Here are the cities where college graduates have the best chance of landing a job — and NYC is not one of them
These days, Gen Z has more demands — beyond salary and health insurance — than other generations when it comes to finding a job after graduating from college.
And there are certain cities, aside from major ones like NYC and Los Angeles, where they're surprisingly finding jobs that meet their long list of requirements.
It's a tough market for college graduates right now.
PBXStudio – stock.adobe.com
Second-tier cities like Raleigh, North Carolina, Birmingham, Alabama, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Baltimore, Maryland and Austin, Texas, stand out for what they can offer recent college grads — a strong job market and a decent salary, according to a new study by ADP.
Raleigh, North Carolina, topped the list of where college grads have the best chance of getting hired.
Getty Images
To come up with these findings, ADP analyzed payroll data of over 140,000 employees aged 20-29 from January 2019 through April 2025.
The team then looked at the annual wages, hiring rates and affordability of 55 different metro areas throughout the U.S.
The study's findings showed that these underrated cities have a higher-than-usual concentration of technology, health and financial firms, says Ben Hanowell, ADP Research's director of people analytics.
And for those youngsters who don't live in one of these cities — nor plan to move there, experts feel that in order to stand out amongst the rest when applying for jobs — Gen Z should learn how to use AI to their advantage.
'AI is rapidly reshaping entry-level jobs, automating repetitive tasks, streamlining workflows, and, in some cases, eliminating roles entirely,' Keri Mesropov, founder of Spring Talent Development, told Newsweek.
On that note, Gen Zers are being told to adapt to using AI technology since it's becoming a powerful tool being used in not only everyday work — but also everyday life.
In addition to trying to adapt to using new technology to land a job — the generation born between 1997 and 2012 is leading the way in exaggerating or lying on their job applications.
Career services platform, career.io, found that almost half of Gen Zers have admitted to fibbing to get employers to notice them. Millennials aren't totally innocent, as 38.5% of them have done this, while 20.4% of Gen Xers have also followed suit.
'You hear so much of people complaining about this big resume hole their applications have fallen into, and it's out of sheer desperation that they're trying to enhance their experience in a way that will hopefully land them at least that interview,' certified professional career coach, Amanda Augustine, told Fox News Digital.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Burberry's Q1 earnings show a troubling trend
I remember exactly where I was when I got my first Burberry scarf. It was a gift from my mom (over a decade ago!), and I've worn it every winter since. The classic camel check. The kind of thing that never goes out of style. It felt like a rite of passage. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter I'm not sure I even understood the full weight of the brand at the time. But I knew it mattered. Burberry was the kind of luxury that felt earned, even if I hadn't earned it myself. It felt timeless. Important. A piece of something bigger. Related: Luxury giant behind Cartier, Van Cleef shares unsettling update I still have that scarf. It's soft and worn in all the right ways now. And every year when I pull it out of my closet, I'm reminded not just of the gift, but of the brand itself. The heritage. The tradition. The emotion. Not every brand has that kind of staying power, which is why I'm always paying attention when something shifts. And based on Burberry's latest earnings, something definitely has. Burberry reported a 6% drop in retail revenue for Q1, with comparable store sales down 1%. That might not sound it follows a 21% drop last quarter. And despite the company's upbeat tone, key markets like Greater China (-5%) and Japan (-10%) are still slipping. On the surface, there are signs of life. The U.S. posted 4% growth, EMEIA was up 1%, and the company pointed to a sharp increase in brand desirability, saying more people are responding to its campaigns. But that doesn't mean they're buying. Related: How Labubu became luxury's answer to Beanie Babies Burberry has been working hard to modernize. It launched its Autumn 2025 collection, introduced monthly themed campaigns, and even piloted scarf bars in stores. Executives say sell-through is improving and partners are gaining confidence. But the numbers just aren't there yet. CEO Joshua Schulman called this a "strategic step" and highlighted early momentum, but acknowledged macro pressure, weak tourist traffic, and foreign exchange headwinds. Right now, that optimism feels more like a bet than a guarantee. Burberry's long-term play seems clear: blend its British heritage with modern energy, and hope shoppers show up. The brand is chasing Gen Z with K-pop ambassadors and influencer-driven campaigns while still trying to preserve the elegance that made its outerwear iconic. The new strategy wants to be everything to everyone. That's a tough line to walk. Luxury shoppers are changing. So are their expectations. Burberry is investing in content, rebalancing pricing, even rethinking wholesale relationships. More in Retail: Why the latest Messi Stanley collab is smarter than it looksNike eliminating some classic sneaker modelsLululemon's pricing change sends an ominous sign But as the Q1 results show, there's still a disconnect between the brand Burberry wants to be and what customers are actually spending on. The scarf I got years ago didn't need a campaign or a collection drop to feel special. It just was. If Burberry can tap into that again - the permanence, the sense of story - maybe the comeback will stick. Based on the numbers, they're not there yet. Still, I'm on Team I'm hopeful they'll get there. Related: Luxury outdoor brand suddenly closes popular location The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
$61.5 billion tech giant Anthropic has made a major hiring U-turn—now, it's letting job applicants use AI months after banning it from the interview process
$61.5 billion tech giant Anthropic barred job applicants from using AI tools in the hiring process in May. Just months later, it has changed its mind on the policy—but unemployed Gen Zers (or any other generation for that matter) should watch out for various other guidelines still in place. Hiring has become an all-out AI war with managers juggling thousands of fake applications from North Korea, meanwhile, job-seekers are grappling with automated interviewers. AI giant Anthropic even got ahead of the curve by (ironically) barring candidates from using chatbots and assistants to prepare for their interview in May—but it's just backtracked on the ban. The $61.5 billion technology company alerted Fortune to its recently updated policies. Job seekers can now refine their resumes, cover letters, and applications with AI. But there's a catch: They're still barred from using it during most assessments and while they're sitting in the interview. 'At Anthropic, we use Claude every day, so we're looking for candidates who excel at collaborating with AI,' the company wrote in its candidate AI guidelines. 'Where it makes sense, we invite you to use Claude to show us more of you: your unique perspective, skills, and experiences.' The company had previously reasoned that by banning the tools, hiring managers could have a better sense of applicants' 'personal interest' and their 'non-AI-assisted communication skills.' However, Anthropic may be changing its guidelines, as in reality, it's hard to police, gets candidates using their product, and levels the playing field—since the company uses Claude to create job descriptions, improve interview questions, run candidate communications, and more, it's only fair that candidates can access such tools too. 'This isn't revolutionary, but it's intentional,' Jimmy Gould, head of talent for Anthropic, wrote on LinkedIn. 'We recognize that deploying AI in hiring requires careful consideration around fairness and bias, which is why we're experimenting, testing, and being transparent about our approach.' The changes to AI in hiring: when Anthropic applicants can use the tech Anthropic has a few rules for applicants using Claude in the hiring process: they must use the tool thoughtfully, be themselves, and be transparent. Here is where they can and can't use AI in Anthropic's hiring process, as the company says, to 'use Claude to show us more of you': When applying: Applicants should write their own first drafts of resumes, cover letters, and application questions. Then they can use Claude to refine their materials, to 'polish how [they] communicate about [their] work.' During take-home assessments: Candidates can use Claude when instructed to, but otherwise cannot use the tools. Preparing for interviews: Claude can be used for applicants to research Anthropic, practice their answers, and prepare questions for the interviewer. During live interviews: No AI assistance is allowed in this part of the process unless told otherwise. These updated guidelines allow more flexibility after the tools were barred from the process altogether—but candidates shouldn't get too comfortable with the current process as it could change again. Anthropic revealed it plans to regularly review and update the policy 'to reflect evolving AI capabilities.' How AI is changing the hiring process Anthropic isn't the only company that has been wary of job seekers using the tech to get a leg-up. Goldman Sachs similarly issued a warning to students interested in its private investing academy in EMEA, reminding them that the bank 'prohibits the use of any external sources, including ChatGPT or Google search engine, during the interview process.' But the hiring process may already be changed forever, as both recruiters and job-seekers are leveraging the tools in the talent war. Companies like KPMG, Eventbrite, and Progressive are using the technology to sort through thousands of applications, speed up the process, and make better hiring decisions. It's proved to be an incredibly helpful tool as managers have to comb through piles of documents. Candidates are increasingly leaning on AI in response to the white-collar job hunt becoming so dire. In 2024, nearly half of job-seekers used generative AI to 'build, update, or improve' their resumes, according to a report from Canva. OpenAI's ChatGPT seems to be a particularly popular tool, with around 57% of applicants using the chatbot in their job applications, according to a study from consulting firm Neurosight data. And in 2023, around 73% of Americans said they would consider using AI tools in 2024 to help them embellish or lie on their resume, according to a report from StandOut CV. As some job-seekers apply to jobs for over a year, sending out thousands of applications, AI has become integral in keeping pace and landing a gig. This story was originally featured on
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart quits paper after owner Jeff Bezos overhauls op-ed section: report
Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart has accepted a buyout from the paper, becoming the latest high-profile departure amid sweeping editorial changes implemented under owner Jeff Bezos. Capehart, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer known for his outspoken criticism of President Trump, had been with the Post since 2007. His exit was first reported by Axios on Monday. Capehart's final column for the Post, published in May, featured a conversation with Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on 'countering' the president. Advertisement 4 Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart has reportedly accepted a buyout from the paper, becoming the latest high-profile departure amid sweeping editorial changes. Getty Images for MVAAFF That same month, Capehart resigned from the newspaper's editorial board over a dispute with a white colleague about a piece that anazlyed Georgia's voting laws and their alleged racial implications. Capehart had previously referred to Trump as 'a cancer on the presidency and American society' and compared a rally held by Trump at Madison Square Garden to a Nazi rally at the same venue in 1939. The terms of his buyout were not disclosed. Advertisement Representatives for the Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Capehart will continue co-hosting MSNBC's 'The Weekend' and remain a panelist on PBS's 'NewsHour.' The buyout follows comments made by Washington Post CEO Will Lewis, who in recent weeks urged employees who do not 'feel aligned' with the company's editorial direction to resign. Advertisement 4 The newspaper's billionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, has shifted the publication's editorial direction. REUTERS His departure adds to a string of exits at the paper over the Beltway broadsheet's shift to the right. In February, Bezos ordered the Post's opinion section to focus on 'personal liberties and free markets.' The directive led to the resignation of Opinion Editor David Shipley, followed by the departure of multiple other opinion writers, including longtime columnist Ruth Marcus. Last month, Adam O'Neal, formerly of The Economist and The Dispatch, was named opinion editor. Advertisement 4 In May, Capehart quit the newspaper's editorial board after a dispute with a colleague over Georgia's voting laws. Getty Images Weeks later, popular columnist Joe Davidson announced he was leaving after one of his columns was killed for being 'too opinionated.' Davidson criticized the paper's ownership, stating that 'Bezos's policies and activities have projected the image of a Donald Trump supplicant.' The paper faced subscriber backlash after Bezos blocked a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris for president shortly before the election. Approximately 250,000 subscribers canceled their subscriptions. 4 The Washington Post has undergone significant change in the last year, including the departure of big-name reporters. AFP via Getty Images In January, several top reporters and editors — including Ashley Parker, Michael Scherer, Josh Dawsey and Tyler Pager — left the Post for rival outlets such as The Atlantic and the New York Times. Managing editor Matea Gold joined the Times' Washington bureau in late 2024. At the same time, the Post laid off 4% of its business-side staff due to profitability concerns. Earlier this year, more than 400 staff members signed an internal petition expressing concern over editorial independence and management decisions.
