<p>I once came across a listing that showed the average salaries that college graduates make based on degrees. (Bachelor/Master/Associate)</p>
<p>I copied it down but seem to have lost it. Not even sure how accurate it was. I think it went something like 2yr: 30k, and up 10k for every 2 yr higher degree on average. Would be interesting to find that back again, but...</p>
<p>What i'm really curious about at the moment is the average college graduate salary of the top colleges, IE Ivy Leagues, but also the other more prominent ones. I'm not sure if they've ever gathered or released such data, but it would be very interesting to see if it exists somewhere on the net.</p>
<p>A lot of prestige is put on Ivy colleges and other big names, but i'm curious if they really do pay off in the long run. If I had the opportunity to either join a fairly good state college that would pay my entire tuition, or go to an Ivy which might cost me a good $40k a year, would it really be worth it going the Ivy route?</p>
<p>In addition, there are no doubt far more brighter people going to Ivys than in some of the lesser known colleges. What would an employer consider to be better in credentials: A graduate from a lesser known college who was top of their class with honors, or a graduate from an ivy who was not top due to the stiffer competition. One would automatically think the Ivy, but how big of a difference does it make?</p>
<p>These are some questions i'm trying to find some answers to. I think the salary data would go a long way toward answering them. If anyone can offer an insights into this I would be very grateful.</p>
<p>I know Cornell sports around 48k avg salaries for its economics and business school last time I checked almost a year ago.</p>
<p>I have a good memory and I had to check it up to prove an argument :)</p>
<p>I have many kids asking me about CMU so I do have the data memorized.</p>
<p>Business: 55k average starting base salary not including bonuses. With bonuses would be over 60k from my experiences.
CS: 77-80k average starting salary not including bonus.</p>
<p>I think the average salary at most Ivies for all majors is in the high 40ks. I'm about to go to bed and am tired so I recommend going to each school's website and looking it up yourself.</p>
<p>To answer your question: Are Ivies better because they are Ivies? No
Are Top schools good for their respective programs? Yes. It depends on the program and the school. Example: It is probably better going to NYU for Finance than going to say, UChicago.. Depends on the program and the school.</p>
<p>having money and being wealthy has less to do with how much money you make. being wealthy involves smart investing.</p>
<p>i th ink the whole degree starting salary is honestly a load of crap. </p>
<p>i say this mainly because as a registered nurse, which is at the most 2 year degree necessary, you start getting paid more than the average starting salary of a bachelors degree and sometimes of someone who has a masters.</p>
<p>somone who has a masters degree can easily make a really bad salary as well, like a social worker(which nowadays they require a masters)</p>
<p>having money and being wealthy has less to do with how much money you make. being wealthy involves smart investing.</p>
<p>the implicit assumption a lot of HS kids make is that ysalaries follow a curve of some type and that there's a bunch of non-intersecting curves on the graph, so if you can jump onto a higher curve you'll always be making more than someone on a lower curve. Since starting salaries set what curve you're on, out pops the focus on starting salaries by major and (as n the OP's case) by school.</p>
<p>liek0806 is right; starting salaries are not that important. What matters is the rough shape of the curve over time. Engineers start out high, for example, but lawyers and physicians will pass them in a few years. And it is a mistake to put too much credence in the "curve" idea as the determiner of what you earn, because the salary you get over time is not predetermined by school & major, it depends on YOU. If you get promoted and work hard, you will earn more than someone who is lazier or just in the wrong field. So you can land a great job out of a top school because your employer is betting on your potential, but if it turns out you don't have the right aptitude you will soon be passed by the state-school grad who excels.</p>
<p>Disagree.. although the idea that one who is hardworking can achieve whatever they set their minds to compared to someone who has had their career path 'paved in gold' is noble, I don't think it's very practical most of the time. The latter will always have an advantage, however slight. The question is, how much of one?</p>
<p>When it comes down to two semi-equal applicants applying for the same high paying job, how much weight is the employer going to give to an 'I graduated from Princeton' vs 'I graduated from a state college'? It's undeniable that, with all other factors equal, the Princeton applicant would be chosen. The question is just how much of an impact does this have in swaying the average employer's decision. Many technical/science jobs are in extremely short supply and in high demand, especially in more rural areas of the country. Many people in certain occupations might have trouble finding employment there unless they plan to completely relocate to a different place, and that extra benefit that graduating from an Ivy gives might be just what it takes to secure the position.</p>
<p>Of course, there's going to be a lot of variation. Ivys probably host a disproportionate amount of high paying majors, or else a lot of people would pass it off due to the huge tuition costs. Then you have the issue of motivation being a big influence, where the Ivys also probably lead by far, since motivation plays a big part in education and thus the high standardized test scores that Ivys demand that are a sizeable factor in admission.</p>
<p>I guess the data i'm looking for would be next to impossible to gather accurately though. It was a nice thought anyhow.</p>
<p>I understand your interest in the question, but I really do think it's a rather tough one to answer. </p>
<p>First, I'd like to point out that salaries differ so wildly that an average is near meaningless. If you care to quote salaries for a certain major, like AcceptedAlready so frequently does for CMU business, it can be quite accurate. An average salary for all fields, however, is rather insignificant. I can assure you with considerable confidence that an archaeology major will not come out making the same amount of money (or anywhere even close) as a computer science or business graduate, even if they all graduated from MIT. Add in salaries earned with additional education, and the issue becomes even more blurred. </p>
<p>Second, college is an investment. You're getting an education, and the important thing is to get the best bang for your buck. If it comes down between UCLA for $12,000 in-state (or however much) and Brown for $46,000, you'd better have a darned good reason for choosing Brown. An excellent education can be found at a good many schools that don't tout Ivy status, so that needs to be recognized. Duke and NC State are not exactly considered peer institutions by most of the US, but most reasonable people would choose NC State for engineering. Its programs are just as good, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper. NC State engineers come out making a lot more money than a Duke sociology major, I'd wager. Having a name brand college on your resume can be a boost; I've experienced this myself. HOWEVER, it would be folly to assume that a Princeton grad would automatically make more than someone else. Your college is very important in getting your first job, but it decreases in importance with each successive job you take. Qualities like leadership, punctuality, and organization can serve you in as good stead as your college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, college is an investment. You're getting an education, and the important thing is to get the best bang for your buck. If it comes down between UCLA for $12,000 in-state (or however much) and Brown for $46,000, you'd better have a darned good reason for choosing Brown.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it's not just an investment in the hopes of making a person smarter and worth more in the job market, it's also an investment in college experience. Some people may feel that one college may offer an experience (be it intellectual, social, cultural, etc.) that is, based on his or her priorities, so much higher than another college, that it may be worth paying a lot more money. Does the college experience at Brown justify the higher cost? That's really not for me to say: everyone's looking at a different criteria.</p>
<p>
[quote]
HOWEVER, it would be folly to assume that a Princeton grad would automatically make more than someone else. Your college is very important in getting your first job, but it decreases in importance with each successive job you take. Qualities like leadership, punctuality, and organization can serve you in as good stead as your college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. However, I think one of the big advantages of going to a place like Princeton or Harvard or wherever is the fact that, by the selection that goes on in admission, there's likely to be a greater concentration of people with the intellectual and leadership qualities necessary for success. How many more students than State U? How much more prepared to succeed than State U? Personally, I'd guess not that much higher, but it's tough to say. I guess the idea is that with a bunch of sharp kids in a place, you're either forced to sharpen up yourself or become the dull kid in town.</p>
<p>
[quote]
for engineering, undergrad doesnt matter to much (except maybe for MIT and Caltech)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, a lot of engineering students at HYPSM end up going into things like finance, where the pay is incredibly high. </p>
<p>Check out the MIT post-undergrad plans, for example. So many engineering students never pursue engineering at all. And though it may not show initially because pay in engineering and management consulting might be close immediately after undergrad, the difference becomes significant later on.</p>
<p>true, but I was refering for those who only had an undergrad engineering degree. (although it would be a HUGE shame for anyone who got into MIT to not attend any grad school...)</p>
<p>University of Penn: 40000/45300
average: $42,300</p>
<p>John Hopkins: $39,700</p>
<p>Cornell: $45,370 </p>
<p>Princeton average: $50,400</p>
<p>Of course, the above figures are only pretty to look at and are otherwise meaningless. Starting salaries vary greatly by major. Each university graduates unequal numbers of students uder each major. Hence there is inherent bonus in average starting salary for schools that graduate more of some particular majors and less of others. For example, JHU may graduate more students who go into biomedical research while Princeton may graduate more students who go into business and law, salaries for which are higher than for biomedical research. </p>
<p>So it is more meaningful to compare salary by majors. But even then factors such as location matter quite a few $$. For each major some regions in united states are more hospitable salary-wise than others. Colleges will differ as to in what region of US most of their students found a job.</p>
<p>At least for my major it is nice to know that: UC Berkeley 42,900; Cornell 44,600 but Cornell would have cost me twice as much as UCB.</p>
<p>^ How did you get this information? I know at my school, the career services department compiles surveys from graduating seniors. The average starting salary (signing bonuses not included) for an Econ major here is $57K, but even this statistic is skewed because a) not all Econ majors enter the workforce straight out of college and b) some of those that do probably didn't bother to answer the survey.</p>
<p>Starting salary is really of little long term importance to your earning power. A good portion of it is determined by your carreer choice... notice that I did not say major. Other than technical fields (engineering, medicine, etc.) most people do not end up working long term in the area that their degree is in. So your carreer path ends up being important. I have a history major managing our applications engineering group.
The other more important factor is your own skills and ability to be promoted. A fast track person who went to State U is going to be making a lot more in 5 years than an average player from Ivy U.
When we are interviewing, we are looking for communications skills and a major in a wide variety of areas that we have learned will be able to be adapted to our needs in the workplace. Notice what I said: COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS. We want people who can communicate thier ideas and sell them internally and externally. Your ability to put together a well spoken interview is critical.
Don't get hung up on a specific school and degree as being the key to making buckets of money. The key to making a lot of money is to be employeed in the right general industry (there is more growth right now in IT than in meat packing) and most important: Your own skill and enthusiasm.
By the way; one interesting thing that happens when we are doing campus interviews is that we have so many applicants that we are looking for ways to thin down the ranks. The first way that we do this by looking for any typos or misspellings in the resumes. So make sure that they are perfect. That is all we know you by.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have many kids asking me about CMU so I do have the data memorized.</p>
<p>...CS: 77-80k average starting salary not including bonus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I highly doubt this is true, and if it is, it is absolutely amazing. After all, bachelor's degree graduates in EECS at MIT are only making 66k (p. 14 of the following pdf).</p>
<p>If CMU CS grads are really making 10-15k more than the MIT grads are, then that's absolutely shocking. So shocking, that I have an extremely hard time believing it, especially when you consider the fact that Boston has a significantly higher cost of living than Pittsburgh does. </p>
<p>That's why I strongly suspect that the CMU numbers you are citing as far far too optimistic.</p>