size: 25 (two 5-stars, 12 4-stars)

Jimbo Fisher made sure to add some talent in the trenches for 2019 with two 5-star recruits in offensive tackle Kenyon Green and big defensive tackle DeMarvin Leal.

The Aggies secondary will also be in good shape for the next few years with the addition three defensive backs in the top 100 with Brian Williams, Demani Richardson and Erick Young. Add in the top tight end in the country, Baylor Cupp, and you have an exciting recruiting class.

7 of 9

Class size: 23 (three 5-stars, 12 4-stars)

Lincoln Riley is one of the best offensive minds in football, so it’s no surprise that a plethora of talent on that side of the ball flocked to Oklahoma.

The Sooners class took a big jump when Jadon Haselwood, the top wide receiver in the nation, committed to them during the All-American Bowl. He’ll be catching passes in the near future from Spencer Rattler, the top pro-style quarterback.

Rattler and Haselwood will be joined by three more top-100 recruits with wide receivers Theo Wease and Trejan Bridges along with tight end Austin Stogner.

8 of 9

Class size: 23 (five 5-stars, 15 4-stars)

Defense seemed to be the primary focus for Kirby Smart’s Bulldogs in this recruiting class, and it paid off in a big way for that side of the ball.

Along with a solid commitment from 4-star DB Tyrique Stevenson on Saturday, Georgia had already locked up commitments from the top-ranked weak-side defensive end and inside linebacker in Nolan Smith (also the top-ranked player overall) and Nakobe Dean.

On the other side of the ball, the Bulldogs were also able to snag the best center in this year’s class with Clay Webb along with Dominick Blaylock, a promising 5-star receiver.

Georgia fans are hoping this loaded recruiting class will help them continue to compete for a national championship.

9 of 9

Joe Skipper/Associated Press

Class size: 28 (three 5-stars, 24 4-stars)

The best team in college football keeps getting better this offseason with another absolutely stacked recruiting class. Nick Saban was able to add a pair of big-time recruits in Marcus Banks and Khris Bogle, who both committed during the All-American Bowl, to add to what was already the top class in the country.

There are too many names to keep track of in Alabama’s incoming freshman class, but fans will be excited to see Taulia Tagovailoa, the younger brother of Tua, and the top-ranked running back in Trey Sanders as some of the more exciting names in this group.

As long as Saban is the head coach of the Crimson Tide, this team is going to continue to be at or near the top of these rankings.

All recruiting information via 247Sports.

Pages – Educational programs – 2019 enrollment

Educational program	Educational program	Curriculum Calendar curriculum	Annotations to work programs disciplines	Practices	Methodological and other documents

Higher education – bachelor’s degree Admission 2019	Direction of training 38. 03.01 “Economics”, profile “State and Municipal Finance”: General characteristics of the educational program Appendix to the educational program	Full-time education Calendar curriculum Curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of educational practice (bachelor’s degree) Work program of undergraduate practice (bachelor’s degree) Work program of undergraduate practice (bachelor’s degree)	Information about methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)
	Direction of training 38.03.02 “Management”, profile “Financial Management”: general characteristics of the educational program Supplement to the educational program	Full-time education Curriculum schedule Curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of educational practice	Information about methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)
	Direction of training 38. 03.04 “State and Municipal Management”, profile “State and Municipal Management”: General characteristics of the educational program Supplement to the educational program	Full-time education Calendar curriculum Curriculum	annotations of work programs		Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)
	Direction of training 38.03.05 “Business Informatics”, profile “IT Management in Business”: Supplement to the educational program	Full-time education calendar training schedule curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of educational practice Work program of industrial (including pre-diploma) practice	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)
	Direction of preparation 38. 03.01 “Economics”, profile “Accounting, analysis and audit”: General characteristics of the educational program Supplement to the educational program	Part-time education calendar training schedule curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of educational practice Work program of industrial practice Work program of undergraduate practice	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)

	Direction of preparation 38.03.01 “Economics”, profile “State and Municipal Finance”: General characteristics of the educational program Appendix to the educational program	Part-time education training) curriculum (accelerated learning)	work program annotations work program annotations (accelerated learning)	Work program for practical training (bachelor’s degree) work program for internships (bachelor’s degree) Work program of undergraduate practice (bachelor’s degree)	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)

Higher education – magistracy Admission 2019	Direction of training 38. 04.01 “Economics”, master’s program “Taxes. Accounting. Tax Consulting”: General characteristics of the educational program Supplement to the educational program	Full-time education Calendar curriculum Curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of educational practice Work program of industrial practice Work program of undergraduate practice	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)
	Direction of training 38.04.08 “Finance and Credit”, master’s program “Finance of the Public Sector”: General characteristics of the educational program Supplement to the educational program	Full-time education calendar training schedule curriculum	annotations of workers programs	Work program of educational practice Work program of industrial practice Work program of undergraduate practice	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs)
	Direction of preparation 38.04.04 “State and Municipal Management “, master’s program “State Management”: General characteristics of the educational program Supplement to the educational program	Full-time education calendar curriculum curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of educational practice Work program of industrial practice Work program of pre-diploma practice	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure the educational process (higher education programs )

	Direction of preparation 38.04.02 “Management”, master’s program “Corporate Governance”: General characteristics of the educational program Appendix to the educational program	Extramural study Calendar curriculum Curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of the curriculum practice Work program of pre-graduate practice	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to support the educational process (higher education programs)
Secondary vocational education Admission 2019	Specialty 38.02.01 “Economics and accounting” (by industry): General characteristics of the educational program Appendix to the educational program of secondary vocational education of the program for training mid-level specialists, specialty 38.02.01 “Economics and accounting (by industry)”	Full-time training Curriculum Calendar curriculum	annotations of working programs	work program of training practice work program of production practice (by specialty profile) work program of industrial practice (pre-diploma)	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to support the educational process (SPE programs)
	Specialty 38.02.06 “Finance”: General characteristics of the educational program Appendix to the educational program of secondary vocational education of the training program for middle-level specialists specialty 38.02.06 “Finance”	Full-time education Curriculum Calendar curriculum	annotations of work programs	Work program of educational practice Work program of industrial practice (according to the profile of the specialty) Work program of industrial practice (undergraduate)	Information on methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to ensure educational process (SPE programs)
	Specialty 09.02.07 “Information systems and programming”: General characteristics of the educational program	Full-time education Curriculum Calendar training schedule	annotations of work programs	work program of training practice work program of industrial practice (according to the profile of the specialty) work program of industrial practice (pre-diploma)	Information about methodological and other documents developed by the educational organization to support the educational process (SPE programs)

Multidisciplinary College of ISTIS SUSU – Work programs in the specialty Law enforcement, base 9 class., set 2019

No.	Discipline	Study semester	Control form
1.	OUDB.01.01 Russian (abstract)	2	exam
2.	OUDB.01.02 Literature (abstract)	2	differential value
3.	OUDB.02.01 Foreign language (abstract)	2	differential value
4.	OUDB.03.01 History (abstract)	2	differential
5.	OUDB.03.02 Social Studies (including the section “Law”) (abstract)	2	exam
6.	OUDB.04.01 Natural science (abstract)	2	differential
7.	OUDB.04.02 Astronomy (abstract)	1	differential
8.	OUDB.05.01 Fundamentals of life safety (abstract)	2	differential
9.	OUDB.05.02 Ecology (abstract)	1	differential
10.	OUDB.05.03 Physical culture (abstract)	1.2	offset, differential
11.	OUDP.01.01 Mathematics (abstract)	2	exam
12.	OUDP.01.02 Informatics (abstract)	2	differential value
13.	OUDP.02.01 Economics (abstract)	2	exam
14.	UDD.01 Basics of project activities (abstract)	2	term paper
15.	OGSE.01 Fundamentals of Philosophy (abstract)	3	differential value
16.	OGSE.02 History (abstract)	3	differential
17.	OGSE.03 Foreign language (abstract)	6.7	offset, differential
18.	OGSE.04 Physical education (abstract)	3,4,5,6,7	offset, offset, offset, offset, differential offset
19.	OGSE.DV.01 Russian language and culture of speech (abstract)	3	differential
20.	EN.01 Informatics and information technology in professional activity (abstract)	4	differential value
21.	OP.01 Theory of state and law (abstract)	3	exam
22.	OP.02 Constitutional law of Russia (abstract)	4	differential value
23.	OP.03 Administrative law (abstract)	7	differential value
24.	OP.04 Civil law and civil procedure (abstract)	5	term paper, exam
25.	OP.05 Environmental law (abstract)	6	differential value
26.	OP.06 Criminology and crime prevention (abstract)	6	differential
27.	OP.07 Criminal law (abstract)	6	term paper, exam
28.	OP.08 Criminal procedure (abstract)	6	exam
29.	OP.09 Forensics (abstract)	5	exam
30.	OP.10 Life safety (abstract)	6	differential value
31.	OP.DV.01 Tax law (abstract)	4	differential
32.	OP.DV.02 Financial law (abstract)	6	exam
33.	OP.DV.03 Business law (abstract)	6	differential
34.	OP.DV.04 Labor law (abstract)	6	exam
35.	OP.DV.05 Family law (abstract)	6	differential
36.	OP.DV.06 Professional ethics (abstract)	5	differential
37.	PM.01 Operational and service activities (abstract)	3.4	differential test, exam
38.	PM.02 Organizational and managerial activities (abstract)	5.7	differential test, term paper, exam
39.	UP.01 Operational and service activities (abstract)	4	differential value
40.	UP.02 Organizational and managerial activities (abstract)	7	differential
41.	PP.01 Operational and service activities (abstract)	4	differential value
42.	PP.02 Organizational and managerial activities (abstract)	7	differential value
43.	Undergraduate practice (abstract)	7	differential value

A ready-made set of pictograms for adaptation of the institution GOST R 52131-2019

Special offer! A set is 10% cheaper than a piece.

A set of 7 acrylic plastic pictograms in accordance with GOST 52131-2019.

Package includes:

How to place the icons from this kit correctly?

According to GOST 52131-2019, instead of the previously used accessibility sign in the form of a “green man”, indicating the full accessibility of the facility for people with disabilities of all categories, there are now three signs of the facility’s accessibility for each of the disability groups: the ear icon – to indicate the facility’s accessibility for people with hearing impairments, the “blue man in a wheelchair” icon – wheelchair accessibility for people with disabilities and “glasses with braille dubbing” – indicate the accessibility of the facility for the visually impaired.Each of these three signs is placed in front of the accessible entrance of the institution, provided that the institution is FULLY adapted for people of this disability group.

For example, if your institution is adapted only for wheelchair users, but not in any way adapted (or only partially adapted) for the visually impaired and for the hearing impaired – you hang only one of three signs – a sign of accessibility for people with disabilities moving in wheelchairs (blue man) ! If the building is adapted for all three categories, place all three signs.

The sign “man with a cane” is mandatory if the building is adapted for the visually impaired. Placed in front of intersections with paths allocated for the visually impaired.

This set contains 2 signs “toilet for disabled people” and one arrow “direction of travel”. One sign should be placed in front of the entrance to the accessible toilet, and the second, paired with an arrow, should be placed, for example, in the hallway to show the direction of movement towards the accessible toilet.

Our advantages:

We produce plates and pictograms from high-quality acrylic plastic (polystyrene), prices are indicated precisely for the design of the plate in this material
You receive pictograms directly from the manufacturer, without intermediaries, thanks to which you save about 20% from each plate
Our designer makes any layouts for clients free of charge

Term and procedure for the production of plates, signs and mnemonic diagrams:

All tactile plates, signs, mnemonic diagrams and some non-standard pictograms are made to order for each client, i.e.to. contain individual information unique to each institution.

Within 1 working day after the conclusion of the contract (for government agencies) or payment of the invoice (for commercial organizations), our designer will contact you and request the necessary information to create a layout.

For plates : names and numbers of specialists’ offices
For signs : name of institution, opening hours, services or any other information
For mnemonic diagrams : photo or scan of the evacuation plan or BTI, an indication on the plan where this mnemonic diagram will be located, an indication and name on the diagram of offices that are planned to be visited by people with disabilities

Within 1-2 working days, depending on the volume of the order, from the moment you provide this information, the designer will send you a layout for approval.You look at it, edit it if necessary, agree in writing and send the scan to the designer.
Within 3-5 working days from the moment of written approval of the layout, your plate will be ready to be sent to you.

The total cumulative production time for a plaque with a layout from scratch and before sending it to you (taking into account short approvals) is 5-8 working days.

GBUDO Moscow “Children’s Art School named after M.A. Balakireva “: Set 2019

GBUDO g.Moscow Children’s Art School named after M.A. Balakireva ”

Institution subordinate to the Department of Culture
of the city of Moscow

Information about the educational organization
- Basic information
  - Basic information
- Structure and governing bodies of the educational organization
- Documents
- Education
- Educational standards
- Manual.Pedagogical (scientific and pedagogical) staff
- Material and technical support and equipment of the educational process
- Scholarships and other types of material support
- Paid educational services
- Financial and economic activities
- Vacancies for admission (transfer)
- Test results
About school
- School history
- Museum
- Library
- Creative teams
- School video archive
- Our radio
- Mass media about us
- Our achievements
- Reviews and thanks
- Additional services
- Our partners
- Information about the condition of musical instruments
News
Education
- Admission to the budgetary department
- Admission to a paid branch
- Selection results
- Educational programs implemented by the institution
- Methodological developments
- Educational standards
- Educational structure
- Timetable of lessons
- Local acts
- Schedule of classes
- Our students
- Distance learning
- Balakirevsky Institute of Self-Education
Creation
- Educational publications DSHI Balakirev
- Poster
- Projects
- Competitions
- Festivals
- Master classes
- Event reports
Contacts
- Ask question
- Contact information
- The second building of the Children’s Art School named after M.A. Balakireva
- Reception hours of the population
- Independent estimate
- Important links
- Payment
- Subscribe to school news

Home
Contacts

Ask a Question
Contact Information
The second building of the Children’s Art School named after M. A. Balakirev
Reception hours of the population
Independent evaluation
Important links
Payment
Subscribe to school news

Write to us

Important Announcements

21 Sep

Children’s Art School named after M.A. Balakireva announces the admission of children to the Art Studio “Apple Garden”! Classes will be held at Morshanskaya, 2, building 1.

Information about programs and enrollment is on page of paid educational services .

02 Sep

The admission of children to the Yablonevy Sad Art Studio of the Balakirev Children’s Art School in the Vykhino district at Ferghanskiy proezd, 7, building 3 is open.

More information about training programs on the site http: // art-studio.balakirev.tilda.ws/#rec351131556

all announcements

Calendar of events

Dial plan | Reception 2019

Undergraduate programs
08.03.01	Construction (Hydraulic engineering)	18	16	0	2	5
09.03.02	Information systems and technologies (Design of information systems and their components)	50	46	4	0	10
03.13.02	Electricity and electrical engineering (Power supply)	19	17	2	0	6
03/20/01	Technosphere Safety (Protection in Emergency Situations)	9	8	1	0	11
20.03.02	Environmental management and water use (Integrated use and protection of water resources)	8	8	0	0	12
03.23.01	Technology of transport processes (Organization of transportation and management in water transport)	41	41	0	0	5
03/23/01	Technology of transport processes (Forwarding activities)	39	38	1	0	5
23.03.03	Operation of transport and technological machines and complexes (Operation of transshipment equipment of ports and transport terminals)	19	19	0	0	5
03/23/03	Operation of transport and technological machines and complexes (Service and automation of reloading equipment of transport terminals)	31	31	0	0	5
26.03.01	Management of water transport and hydrographic support of navigation (Management of transport systems and logistics services in water transport)	41	40	1	0	5
03/26/01	Water transport management and hydrographic support of navigation (Water and multimodal transport management)	39	39	0	0
26.03.01	Water transport management and hydrographic support of navigation (Operation and information support of waterways)	30	29	0	1
03/26/02	Shipbuilding, ocean engineering and systems engineering of marine infrastructure facilities (Shipbuilding)	38	35	1	2	5
03/26/02	Shipbuilding, Ocean Engineering and Systems Engineering of Marine Infrastructure Facilities (Ship Power Plants)	17	17	0	0	5
26.03.02	Shipbuilding, ocean engineering and systems engineering of marine infrastructure facilities (Maintenance of ships and ship equipment)	20	20	0	0	5
38.03.01	Economics (Economics of enterprises and organizations)	–	–	–	–	25
38.03.02	Management (Production Management)	–	–	–	–	25
Total		419	404	12	3	129
Specialist programs
20.05.01	Fire safety (Fire safety)	–	–	–	–	20
05/26/05	Navigation (Navigation on sea and inland waterways)	89	85	4	0	5
05/26/06	Operation of ship power plants (Operation of the main ship propulsion system)	48	47	1	0	5
26.05.07	Operation of ship electrical and automation equipment (Operation of ship electrical and automation equipment)	24	23	1	0	5
05/26/07	Operation of ship electrical equipment and automation equipment (Operation of electrical equipment and automation equipment for water transport facilities)	24	24	0	0
Total		185	179	6	0	35
Master’s programs
08.04.01	Construction (Hydraulic engineering)	10	8	–	2	5
09.04.02	Information systems and technologies (Design of information systems and their components)	15	12	–	3	5
13.04.02	Electric power and electrical engineering (Electric power complexes and networks)	15	12	–	3	5
20.04.02	Environmental management and water use (Integrated use and protection of water resources)	9	7	–	2	6
04/26/01	Management of water transport and hydrographic support of navigation (Management of transport and logistics systems)	15	12	–	3	5
04/26/02	Shipbuilding, ocean engineering and systems engineering of marine infrastructure facilities (Shipbuilding)	10	8	–	2	5
Total		74	59	–	15	31

Information for 2019 graduate recruitment

	Attestation at the department Intermediate certification of graduate students in the implementation of an individual curriculum in terms of research work (R&D) and practice (pedagogical, research) will be held from September 23, 2021 to September 30, 2021. Interim Approvals Schedule (September 2021) Individual curriculum graduate student 2019 (supplemented before each certification at the department) Report form on the preparation of scientific and qualification work (1-6 semester) Forms of reports on teaching and research practice (2-6 semester)
	Rationale for the topic Extract from the meeting of the department on the approval of the topic and the scientific adviser (subscribes for each) Problems of scientific research in postgraduate studies in 2019 admission (supplements)
	Programs for the training of scientific and pedagogical personnel in graduate school (programs of the program of disciplines, practices, GIA, etc.)
	Useful information (FAQ: scholarship, hostel, military desk, social card) Organizational meeting and issuing certificates
	Instructions for creating a personal account of a graduate student in IAS TRUE and filling it out is contained in here!

News archive:

Interim Approvals Schedule (September 2021)

Interim Appraisals Schedule (December 2020)

Schedule of retakes for the third semester, schedule of second retakes

Candidate Exam Information (Dec 2020))

Interim Appraisals Schedule (December 2020)

Candidate exams in History and Philosophy of Science and Foreign Language were postponed to the fall semester and took place:

14.

The Power of 247Sports Composite Rankings in College Football Recruitment

Understanding the 247Sports Composite Score

Breaking Down the Top Recruiting Classes of 2019

The Impact of Five-Star Recruits on Program Rankings

Do five-star recruits guarantee program success?

The Significance of Four-Star Recruits in Building Depth

Balancing quantity and quality in four-star recruitment

The Role of Three-Star Recruits in Rounding Out Classes

Identifying hidden gems among three-star prospects

Analyzing Recruiting Strategies: Quality vs. Quantity

Comparing class sizes among top programs

Geographic Distribution of Top Recruits in 2019

Expanding recruiting footprints

The Influence of Early Signing Period on 2019 Recruitment

Adapting to the new recruiting timeline

Long-Term Implications of the 2019 Recruiting Class

Projecting future success based on recruiting rankings

2019 Football Team Rankings

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star

3-Star

5-Star

4-Star