A campus calendar is a capital allocation decision dressed up as a logistics exercise. Very few are reviewed as one.
Live from our candidate database
Counted at render time and refreshed every six hours. This is a supply-side view of one platform, not a national labour-market statistic.
Audit last year before planning this year
For each institution on the calendar: offers made, offers accepted, twelve-month retention. Most calendars contain at least one institution that has produced nothing for two consecutive years and remains on the list through inertia.
Add from data, not from reputation
Before locking the list, look at where candidates with your target skills actually concentrate. Add two or three institutions the data supports and your calendar does not, and give them a real slot rather than a token one.
Sequence for the batch curve
Front-load the institutions where you compete hardest. Arriving late at a contested campus is worse than not arriving at all, because you interview the residue and conclude the campus is weak.
Budget interviewer time as the scarce resource
Travel is the visible cost; engineer-days are the real one. Plan the calendar against interviewer availability first, and the logistics second — the reverse order is how campus programmes end up rescheduling on candidates.
Key takeaways
- Audit each institution on offers, acceptance and retention before renewing the calendar.
- Add two or three data-selected institutions each cycle, with a real slot.
- Front-load contested campuses — arriving late means interviewing the residue.
- Plan against interviewer availability first; travel logistics second.
Questions
How many institutions should a calendar have?+
Fewer than most, visited properly. A calendar spread thin produces token visits that damage relationships and yield nothing.
When should we drop an institution?+
After two cycles with no accepted offers, unless there is a specific reason to expect a change. Sentiment keeps more institutions on calendars than results do.