Wasn’t sure if these had been linked to before.
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/CollegeROI/
Interesting to me how they look out over the long run – 40 years! Usually you see ROI data around six years after graduation or such. For students going to grad school, that timeframe is not going to reflect their wage outcomes.
@homerdog – particularly thought you’d be interested in this given your previous posts about ROI and LACs
I work in higher ed policy, and this research outfit is well respected for looking at link between education and labor market outcomes.
@AlmostThere2018 That link is fascinating! Thanks posting!
However, it does not have a way to specify by major. So it is not surprising that the many of top ROIs are at colleges focused on pharmacy, engineering, and CS (with a few fast-track-to-Wall-Street-and-management-consulting colleges thrown in).
@ucbalumnus It does help, though, for anyone looking at mostly LACs. Even though some of those majors might result in a better paying first job (econ, etc.), you can still compare schools and see how the income increases over time. Of course, these are all just averages and don’t tell any one story and have to be read as such.
@ucbalumnus – Yes. In fact, the LAC reports specifically highlights that colleges with more students majoring in STEM do better in ROI.
The study also points out that colleges located in high paying parts of the country do better. These colleges send more students into their own regional labor markets – so if they are located in a higher wage area, they will show a higher ROI.
On this last point, cool analysis would be if they could index grads’ wages to cost of living for where they end up. You’d get even more clear ROI.
Biology, math, mechanical engineering, and computer science are all STEM fields, but with varying job and pay prospects.
Out of curiosity I looked up the University of Pittsburgh. It seemed odd that all of the “satellite” campuses were shown to be better off than the main campus, which I found unlikely.
Looking closer at the data, the difference between each satellite and the main campus was exactly the same at every time interval, even though it’s a very different percentage.
Seems to me they just took income for “Pitt”, assigned it to every campus, and then the ROI delta is just the tuition delta. This tells me that the main campus is way under-reported and others way over-reported.
Then I looked at Penn State. Same. Anyone really think Penn State Behrend (and all 19 other sites) have a better ROI than the main campus?
This seems to be fatally flawed for any school with multiple campuses. And, for rankings, everyone.
Also, what does one study at Maine Maritime Academy to have better ROI than Harvard. It’s lower at 15 years and higher at 20 and 40 so they must be making significant $$$ mid-career.
A 2-year Nursing school in Queens ahead of most of the Ivies, and most everyone else? Really?
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/fields/?161299-Maine-Maritime-Academy indicates that the larger majors at Maine Maritime Academy include naval architecture ($92,700 median earnings), marine transportation ($81,500), engineering technology (other) ($76,600), and international business ($48,500).
Looks like these are only one year programs at public colleges (hence low cost compared to four year programs), so that probably helps financial ROI calculations.
Did they exclude advanced degree holders from the study? I don’t see how you measure ROI of a bachelors degree without taking that into account. A very high percentage of high earning liberal arts grads eventually get advanced degrees, and it’s the advanced degrees, not the bachelors degrees that accounts for the higher earnings.
This has data from 2 year, 4 year and certificate programs…so if you want only bachelors you have to filter for that. Indeed, certificate and 2 year nursing programs have among the highest ROIs of all, at least in the first decade or two. Bachelors degree earners eventually take over by year 40.
There is no filter for advanced degree, which leads me to believe it does not consider whether these students went on to get an advanced degree (or the two year/certificate students ultimately earned a bachelors…maybe they are in the data twice?).
The big caveat with this data is that it comes from Dept of Education’s College Scorecard…which only includes students who received federal aid (pell grant, federal direct student loans, seog, etc.). https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/
Some might say they would expect similar outcomes between those who received aid and those who didn’t, but the reality is we don’t know.
Those not getting FA may choose a different distribution of majors, but may also have more advantages like connections or general knowledge of high SES job markets.