That is why what happens anywhere in the system has a ripple effect even on selective universities. I have often wondered how many students don’t even apply to selective schools thinking they have no chance but, would be perfect for those schools. And the whole issue of a fair allocation of financial aid cuts across every aspect of post-secondary education.
I’ve come across so many degrees/program offerings that I know will lead absolutely nowhere and kids just take them because it is perceived as “easier”. In my neck of the woods, vocational careers like electricians, carpenters, plumbers etc… are in ridiculously high demand but, I don’t believe an adequate job is being done guiding kids to these opportunities.
Many universities certainly publish this information. Also students receiving loans through FAFSA are required to provide detailed employment information and is in the Dept of Education’s College Scorecard. Some publications, like the WSJ, actually rank schools based on outcomes data. Let’s no let prefect be the enemy of good.
Full-pay here, so I was unaware. I wonder if that’s representative data, and does it follow the grads for a period of time, or just immediately post-graduation?
Here is what College Scorecard uses for its earnings by major at each college:
Looks like it currently uses earnings up to four years after graduation, but has a goal of eventually being able to show earnings up to ten years after graduation.
Ranking entire colleges by pay of graduates does confound college versus major effects. Lots of engineering and/or CS heavy colleges find their way to the top of such rankings, but that is not particularly useful for students not in engineering or CS.
If that information was known, many people would likely make different admissions decisions than they did (whether applying to different schools or selecting different schools that were provided as options through the admissions process).
I agree. And part of this needs to be education about discounting. Inflating the sticker price and then discounting the sticker price and calling it a merit scholarship is something that is now integral to the admissions process at most less selective colleges. Some of these schools are admitting students they know are probably not college ready because they are hurting for enrollment. And yet they still give massive “merit scholarships” to entice these students to enroll. It gives families the mistaken message that their child’s prospects for college success are good.
I’ve seen a lot of the car dealership way of school pricing at so many schools. Kids with sub 3.0 GPAs are getting merit scholarships based on an overpriced sticker price. This creates the false illusion of a “deal”. I agree, it creates a false sense of ability to succeed in college. So rather, than bump up the merits for the high academic achievers, they choose the lowest denominator route, which in the longer team allows them to fill capacity but at subpar academic level WHICH in the long run hurts the school. Set the price at the REAL price and give merits to the students who actually had strong high school grades.