I note whenever I am introducing the concept of looking at LACs to someone who I am not sure is familiar with them, I have gotten into the habits of writing something like, “Liberal Arts and Sciences Colleges (LACs).”
As reflected in the Carnegie classifications, Arts and Sciences probably is the most proper term for the typical curriculum range of a normal LAC. And the main things they normally lack are Engineering, Business, or specialties like Nursing. Fine and performing arts is complicated because some might have BFA and/or conservatory programs, and some not. And a few do have Engineering and/or Business, but it is just a small list.
But understanding that every school can do whatever it likes, Liberal Arts and Sciences Colleges seems to better convey the basic focus of most LACs better than just Liberal Arts Colleges to people unfamiliar with these terms and their usage.
As a side benefit, this can also then track how a lot of universities with major subdivisions within their undergrad program label things. So, lots of those universities will have a College of Arts and Sciences (or something similar), which is where you will find most of the majors you would also find at a typical LAC. Which might be useful to know when comparing options.
To bring this around to the original topic, I do think it would be interesting to have outcome data for, say, the College of Arts and Sciences (or whatever they call it) at such a research university, if you want to compare to similar data for a typical LAC. This concept is subject to most of the objections above anyway, but at least it would help control for some of the issues caused by things like Business or Engineering majors being anything from 0% to a relatively robust percent of majors at any given undergrad program taken as a whole.
And of course if you WERE intending to do Business or Engineering or Nursing or so on, then data for that subdivision would again seem to be more what you would want, without the added “noise” caused by lumping in Arts and Sciences (often the biggest single subdvision) and irrelevant specialty subdivisions.
All posts going forward should stay on topic to the OP. Please remember this thread was started by a vetted and approved partner organization, and we should respect their time by keeping our posts relevant. I’m sure they will appreciate any feedback applicable to their initiatives, but the conversation about LACs has jumped the shark. Thank you for your understanding.
We are a full pay California family with 3 kids. Our third just graduated from a music conservatory last month.
We did not look at ROI of any schools/programs for any of our kids. If we were looking to maximize the Return part of the equation we would have picked their majors/fields of study for them. Not the school.
In my opinion, the field of study and the student themself are much bigger predictors of income level down the road. And even that can be pretty darn unpredictable.
As it was, we very much controlled the Investment part of the equation. Each kid had about the same allotment. They knew the more merit they received, the more choices they would have. If they ended up at a lower cost school, they could save some of their funds for living expenses or grad school.
We certainly did not advise them on their field of study and we let them follow their passion and interests. We have 2 with Music Performance degrees and one with a degree in education and a teaching credential.
All 3 have supported themselves upon graduation. All are very happy with their education and current work situations. None of them are wealthy, but it does not seem to be a focus in their lives. At least not now.
I think it would be interesting to have a list like
Best ROI if you major in English
Best ROI if you major in Economics
Best ROI if you major in Biology.. Education.. Applied Math/Data Science.. Art.. Physics… Sociology/American Studies.. Foreign Languages… Etc, especially outside of moneymaker majors like CS and Finance where you’re more likely to recoup costs. But most students are going to major in something else.
Also, best ROI X vs. Z where the majors are similar enough that a student interested in one could be interested in the other - Packaging vs. marketing, agribusiness vs business economics, sustainability studies vs. Environnemental studies…
How should ROI be computed for such a list? As an example exercise, CollegeScorecard lists the following 10 colleges as having the highest 1st and 2nd year median earnings among biology majors, who are in federal database. I am computing as average (median 1st year, median 2nd year). I also listed cost stats, as listed in most recent IPEDS. How should these colleges be ranked for having the best ROI, if you major in biology?
Early Earnings, Sticker Price, Average Price for $75k - $110k Income Family
The OP stated “for CA public colleges” so that limits the list.
For instance, is it better to attend Sonoma State, San Francisco State, Chico State or Sacramento State as a Biology major if you want the best ROI?
Base cost would be similar but positions and salaries may differ. Or maybe not??
The original post also lists ROI for private colleges like Harvard and Caltech, and links to a ROI database that does not limit to any particular state. I also don’t take the thread title question about using ROI data to create a college list, as only applying to persons looking at CA public colleges.
This. We did not look at ROI and as has been mentioned here and in another thread, these data are fraught with problems and limitations. Self report data is always limited. Both of my kids live in California and their kids/our grandkids will be dealing with college issues down the road. But it’s way down the road.
Specific numbers for the listed 4 CA public colleges are below. Earnings stats are from most recent 3 classes in Cal State database, at 2 years out. Sticker price is higher at SF State than the others due to higher cost of housing. This higher cost of living in SF also influences how far salary goes for grads who remain in the SF Bay area. I also listed % who persist in the major and graduate, as ROI is likely lower for students who do not graduate, which are not included in earnings stats.
Middle 50% Earnings, Sticker Price for In State, Average Cost for $75k to $110k Income, % of Students Persisting to Graduation
SF State – Earn = $39k to $72k (30% work in health care), Sticker = $36k, Cost = $17k, 32% Graduate
Sacramento – Earn = $38k to $67k (26% work in health care), Sticker = $33k, Cost = $15k, 36% Graduate
Sonoma – Earn = $37k to $61k (49% work in health care), Sticker = $29k, Cost = $16k, 31% Graduate
Chico – Earn = $32k to $68k (100% work in health care), Sticker = $29k, Cost = $18k, 42% Graduate
It’s not obvious to me which of these 4 colleges to choose “if you want the best ROI”. I think more influential on ROI could be reviewing what is different about the career paths for bio majors leading to the 25th percentile income of ~$35k and the career paths leading to the 75th percentile income of ~$67k. For example, Cornell’s database breaks down the earnings by employment industry for bio majors. A bio bachelor’s degree recipient (no further degrees) working in healthcare tends to result in relatively lower median early career earnings. While a bio major working in tech or consulting tends to result in relatively higher earnings. Obviously a MD also usually results in higher career earnings, which is a common goal among bio majors. At Cornell, roughly 1/3 of bio majors pursue advanced degrees immediately after graduating instead of work (not included in stats below), the most common of which are PhD and MD.
Cornell Bio Majors, First Destination
39% – Healthcare – Median = $41k/year (MA General Hospital)
29% – Education – Median = $44k/year (Cornell University)
8% – Biotech – Median = $64k/year (Broad Institute at MIT)
5% – Consulting – Median = $78k/year (Guidepoint)
4% – Government – Median = $37k/year (National Institute of Health)
3% – Tech – Median = $83k/year (Epic Systems, Apple, Google)
Overall – Median = $44k/year (top 2 employers are both within Cornell)
It’s also relevant what career paths are more/less likely to result in finding employment at all. For example, San Jose State has the highest median earnings of all CA public colleges for employed bio majors, but on average roughly the same percentage of bio majors are employed as unemployed and looking for work 6 months after graduating. Many of the other CA public colleges with slightly lower median earnings among employed students have a larger portion students finding employment soon after graduating.
These types of details are difficult to encompass when ranking colleges in a ROI list, but can be more easily made available when listing the stats in isolation without ranking by ROI.
We are not considering return on investment “data” for many of the reasons that others have already eloquently laid out. There is so much noise and so many variables as others have laid out. Another variable that points to the absurdity of trying is that our kid is undecided on major and will go into college that way. It highlights the foolishness of thinking of ROI when your kid could ultimately major in Econ and go into consulting or become an elementary school teacher or anything in between. The school she attends is at best a minor variable on ROI compared to that choice.
Moreover, I don’t even think the “return” in ROI is the right way to think about college. I’ve been a public servant for years. I made made more money before going into public service, but am far more satisfied with my life and career now. By ROI standards I am doing worse than I was before. But my life is 1000% better. Why would I measure my daughter’s choices by a measure that doesn’t account for the most important aspect of my career. Beyond a certain point, other things are more valuable than money. And what that point is varies widely by individual.
The value of attending one school over another cannot just be reduced to a misapplied pseudo economics concept. College is not just about maximizing wealth, or it shouldn’t be for most people. As others have said, the key is to determine what you are comfortable investing in the education which is more controllable and knowable. But, leave the pretending to be able to assess a “return” ahead of time and trying to quantify that out of it.
