Bloomberg ROI metric for top 25 schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, this list, which is the same list as the WSJ list thread only pulls numbers "For undergraduate students receiving federal financial aid".

That is why the list doesn't mean what you think it means, OP. Did you even bother reading that part?

There are lots of donut families who don't receive federal aid.

There are families who pay for college with 529.

Typically, state univ are cheaper and don't require that much federal aid.

So, once again, that metric is really only meaningful if you take federal loans. The majority of students/families do not take out federal loans.

Now, do you understand why this list is meaningless?

Once again you are totally backward and wrong.
This is for anyone who received/used any form of federal program - grant, subsidized loan, unsubsidized loan, plus loan.
Donut families are likely to use Federal parent plus loans.
34% of undergraduate students receive a Pell grant alone.
The Majority gets one or more of these.

Nobody cares about where Trump's son goes, what he majors, and what he makes after graduation.
Probably making multi millions right after college working for his dad.
This data actually eliminates these kinds of people that often skew the real number for real people.

The data comes from IRS, loan servicing companies, etc. rather than 'self-reporting' numbers by schools.
This is the most reliable income data worth referencing for low income, mid class, umc folks.

Once again, the list only includes those who get federal money. Lots of donut hole families and public state u students don't get that.

So the data is eliminating not just the Trumps of the world, but also UMC/MC families with zero federal money, and/or families who take private but not federal loans. Those exist, too. We're a donut family. We applied for FAFSA. We got zilch. But, we are not taking out any loans because DC is going to an in state college with merit.

You can also see that the majority of the schools on that list are stupid expensive, so the students probably needed more financial aid. The list also looks at income 10 years out, so that will include people who have gone on to masters degrees, law, medical, etc..

The list is mixing people who have graduate with just undergrad degrees. It doesn't make any sense.

If you want to compare apples to applies, then compare just undergrad degree earners, not masters.

Data analysis is important.

OP's list school as a whole.

It provides info by major which is more helpful.

No data or statistics is perfect, but this is the best source out there to reference.

You can choose to ignore.

Once again, the data mixes undergrad with grad.

By major is 3 year out.
You can argue about folks going to grad schools, but this is the best source.
Use it to your advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder why NU has such relative high cost and low earnings compared to its peer schools

It's overrated. It's a 15-25 school. Like Emory Notre Dame level. Not top 10.

NU's programs and offerings are stronger across the board than most schools ranked 15-25. I'd say it's accurately rated as borderline/cusp T10.

It’s also stronger than some schools rated in the top 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, this list, which is the same list as the WSJ list thread only pulls numbers "For undergraduate students receiving federal financial aid".

That is why the list doesn't mean what you think it means, OP. Did you even bother reading that part?

There are lots of donut families who don't receive federal aid.

There are families who pay for college with 529.

Typically, state univ are cheaper and don't require that much federal aid.

So, once again, that metric is really only meaningful if you take federal loans. The majority of students/families do not take out federal loans.

Now, do you understand why this list is meaningless?

DP. Then ignore COA, and take a look at salary info. Geez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, this list, which is the same list as the WSJ list thread only pulls numbers "For undergraduate students receiving federal financial aid".

That is why the list doesn't mean what you think it means, OP. Did you even bother reading that part?

There are lots of donut families who don't receive federal aid.

There are families who pay for college with 529.

Typically, state univ are cheaper and don't require that much federal aid.

So, once again, that metric is really only meaningful if you take federal loans. The majority of students/families do not take out federal loans.

Now, do you understand why this list is meaningless?

Once again you are totally backward and wrong.
This is for anyone who received/used any form of federal program - grant, subsidized loan, unsubsidized loan, plus loan.
Donut families are likely to use Federal parent plus loans.
34% of undergraduate students receive a Pell grant alone.
The Majority gets one or more of these.

Nobody cares about where Trump's son goes, what he majors, and what he makes after graduation.
Probably making multi millions right after college working for his dad.
This data actually eliminates these kinds of people that often skew the real number for real people.

The data comes from IRS, loan servicing companies, etc. rather than 'self-reporting' numbers by schools.
This is the most reliable income data worth referencing for low income, mid class, umc folks.

Once again, the list only includes those who get federal money. Lots of donut hole families and public state u students don't get that.

So the data is eliminating not just the Trumps of the world, but also UMC/MC families with zero federal money, and/or families who take private but not federal loans. Those exist, too. We're a donut family. We applied for FAFSA. We got zilch. But, we are not taking out any loans because DC is going to an in state college with merit.

You can also see that the majority of the schools on that list are stupid expensive, so the students probably needed more financial aid. The list also looks at income 10 years out, so that will include people who have gone on to masters degrees, law, medical, etc..

The list is mixing people who have graduate with just undergrad degrees. It doesn't make any sense.

If you want to compare apples to applies, then compare just undergrad degree earners, not masters.

Data analysis is important.

Read above.

"According to the National Center for Education Statistics, over 85 percent of students receive some form of financial aid"

Yes, because the majority of loans is for graduate degrees, not undergrad. The list is comparing apples to oranges.

https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics

30% of undergraduate students borrow federal loans.
66% of graduate students borrow federal loans.

The list you posted shows average cost for undergrad (and for instate for public), and income 10 years out, but it doesn't indicate whether that 10 yrs out includes people without graduate degrees or not.

Typically, engineers don't get graduate degrees, and the top 10 paying fields with those with just undergrad degrees are mostly engineers (9 out of 10, I think). So, schools like CMU have a great ROI.

No one is disputing that graduates of elite institutions typically earn more than T50 down, but looking at the list without understanding the data behind it is a skewed view. That's why the list isn't all that meaningful for most people since most people don't go on to get graduate degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, this list, which is the same list as the WSJ list thread only pulls numbers "For undergraduate students receiving federal financial aid".

That is why the list doesn't mean what you think it means, OP. Did you even bother reading that part?

There are lots of donut families who don't receive federal aid.

There are families who pay for college with 529.

Typically, state univ are cheaper and don't require that much federal aid.

So, once again, that metric is really only meaningful if you take federal loans. The majority of students/families do not take out federal loans.

Now, do you understand why this list is meaningless?

Once again you are totally backward and wrong.
This is for anyone who received/used any form of federal program - grant, subsidized loan, unsubsidized loan, plus loan.
Donut families are likely to use Federal parent plus loans.
34% of undergraduate students receive a Pell grant alone.
The Majority gets one or more of these.

Nobody cares about where Trump's son goes, what he majors, and what he makes after graduation.
Probably making multi millions right after college working for his dad.
This data actually eliminates these kinds of people that often skew the real number for real people.

The data comes from IRS, loan servicing companies, etc. rather than 'self-reporting' numbers by schools.
This is the most reliable income data worth referencing for low income, mid class, umc folks.

Once again, the list only includes those who get federal money. Lots of donut hole families and public state u students don't get that.

So the data is eliminating not just the Trumps of the world, but also UMC/MC families with zero federal money, and/or families who take private but not federal loans. Those exist, too. We're a donut family. We applied for FAFSA. We got zilch. But, we are not taking out any loans because DC is going to an in state college with merit.

You can also see that the majority of the schools on that list are stupid expensive, so the students probably needed more financial aid. The list also looks at income 10 years out, so that will include people who have gone on to masters degrees, law, medical, etc..

The list is mixing people who have graduate with just undergrad degrees. It doesn't make any sense.

If you want to compare apples to applies, then compare just undergrad degree earners, not masters.

Data analysis is important.

OP's list school as a whole.

It provides info by major which is more helpful.

No data or statistics is perfect, but this is the best source out there to reference.

You can choose to ignore.

Once again, the data mixes undergrad with grad.

By major is 3 year out.
You can argue about folks going to grad schools, but this is the best source.
Use it to your advantage.

? The list shows earnings 10 years out, not 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwestern's ROI does not seem that great

Northwestern has a great ROI if the Theater & Journalism students are not included.

Journalism is the most popular major there
LoL

And popularity has nothing to do with ROI....Theater, journalism and music majors do not typically make much initially (and some ever). Point is it drags down the ROI when 20% of your class majors in these

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, this list, which is the same list as the WSJ list thread only pulls numbers "For undergraduate students receiving federal financial aid".

That is why the list doesn't mean what you think it means, OP. Did you even bother reading that part?

There are lots of donut families who don't receive federal aid.

There are families who pay for college with 529.

Typically, state univ are cheaper and don't require that much federal aid.

So, once again, that metric is really only meaningful if you take federal loans. The majority of students/families do not take out federal loans.

Now, do you understand why this list is meaningless?

Once again you are totally backward and wrong.
This is for anyone who received/used any form of federal program - grant, subsidized loan, unsubsidized loan, plus loan.
Donut families are likely to use Federal parent plus loans.
34% of undergraduate students receive a Pell grant alone.
The Majority gets one or more of these.

Nobody cares about where Trump's son goes, what he majors, and what he makes after graduation.
Probably making multi millions right after college working for his dad.
This data actually eliminates these kinds of people that often skew the real number for real people.

The data comes from IRS, loan servicing companies, etc. rather than 'self-reporting' numbers by schools.
This is the most reliable income data worth referencing for low income, mid class, umc folks.

Once again, the list only includes those who get federal money. Lots of donut hole families and public state u students don't get that.

So the data is eliminating not just the Trumps of the world, but also UMC/MC families with zero federal money, and/or families who take private but not federal loans. Those exist, too. We're a donut family. We applied for FAFSA. We got zilch. But, we are not taking out any loans because DC is going to an in state college with merit.

You can also see that the majority of the schools on that list are stupid expensive, so the students probably needed more financial aid. The list also looks at income 10 years out, so that will include people who have gone on to masters degrees, law, medical, etc..

The list is mixing people who have graduate with just undergrad degrees. It doesn't make any sense.

If you want to compare apples to applies, then compare just undergrad degree earners, not masters.

Data analysis is important.

OP's list school as a whole.

It provides info by major which is more helpful.

No data or statistics is perfect, but this is the best source out there to reference.

You can choose to ignore.

Once again, the data mixes undergrad with grad.

By major is 3 year out.
You can argue about folks going to grad schools, but this is the best source.
Use it to your advantage.

? The list shows earnings 10 years out, not 3.

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/glossary/

"The median annual earnings of individuals who received federal financial aid during their studies and completed an award at the indicated field of study. To be included in the median earnings calculation, the individuals needed to be working and not be enrolled in school during the year when earnings are measured. Median earnings are measured in the fourth full year after the student completed their award.

These data are based on school-reported information about students’ program of completion. The U.S. Department of Education cannot fully confirm the completeness of these reported data for this school.

For schools with multiple locations, this information is based on all of their locations."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, this list, which is the same list as the WSJ list thread only pulls numbers "For undergraduate students receiving federal financial aid".

That is why the list doesn't mean what you think it means, OP. Did you even bother reading that part?

There are lots of donut families who don't receive federal aid.

There are families who pay for college with 529.

Typically, state univ are cheaper and don't require that much federal aid.

So, once again, that metric is really only meaningful if you take federal loans. The majority of students/families do not take out federal loans.

Now, do you understand why this list is meaningless?

Once again you are totally backward and wrong.
This is for anyone who received/used any form of federal program - grant, subsidized loan, unsubsidized loan, plus loan.
Donut families are likely to use Federal parent plus loans.
34% of undergraduate students receive a Pell grant alone.
The Majority gets one or more of these.

Nobody cares about where Trump's son goes, what he majors, and what he makes after graduation.
Probably making multi millions right after college working for his dad.
This data actually eliminates these kinds of people that often skew the real number for real people.

The data comes from IRS, loan servicing companies, etc. rather than 'self-reporting' numbers by schools.
This is the most reliable income data worth referencing for low income, mid class, umc folks.

Once again, the list only includes those who get federal money. Lots of donut hole families and public state u students don't get that.

So the data is eliminating not just the Trumps of the world, but also UMC/MC families with zero federal money, and/or families who take private but not federal loans. Those exist, too. We're a donut family. We applied for FAFSA. We got zilch. But, we are not taking out any loans because DC is going to an in state college with merit.

You can also see that the majority of the schools on that list are stupid expensive, so the students probably needed more financial aid. The list also looks at income 10 years out, so that will include people who have gone on to masters degrees, law, medical, etc..

The list is mixing people who have graduate with just undergrad degrees. It doesn't make any sense.

If you want to compare apples to applies, then compare just undergrad degree earners, not masters.

Data analysis is important.

OP's list school as a whole.

It provides info by major which is more helpful.

No data or statistics is perfect, but this is the best source out there to reference.

You can choose to ignore.

Once again, the data mixes undergrad with grad.

By major is 3 year out.
You can argue about folks going to grad schools, but this is the best source.
Use it to your advantage.

? The list shows earnings 10 years out, not 3.

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/glossary/

"The median annual earnings of individuals who received federal financial aid during their studies and completed an award at the indicated field of study. To be included in the median earnings calculation, the individuals needed to be working and not be enrolled in school during the year when earnings are measured. Median earnings are measured in the fourth full year after the student completed their award.

These data are based on school-reported information about students’ program of completion. The U.S. Department of Education cannot fully confirm the completeness of these reported data for this school.

For schools with multiple locations, this information is based on all of their locations."

For individual 'Field of Study'

10 year out is for the school as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again, this list, which is the same list as the WSJ list thread only pulls numbers "For undergraduate students receiving federal financial aid".

That is why the list doesn't mean what you think it means, OP. Did you even bother reading that part?

There are lots of donut families who don't receive federal aid.

There are families who pay for college with 529.

Typically, state univ are cheaper and don't require that much federal aid.

So, once again, that metric is really only meaningful if you take federal loans. The majority of students/families do not take out federal loans.

Now, do you understand why this list is meaningless?

Once again you are totally backward and wrong.
This is for anyone who received/used any form of federal program - grant, subsidized loan, unsubsidized loan, plus loan.
Donut families are likely to use Federal parent plus loans.
34% of undergraduate students receive a Pell grant alone.
The Majority gets one or more of these.

Nobody cares about where Trump's son goes, what he majors, and what he makes after graduation.
Probably making multi millions right after college working for his dad.
This data actually eliminates these kinds of people that often skew the real number for real people.

The data comes from IRS, loan servicing companies, etc. rather than 'self-reporting' numbers by schools.
This is the most reliable income data worth referencing for low income, mid class, umc folks.

Once again, the list only includes those who get federal money. Lots of donut hole families and public state u students don't get that.

So the data is eliminating not just the Trumps of the world, but also UMC/MC families with zero federal money, and/or families who take private but not federal loans. Those exist, too. We're a donut family. We applied for FAFSA. We got zilch. But, we are not taking out any loans because DC is going to an in state college with merit.

You can also see that the majority of the schools on that list are stupid expensive, so the students probably needed more financial aid. The list also looks at income 10 years out, so that will include people who have gone on to masters degrees, law, medical, etc..

The list is mixing people who have graduate with just undergrad degrees. It doesn't make any sense.

If you want to compare apples to applies, then compare just undergrad degree earners, not masters.

Data analysis is important.

Read above.

"According to the National Center for Education Statistics, over 85 percent of students receive some form of financial aid"

Yes, because the majority of loans is for graduate degrees, not undergrad. The list is comparing apples to oranges.

https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics

30% of undergraduate students borrow federal loans.
66% of graduate students borrow federal loans.

The list you posted shows average cost for undergrad (and for instate for public), and income 10 years out, but it doesn't indicate whether that 10 yrs out includes people without graduate degrees or not.

Typically, engineers don't get graduate degrees, and the top 10 paying fields with those with just undergrad degrees are mostly engineers (9 out of 10, I think). So, schools like CMU have a great ROI.

No one is disputing that graduates of elite institutions typically earn more than T50 down, but looking at the list without understanding the data behind it is a skewed view. That's why the list isn't all that meaningful for most people since most people don't go on to get graduate degrees.

https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/facts-financial-aid/#:~:text=Data%20Summary,financial%20aid%20received%20federal%20grants.&text=The%20average%20federal%20grant%20award,2022%20from%20%245%2C190%20in%202001.

"51.8% of first-time, full-time undergraduate students who were awarded aid were awarded federal grants."

Already majority just for grants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwestern's ROI does not seem that great

It's pulled down by the fact that a significant portion of its UG student body is dedicated to journalism, music, theater, and the arts. Even despite that the fact that it's relatively comparable to other schools on this list is positive.

It's a school for rich kids majoring in easy stuff.

Not quite. Huge swaths of the student body major in STEM, as it's a STEM-heavy research school. Both things can be true.

It's funny, because there's an anti-Northwestern poster on here who always airs their concerns about how Northwestern churns out too many consultants and engineers. Meanwhile, others like yourself complain about how the school only churns out poets and artists. Haha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder why NU has such relative high cost and low earnings compared to its peer schools

It's overrated. It's a 15-25 school. Like Emory Notre Dame level. Not top 10.

NU's programs and offerings are stronger across the board than most schools ranked 15-25. I'd say it's accurately rated as borderline/cusp T10.

It’s also stronger than some schools rated in the top 15.

Yes, I agree. Which is why I think it's accurately rated around 9-10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder why NU has such relative high cost and low earnings compared to its peer schools

It's overrated. It's a 15-25 school. Like Emory Notre Dame level. Not top 10.

NU's programs and offerings are stronger across the board than most schools ranked 15-25. I'd say it's accurately rated as borderline/cusp T10.

It’s also stronger than some schools rated in the top 15.

Yes, I agree. Which is why I think it's accurately rated around 9-10.

Its even lower than Northeastern ranked 44
Very over-rated school.

It should be barely T20 similar level to Notre Dame, Rice, WashU, Cornell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-04-28/mit-is-a-college-bargain-nyu-not-so-much#xj4y7vzkg?leadSource=uverify%20wall

$ Net cost/ $ post grad salary
NYU~~~$39,565/ $79,812
Carnegie Mellon~~~$37,846 /$111,064
Dartmouth~~~$33,023/ $95,540
Notre Dame~~~$32,369 /$93,220
Duke~~~$31,416/ $97,418
Cal Tech ~~~$29,279/ $104,209
Cornell~~~$29,011 /$98,321
Northwestern~~~$28,230/ $85,796
Washington U St. Louis~~~$27,595 / $90,646
Brown~~~$26,308/ $87,811
USC~~~$25,972 / $89,884
Emory~~~$25,424 /$81,802
Georgetown~~~$24,570 /$101,797
Chicago~~~$22,690 / $78,439
Vanderbilt~~~$22,204 /$84,415
Virginia*~~~$20,507 / $80,584
Rice~~~$17,805 / $87,254
Michigan*~~~$17,086/ $79,580
Yale~~~$16,341 / $95,961
UC Berkeley* ~~~$15,240 / $88,046
Penn~~~$14,851/ $112,761
Johns Hopkins~~~$14,254 /$89,551
Harvard~~~$13,259 / $95,114
Columbia~~~$12,836 /$97,540
UCLA*~~~$11,627/ $79,826
Princeton~~~$11,080 /$110,433
Stanford~~~$7,200 / $106,987
MIT ~~~$5,084 / $124,213

OP: Thank you for sharing this list.

stop sock puppeting.

There at least 2 other threads on here with the same ranking. The ranking has deep flaws.

+1.

I don’t care if posters are a little repetitive or share lists. I don’t care if they seek and share anecdotes about school value. I do care about use of randomly constructed clickbait lists to try to attack certain colleges and universities.

This isn’t about whether some schools are overpriced. It’s part of the Russian and Chinese efforts to weaken U.S. institutions. It’s either part of a direct propaganda attack on the United States or an echo created by people suckered in by the direct attacks.

Bennington is probably not a terrific value for the typical doughnut hole family, but helping Russia create a new empire and China attack Taiwan is worse than running a shaky liberal arts college.

You sound like a babbling idiot with your conspiracy theories

You sound like a Russian troll trying to get people to stop noticing that you trolls are flooding DCUM with stuff that’s repetitive and boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-04-28/mit-is-a-college-bargain-nyu-not-so-much#xj4y7vzkg?leadSource=uverify%20wall

$ Net cost/ $ post grad salary
NYU~~~$39,565/ $79,812
Carnegie Mellon~~~$37,846 /$111,064
Dartmouth~~~$33,023/ $95,540
Notre Dame~~~$32,369 /$93,220
Duke~~~$31,416/ $97,418
Cal Tech ~~~$29,279/ $104,209
Cornell~~~$29,011 /$98,321
Northwestern~~~$28,230/ $85,796
Washington U St. Louis~~~$27,595 / $90,646
Brown~~~$26,308/ $87,811
USC~~~$25,972 / $89,884
Emory~~~$25,424 /$81,802
Georgetown~~~$24,570 /$101,797
Chicago~~~$22,690 / $78,439
Vanderbilt~~~$22,204 /$84,415
Virginia*~~~$20,507 / $80,584
Rice~~~$17,805 / $87,254
Michigan*~~~$17,086/ $79,580
Yale~~~$16,341 / $95,961
UC Berkeley* ~~~$15,240 / $88,046
Penn~~~$14,851/ $112,761
Johns Hopkins~~~$14,254 /$89,551
Harvard~~~$13,259 / $95,114
Columbia~~~$12,836 /$97,540
UCLA*~~~$11,627/ $79,826
Princeton~~~$11,080 /$110,433
Stanford~~~$7,200 / $106,987
MIT ~~~$5,084 / $124,213

OP: Thank you for sharing this list.

stop sock puppeting.

There at least 2 other threads on here with the same ranking. The ranking has deep flaws.

+1.

I don’t care if posters are a little repetitive or share lists. I don’t care if they seek and share anecdotes about school value. I do care about use of randomly constructed clickbait lists to try to attack certain colleges and universities.

This isn’t about whether some schools are overpriced. It’s part of the Russian and Chinese efforts to weaken U.S. institutions. It’s either part of a direct propaganda attack on the United States or an echo created by people suckered in by the direct attacks.

Bennington is probably not a terrific value for the typical doughnut hole family, but helping Russia create a new empire and China attack Taiwan is worse than running a shaky liberal arts college.

You sound like a babbling idiot with your conspiracy theories

You sound like a Russian troll trying to get people to stop noticing that you trolls are flooding DCUM with stuff that’s repetitive and boring.

Your babbling is getting worse. Go back on your meds

[Anonymous]

NP, Why does Northwestern U have such a bad ROI?