USA Today has an article http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/03/how-higher-education-pays/2755345/ that has some findings that I think are (unintentionally) misleading. It relied too much on gross dats. Here is what I wrote.
Is this “solving for the winning solution?”
The article compares Tech. Assoc. Degrees in Texas with baccalaureate degrees to make one point, then compares STEM degrees in Virginia to make aother point. When you look at College Measures own data, you find that for a bachelors degree in Comp. and Info. Science, General from UT, Austin, the median starting salary is $71k, and with an “average” Tech Assoc. degree in the same field, it is $30K. If instead of using “average” for the Tech Assoc. degree, you use Austin Comm. College, it is $57k. What does all this mean? The data can be very useful, but only if it is studied carefully – just like going to college can be very useful, but only if you study carefully, which may only happen if you go to the right college. By the way, as a former college professor, that is how I believe the data can best be interpreted, to see which colleges are actually doing their job.
Talking about knowing when you are being misled, please read my post “Median Starting Salaries for College Graduates $27,000 or $40,735?” on my blog inside-higher-ed.com. Ok, here is the answer. The National Alliance of College and Employers (an organization often cited in the media, as it is here) data ($40k) is from “employer-based data…[of] actual starting salaries.” Not-employed is not an employer. Apparently, neither is part-time.
Recent Comments