Colleges with Best ROI

[alexf.1990]

The article gives tuition and average debt. If they only looked at sticker price, I don't think the Ivy Plus schools would make the list.

Certain STEM majors can skew average salaries, but even non-STEM majors from Ivy Plus schools tend to do well. I've seen Harvard history majors go into finance, general business, and IT. The name carries them.

---

The average debt for all of the listed universities is between $20-45k. The "cost" to the student doesn't appear to be much different between any of the universities. It's silly to argue that attending Kettering University will yield a better ROI than Harvard when the debt loads from attending ar are the same.
The way they calculate the cost is also ludicrous. They calculate the opportunity cost of attending university at the rate of income the graduate receives. If the student has not yet graduated, then the opportunity cost of attending each university is the same.
ROI is a very easy thing to measure when it comes to universities. If you're measuring by the percentage, an alternative route like WGU or one of the big three will always offer the best return. If you're looking at net ROI, then the top tier colleges will always offer a higher return. Even if you pay $150,000 more for a Harvard degree, that cost is easily recouped with higher career earnings.

I don't think it's hard to believe since Kettering is primarily a STEM and business institution. Among non-PhD-granting insitutions, they're ranked pretty high.

Which exposes another problem, this list excludes people with degrees higher than a bachelor's degree. And, as I said before, it doesn't control for the proportion of non-STEM degrees.

[sanantone]

I just noticed that the current PayScale ranking has Kettering listed much lower.

---

The article gives tuition and average debt. If they only looked at sticker price, I don't think the Ivy Plus schools would make the list.

Certain STEM majors can skew average salaries, but even non-STEM majors from Ivy Plus schools tend to do well. I've seen Harvard history majors go into finance, general business, and IT. The name carries them.

---

The average debt for all of the listed universities is between $20-45k. The "cost" to the student doesn't appear to be much different between any of the universities. It's silly to argue that attending Kettering University will yield a better ROI than Harvard when the debt loads from attending ar are the same.
The way they calculate the cost is also ludicrous. They calculate the opportunity cost of attending university at the rate of income the graduate receives. If the student has not yet graduated, then the opportunity cost of attending each university is the same.
ROI is a very easy thing to measure when it comes to universities. If you're measuring by the percentage, an alternative route like WGU or one of the big three will always offer the best return. If you're looking at net ROI, then the top tier colleges will always offer a higher return. Even if you pay $150,000 more for a Harvard degree, that cost is easily recouped with higher career earnings.

I don't think it's hard to believe since Kettering is primarily a STEM and business institution. Among non-PhD-granting insitutions, they're ranked pretty high.

Which exposes another problem, this list excludes people with degrees higher than a bachelor's degree. And, as I said before, it doesn't control for the proportion of non-STEM degrees.

You have to control for degree level. Those with graduate degrees usually make more, and most people do not earn their undergraduate and graduate degrees from the same institution. 

PayScale lets you search for the best institution by major and degree level.

[alexf.1990]

You have to control for degree level. Those with graduate degrees usually make more, and most people do not earn their undergraduate and graduate degrees from the same institution. 

PayScale lets you search for the best institution by major and degree level.

Why penalize universities for producing students who go on to attend graduate school? I haven't been to PayScale, other than to view the methodology of this study. Articles like this are worthless. The variation from year to year is also troubling. How could anyone rely on this list to choose their university when the ROI changes so drastically from year to year? I'm just at a loss as to the utility of such a ranking.

[sanantone]

You have to control for degree level. Those with graduate degrees usually make more, and most people do not earn their undergraduate and graduate degrees from the same institution. 

PayScale lets you search for the best institution by major and degree level.

Why penalize universities for producing students who go on to attend graduate school? I haven't been to PayScale, other than to view the methodology of this study. Articles like this are worthless. The variation from year to year is also troubling. How could anyone rely on this list to choose their university when the ROI changes so drastically from year to year? I'm just at a loss as to the utility of such a ranking.

It's not penalizing. You thought there should be a control for STEM degrees, so why not control for graduate degrees? If you want to know how much bachelor degree holders earn, then you cannot include graduate degrees. If you want to look at graduate degrees, then you need a study for graduate degrees.

Additionally, some fields naturally produce more graduate students independent of school attended. Science and political science majors are more likely to go on to a graduate or professional programs than engineering and CS majors are. Also, if you included graduate degrees from other schools, you wouldn't be able to calculate an accurate ROI due to additional tuition paid for a graduate program. ROI would look decent for an undergraduate institution that produced an attorney who makes $75k, but what if that attorney went $300k in debt for law school?

[alexf.1990]

It's not penalizing. You thought there should be a control for STEM degrees, so why not control for graduate degrees? If you want to know how much bachelor degree holders earn, then you cannot include graduate degrees. If you want to look at graduate degrees, then you need a study for graduate degrees.

Additionally, some fields naturally produce more graduate students independent of school attended. Science and political science majors are more likely to go on to a graduate or professional programs than engineering and CS majors are. Also, if you included graduate degrees from other schools, you wouldn't be able to calculate an accurate ROI due to additional tuition paid for a graduate program. ROI would look decent for an undergraduate institution that produced an attorney who makes $75k, but what if that attorney went $300k in debt for law school?

You can't calculate a meaningful ROI in any case. There are simply too many variables and contingencies. What careers allow for a decent income with only a bachelor's degree anyway? Maybe Petroleum Engineering, but even that requires graduate study eventually. Kettering has a similar tuition rate to Harvard, yet Kettering has a higher ROI? Please, tell me what meaningful information this list provides to anyone? Would anyone seriously consider attending Babson College over Columbia or Harvard? The list is just clickbait nonsense.

[sanantone]

It's not penalizing. You thought there should be a control for STEM degrees, so why not control for graduate degrees? If you want to know how much bachelor degree holders earn, then you cannot include graduate degrees. If you want to look at graduate degrees, then you need a study for graduate degrees.

Additionally, some fields naturally produce more graduate students independent of school attended. Science and political science majors are more likely to go on to a graduate or professional programs than engineering and CS majors are. Also, if you included graduate degrees from other schools, you wouldn't be able to calculate an accurate ROI due to additional tuition paid for a graduate program. ROI would look decent for an undergraduate institution that produced an attorney who makes $75k, but what if that attorney went $300k in debt for law school?

You can't calculate a meaningful ROI in any case. There are simply too many variables and contingencies. What careers allow for a decent income with only a bachelor's degree anyway? Maybe Petroleum Engineering, but even that requires graduate study eventually. Kettering has a similar tuition rate to Harvard, yet Kettering has a higher ROI? Please, tell me what meaningful information this list provides to anyone? Would anyone seriously consider attending Babson College over Columbia or Harvard? The list is just clickbait nonsense.

Since most won't get into Columbia or Harvard, it doesn't hurt to have a list of options. 

A lot of careers allow for a decent income with only a bachelor's degree. I believe less than 15% of the population has a master's degree or higher. If you needed a graduate degree for a decent income, everyone in the U.S. would be poor.

[alexf.1990]

Since most won't get into Columbia or Harvard, it doesn't hurt to have a list of options. 

A lot of careers allow for a decent income with only a bachelor's degree. I believe less than 15% of the population has a master's degree or higher. If you needed a graduate degree for a decent income, everyone in the U.S. would be poor.

The problem is that the colleges on the list that aren't elite schools are only on the list because they have a disproportionately high percentage of STEM students. Their value proposition as an institution is no different than any other private college. The article would have been more helpful if it said "go to whichever college you want, but avoid social sciences if you want to avoid perpetual poverty."

[sanantone]

Since most won't get into Columbia or Harvard, it doesn't hurt to have a list of options. 

A lot of careers allow for a decent income with only a bachelor's degree. I believe less than 15% of the population has a master's degree or higher. If you needed a graduate degree for a decent income, everyone in the U.S. would be poor.

The problem is that the colleges on the list that aren't elite schools are only on the list because they have a disproportionately high percentage of STEM students. Their value proposition as an institution is no different than any other private college. The article would have been more helpful if it said "go to whichever college you want, but avoid social sciences if you want to avoid perpetual poverty."

Most social science majors aren't in poverty after finishing their degrees. There are many technical institutes that did not make the list. Business majors have a high underemployment rate, so...

[alexf.1990]

Most social science majors aren't in poverty after finishing their degrees. There are many technical institutes that did not make the list. Business majors have a high underemployment rate, so...

Then what is the point of this list? I'm simply at a loss as to what makes Kettering and Babson better investments than Harvard when their tuition is the same and Harvard has a larger endowment from which to give grants, to say nothing of the prestige and connections of Harvard. Help me understand.

[sanantone]

Most social science majors aren't in poverty after finishing their degrees. There are many technical institutes that did not make the list. Business majors have a high underemployment rate, so...

Then what is the point of this list? I'm simply at a loss as to what makes Kettering and Babson better investments than Harvard when their tuition is the same and Harvard has a larger endowment from which to give grants, to say nothing of the prestige and connections of Harvard. Help me understand.

A higher 20-year net ROI that is partially based on median income. 

They didn't look at what-ifs. They looked at average debt. Harvard graduates had $10k less debt than Babson College graduates. If someone is making a few thousand more a year, then the extra $10k will be paid back in a few years. 

The list does change year to year because the job market and financial aid funding change year to year. However, there aren't drastic changes. The Big 3, for example, have had roughly the same salary figures year after year. Their rankings just change because rankings are based on relations to everyone else. All it takes is a dollar extra in ROI for another school to be ranked higher.

It is really not that deep. Instead of focusing so much on rankings, just look at how much you can expect to earn relative to how much debt you will take on.