Communicating CGE/CTI placement results plays out over a few weeks in late May-July, after the official CGE publication and before the back-to-school period. The flagship indicators to highlight: net employment rate, median gross salary, share of permanent contracts, time to first job — always qualified by the response rate. On the rankings side, L'Étudiant directly uses the CGE database while Le Figaro and Le Monde send their own questionnaires: target the rankings that really drive applicants. On the channels side: the "What next" page on the website, admission brochure, educational LinkedIn posts with alumni testimonials. No individual data is ever published — GDPR requires it.
When should you publish 2026 CGE/CTI placement results?
Between late May and early July, after official publication by the CGE and before the main window for rankings and back-to-school communication. Too early, and you communicate before validation; too late, and you miss the windows for applications and rankings that close in September-October.
The annual calendar is now well established for schools used to the exercise. The campaign closes in February-March based on a December 1 reference date. Data is consolidated and sent to the CGE in March-April. Official publication by the CGE takes place during May. From then on, you have roughly eight useful weeks to communicate before your audiences' attention shifts elsewhere (vacations, then back-to-school).
Three milestones to coordinate with your communications team. First, the CGE embargo: do not communicate before official publication — it is a strong implicit rule of the community. Next, the ranking windows that reopen in spring and close in late summer. Finally, the accreditation milestones (HCERES, CTI) that may require a specific submission. If you are not yet sure of your internal schedule, the complete 2026 CGE survey calendar details month by month what must happen upstream and downstream.
Which indicators to highlight (and which to qualify)?
Four flagship indicators: net employment rate, median gross salary, share of permanent contracts, time to first job. Always qualified by the survey response rate — without it, any figure is suspect.
The net employment rate is the CGE reference. It is the number of alumni in employment relative to the number of alumni actively looking (thus excluding those continuing their studies, international volunteering, etc.). It is the most comparable indicator from one school to another, and the one the rankings expect.
The median gross salary is more honest than the average salary: the average is pulled upward by a few exceptional contracts (finance, consulting, expatriation to Asia) that do not represent a graduate's typical experience. Communicating the median signals a rigorous approach — and it is, incidentally, what the CGE favors in its national summaries.
The share of permanent contracts among first jobs and the time to first job (in months, often under 2 for well-placed schools) complete the picture. For an engineering school, add the international share; for a business school, the consulting/finance share. Adapt to your positioning.
The classic trap is publishing a 96% rate without specifying that the survey response rate dropped to 38%. The figure then becomes technically true but misleading — and any competent journalist will turn it back on you. Better to display 94% with a 72% response rate: that is the combination that builds credibility. To set your benchmarks, see our article on the CGE survey response rate, and the method for analyzing CGE results through to board reporting.
How to submit your results to the rankings (Figaro, L'Étudiant, Le Monde)?
L'Étudiant directly uses the CGE data already transmitted, no separate submission. Le Figaro Étudiant and Le Monde send distinct questionnaires in spring with their weighted criteria. Consistency between the data sent and the data published is checked, so concentrate the effort on the rankings that really drive applicants to you.
The landscape of French rankings is not uniform — and their weight varies according to your type of school and your targets. For a business school: Le Figaro (widely read by prépa families), L'Étudiant (student press reference), Le Monde (respected newcomer), and for post-bac Eduniversal. For an engineering school: broadly the same hierarchy, plus Usine Nouvelle and L'Usine Digitale depending on the specialties. Internationally: QS, Times Higher Education, Financial Times for MBAs.
For each, the mechanics are different. L'Étudiant largely consolidates its ranking from the data you transmitted to the CGE: your work is already 80% done, you validate and complete a few ranking-specific sections. Le Figaro Étudiant sends its questionnaire between March and June with its own weightings (placement, salary, international, student satisfaction, research). Le Monde and the others operate through separate questionnaires, sometimes up to six in total per year for an active school.
Three golden rules for this submission. First, centralize: a single reference person for the numerical data, otherwise discrepancies from one submission to another appear and undermine credibility. Next, track what has been transmitted (date, version, scope) — useful both for internal checks and for responding to a journalist who asks. Finally, prioritize: taking part in a ranking that does not court your targets consumes time for zero return. If you reach 80% prépa students, international MBA rankings can wait.
Integrating results into the school website and application brochures
A dedicated "What next" page on the website, a synthetic one-page insert in the admission brochures, and a discreet but factual integration on the program pages: that is the minimum an applicant (and their parents) actively look for.
On the website, the placement page is one of the most visited pages on the school site during the application period (between January and April, and again in July for late applications). Its useful structure: a block of key figures at the top (employment rate, median salary, permanent contracts, time to first job), a simple chart of trends over 3-5 years, the breakdown by program if you have several, two to three named alumni testimonials with photos, and the methodological note at the bottom of the page (reference date, response rate, exact scope). This methodological note is what sets you apart from a raw marketing site.
In the application brochures, count on one dense page: one large dominant figure (employment rate), three secondary indicators, a mini trend chart, two short testimonials. No more — beyond that, the reader disengages.
On the program pages (a given track or specialization), the trap is to copy-paste the general school figures. If a program is too small for statistically meaningful data, it is better to refer to the school figures with an explicit note than to display a 100% rate on 8 respondents — which impresses no one and makes competitors smile. The rule used by the CGE itself is not to publish detail below a minimum threshold of respondents.
Social media and LinkedIn: how to communicate without over-interpreting
A launch post when results come out, then a cadence of one in-depth post per month over the summer, with an educational format (one dominant figure + a narrative + an alumni testimonial) rather than a wall of statistics.
LinkedIn is now the dominant channel for a school's placement communication: it reaches alumni (pride effect, sharing), prescribers (parents, prépa teachers, guidance counselors) and recruiters (who validate the quality of the outcome) all at once. The winning format is not the cold statistical visual, but the educational carousel: a cover slide with the dominant figure ("96% of our 2025 graduates employed at 6 months"), slides that explain the methodology in simple terms, a slide that provides context (trend vs previous years, sector comparison), and a slide that ends on a concrete alumni story with a link to their profile.
The trap to avoid is the poorly framed "victory" effect: announcing "100% placement" without giving the detail, without saying how many respondents, without specifying the scope. It immediately triggers critical comments from alumni themselves ("and those who didn't respond?"), from journalists or competitors — and the post backfires. Factual, nuanced communication always gains in credibility what it loses in announcement effect.
On cadence, count on a launch post (the week of the official publication), then one in-depth post per month over July and August to maintain visibility ahead of the back-to-school period. Each in-depth post takes an angle: a track, a type of employer, a region, a long testimonial. This turns raw data into a story that can be told and that lasts.
Which methodological and GDPR precautions to observe?
Never publish individual data, always display the response rate, do not publish detail on small cohorts (typically fewer than 10 respondents), and flag any change of methodology from one year to the next. The GDPR governs everything that touches the individual; professional ethics govern everything that touches comparability.
On the GDPR side, individual survey responses are personal data, sometimes sensitive (professional situation, income, sector). Communication therefore covers only anonymized aggregates. For low-headcount segments (for example a specialization with 7 respondents), do not publish the detail: a cross-reference with other public data may be enough to re-identify an individual. This precaution is explicitly provided for by the CGE methodology.
On year-over-year comparability, if you change methodology — broadening the scope, a new question, a new employment-rate calculation — flag it clearly. A "+6 points" that results from a change of calculation, and not from a real improvement, always ends up being spotted and damages your credibility more lastingly than a modest figure.
On the collection itself, the good practices you apply upstream feed into the quality of what you publish. A high response rate rests on three levers already detailed in the blog: pre-filling the questionnaire, avoiding the seven classic mistakes of a campaign, and switching to a structured tool instead of a makeshift one — see why migrate from Google Forms to a CGE survey software. For the distinction between CTI and CGE requirements that may affect your communication depending on your status, see the 8 differences between the CTI and CGE questionnaires. And to structure your entire setup, Terrilink's CGE/CTI Surveys module covers the collection → analysis → reporting chain.