This New York Times article includes a database that shows earnings for comparable majors across different universities. It’s quite revealing. Compare earnings for finance or business majors between “prestige” schools and others, for example. The data is taken four years after graduation for students who received federal financial aid and and graduated in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 periods.
I’ve attached a gift link…don’t know how long it will last.
Here’s the introduction:
“History majors can out-earn English majors by more than $50,000 four years after graduation.
A Juilliard graduate — trained at one of the country’s most prestigious music schools — may not earn more than the median high school graduate.
And the place to get the single most lucrative degree in America wasn’t in the Ivy League, and it wasn’t in a computer science program. It was in the mathematics department at Duke, where the median income among graduates was $297,029.”
Just for fun and also based on the “Prestige” school discussion on another thread I looked up finance majors at several schools. We’re from Tennessee and my kids went to Wake Forest for undergrad so I chose these for a sample:
Yes, I think that’s the point of the comparison. Graduates of the same major from different schools feed into different jobs. The UPenn finance major isn’t going to Hormel.
This HEA study uses data from College Scorecard, so same (incomplete) source database that Georgetown’s CEW ROI database uses. Incomplete in the sense that the College Scorecard database includes only those who received federal financial aid (e.g., pell grants, direct student loans, etc.) It does not include full pay students, those who took private loans, those who received state aid, and/or those who received institutional aid.
There were only 17 students in the Duke Math cohort, representing the # of math majors who received financial aid during the two-year measurement period. As @Mwfan1921 commented above, limited database, so salary data cannot be accessed for many majors as too few students on financial aid graduated with that major.
My son was a math major, but I cannot look up earnings for his school because of the inadequate sample size. It would be interesting to see the distribution of salary points.
I was being a little flippant just to point out that there are unique career options with higher salary outcomes in certain majors at the more selective schools.
But is that due to selection effect (stronger incoming students are likely to be more attractive to employers as they graduate) or treatment effect (employers only hire or prefer graduates from specific schools), or a combination?
Likely the answer to the above varies depending on employer, type of job, and college major.
Also IME, students who successfully access high paying jobs from highly rejectives tend to be affluent students and/or athletes. Some of the ‘elite’ jobs (and employers) are not egalitarian.
I’m sure that’s true for some, but the population represented in the database is students who have received federal financial aid. Wouldn’t the results in the sample I used indicate that nonaffluent students benefit in salary outcomes from attending the more selective schools? Surely they are not all athletes.
Yes, but that’s different than non-affluent students accessing elite jobs. Anyway, I don’t disagree with your point. I also have no idea what proportion of middle/upper middle/affluent students take the student loans but surely some do.
I’ve made this point before in the many threads on students accessing high paying jobs from highly rejective schools. What we know for sure is that these schools generally aren’t highly ranked for social mobility. Partially because they take relatively few low income students in absolute numbers, plus it’s extraordinarily difficult for say a Questbridge kid to navigate IB or MBB recruiting from highly rejective schools. IMO they have a better chance of accessing these jobs from a school like Baruch…which is a leader in social mobility.
I don’t understand. Regardless of the student getting their job by selection and/or treatment effect, the salary is higher at the more selective schools. They benefit either way.
I don’t have the numbers from Baruch. And I am a HUGE Baruch fan.
But I don’t think the facts would support your contention. Baruch likely leads in helping first gen, low income students launch into support roles-- many of which are highly paid, interesting roles with very well defined career opportunities long term. But these are NOT the “I banking” jobs most people refer to on CC. Jobs on the technology team (not originating for tech companies- but the internal tech team for the bank), human resources, operations, facilities-- all of these are important and some are very lucrative. But they aren’t “my salary is $250K and my bonus is multiples of that” lucrative, and they aren’t in origination, M&A and the other “sexy” functions.
I have recommended Baruch dozens of times to kids who want a Wall Street career (or think they do) but don’t have the analytical horsepower that they’d need to get into Wharton or similar. But I am careful to explain that there are dozens of Wall Street careers. And for many of them, Baruch is a fantastic option.
“plus it’s extraordinarily difficult for say a Questbridge kid to navigate IB or MBB recruiting from highly rejective schools.”
It is extraordinarily difficult for anyone to navigate IB or MBB recruiting. McKinsey rejects more Harvard kids than it hires. Bain rejects more Wharton kids than it hires. Lather, rinse, repeat. It is no more difficult for a Questbridge kid than it is for anyone else. It is difficult. When the hiring targets expand (in a good hiring cycle) it is marginally easier, just because candidates who are on the bubble are going to get a second look. But only marginally easier. When targets contract, it becomes extremely difficult all around.
What is your basis for assuming that it’s more difficult for a Questbridge kid than anyone else?
If “these jobs” means Business Analyst at McKinsey or the junior hire on the M&A team at Goldman Sachs- then no. Baruch- as wonderful as it is, is not a good launch pad.
If “these jobs” means Campus Recruiting Coordinator at McKinsey or Facilities Analyst at Goldman- yes. Then we agree.
But there are PLENTY of roles- even at the “prestige obsessed” finance and consulting firms, that do not require “prestige” resumes. I don’t think that’s what most people refer to on CC when they want their kid to land in IB or MBB!
Again, this is IME. And IME recruiting is over for those jobs (at least the internships and special programs for first gen/women/etc) before many of the low income students even know they should have gone to the career center and/or started networking in freshman and soph years.