It's a helpful list for those who place an emphasis on salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/

This ranking is a joke!

Translation: "My school didn't do so well."

I'm a Naval Academy grad, and that's about where I am, but I'm more than 10 years out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those salaries are wildly off. The vast majority of jobs don't even pay 6 figures. Most new grads sniff no where near $70k let alone $100k+ in their early careers. That's a salary that's manager level w/ post-grad education. Many PhDs don't even sniff $130k. So off.

If you look at their methodology "early career salary" is career at 6 years and 10 years post graduation--not entry level-- and weights College Scorecard and PayScale data for each point of these at 5%.

Even w/ a college degree, earning $100k+ is difficult 10 years out. Many people never make those salaries. Even PhDs in STEM w/ 5 years exp. often make less than $120k in industry. The numbers are wildly off.

The numbers may be off but they are based on labor data. That may be why HCOL areas with strong state support of higher ed (or HCOL states with private schools with liberal financial aid/merit aid policies). And remember this is an average not a median that figures in the lawyers, doctors and business people who are making a lot more. And the floor is going to be 60k or so, not 0 for the most part. So throw in all the 200-600k salaries with a bunch of 80-100k salaries and some 60-70k salaries and this is what the numbers are going to look like for 6 and 10 years out. STEM PhDs are not the highest earners by a longshot.

Interesting. 3 publics in top 15 and they are all from CA - Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those salaries are wildly off. The vast majority of jobs don't even pay 6 figures. Most new grads sniff no where near $70k let alone $100k+ in their early careers. That's a salary that's manager level w/ post-grad education. Many PhDs don't even sniff $130k. So off.

If you look at their methodology "early career salary" is career at 6 years and 10 years post graduation--not entry level-- and weights College Scorecard and PayScale data for each point of these at 5%.

Even w/ a college degree, earning $100k+ is difficult 10 years out. Many people never make those salaries. Even PhDs in STEM w/ 5 years exp. often make less than $120k in industry. The numbers are wildly off.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/

This ranking is a joke!

Anonymous wrote:Those salaries are wildly off. The vast majority of jobs don't even pay 6 figures. Most new grads sniff no where near $70k let alone $100k+ in their early careers. That's a salary that's manager level w/ post-grad education. Many PhDs don't even sniff $130k. So off.

If you look at their methodology "early career salary" is career at 6 years and 10 years post graduation--not entry level-- and weights College Scorecard and PayScale data for each point of these at 5%.

Those salaries are wildly off. The vast majority of jobs don't even pay 6 figures. Most new grads sniff no where near $70k let alone $100k+ in their early careers. That's a salary that's manager level w/ post-grad education. Many PhDs don't even sniff $130k. So off.

This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I'm so confused by "Average early career salary"

USNA ranks third at $152,600. They're still in Navy during their early careers, right? What O-1 and O-2s earn that much on average?

Anonymous wrote:It is also interesting because more than anything else it truly highlights how rankings do not matter when you get down to the individual student level. When you look at the factors that go into various ranking systems, you always find things the don't apply to you or don't matter to you, and that always renders that ranking useless on the individual level.

Similarly, no matter how brilliant a student may be (since rankings are often correlated with where the brightest students are expected to want to go), it is quite possible that Berkeley and Harvard and Williams would be terrible learning environments that do not serve that individual well for one reason or another. Berkeley may be too big, Harvard may not be the best in the area the student wishes to pursue, Amherst may not meet the families financial need, and so on.

Agreed. It's still early, but I just scrolled through the list and saw several of the schools my DS was accepted at ranked higher than the one he chose. However, the school he picked felt right to him, a place where he feels comfortable fitting in. It's so different reading the list when your kids is happy with a choice regardless of ranking.

It is also interesting because more than anything else it truly highlights how rankings do not matter when you get down to the individual student level. When you look at the factors that go into various ranking systems, you always find things the don't apply to you or don't matter to you, and that always renders that ranking useless on the individual level.

Similarly, no matter how brilliant a student may be (since rankings are often correlated with where the brightest students are expected to want to go), it is quite possible that Berkeley and Harvard and Williams would be terrible learning environments that do not serve that individual well for one reason or another. Berkeley may be too big, Harvard may not be the best in the area the student wishes to pursue, Amherst may not meet the families financial need, and so on.

Interesting methodology, thank you for sharing.