Educational Technology and Change Journal

By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by Gemini)
Editor

Introduction: My conversation with Gemini began with STEM and moved to: prestige vs non-prestige colleges, non-STEM majors, medicine/nursing, business, soft skills, and transparency of post-graduation salary statistics. We managed to clarify some of the nuances and issues but hit a wall with the issue of greater transparency. -js

JS: Gemini, can you review available data to determine, with some degree of reliability, which colleges are turning out, in proportion to their student population, the greatest number of graduates who are being employed after graduation at the highest salary levels? Let’s limit this survey to US colleges. I realize data may be scarce for some or many colleges, so let’s look at institutions that have data. We can also assume that if the number and prestige of colleges surveyed is low, our generalizability may be compromised.

Gemini: Based on available data, colleges with a strong focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields tend to produce graduates who earn the highest salaries. Small, highly selective private institutions and specialized public universities with a technical focus often rank highest in terms of post-graduation salary potential.

Top-Performing US Colleges for High-Earning Graduates

The data suggests that the following colleges consistently appear in rankings for high post-graduate salaries, either based on starting salary or long-term career earnings:

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): A perennial leader, MIT is known for its rigorous STEM programs and its graduates command very high starting and mid-career salaries.
• California Institute of Technology (Caltech): Similar to MIT, Caltech is a small, private university with an intense focus on science and engineering. Its graduates consistently land high-paying jobs.
• Harvey Mudd College: This is a small, private liberal arts college that specializes in science, engineering, and mathematics. The college’s “learn by doing” approach and strong ties to industry contribute to its graduates’ high earning potential.
• Stanford University: Located in Silicon Valley, Stanford has strong connections to the tech industry, and its graduates in computer science and engineering often receive top salaries.
• University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley): A top-tier public university with highly-ranked engineering and computer science programs, UC Berkeley offers a great “return on investment” for graduates.
• United States Naval Academy & United States Merchant Marine Academy: Graduates of these military academies are commissioned as officers and are guaranteed employment, which provides a strong starting salary and career path.

Factors Influencing Graduate Salary 📊

Several key factors contribute to a college’s placement on these lists. It’s not just the institution’s prestige but also the types of degrees it offers:

• Program Focus: Colleges with a high concentration of students in high-demand fields like engineering, computer science, and certain health sciences (e.g., nursing, physical therapy) will naturally have higher average graduate salaries. For example, Samuel Merritt University specializes in health sciences and has a high graduate employability rate and strong salaries.
• Student Population: Smaller, highly selective colleges can have a more uniform student body focused on high-paying fields, which can skew the data. Larger universities may have a broader range of majors, which can lower their overall average salary, even if their graduates from certain departments (like engineering or business) are earning very high salaries.
• Location: Colleges located near major economic hubs, particularly those in the tech or finance industries (e.g., Stanford in Silicon Valley, MIT in Boston, Columbia in New York City), offer graduates access to more lucrative job markets.
• Return on Investment (ROI): It’s also important to consider the cost of attendance. Some public universities and academies offer a high ROI because of their lower tuition, meaning the graduate earns a high salary without taking on a massive amount of student debt.

Ultimately, while certain colleges consistently rank at the top for post-graduation salaries, a student’s chosen major and career path are the most significant determinants of their future earnings.

JS: Thank you. Can you give us an idea of how well the non-STEM majors stack up? Btw, are medicine and nursing considered STEM? Also, business as a field seems to be hard to categorize.

Gemini: That’s an excellent question, and it highlights the complexities of defining and categorizing academic fields. Let’s break down how non-STEM majors fare and address the specific cases of medicine, nursing, and business.

How Non-STEM Majors Stack Up

While the highest-paying majors are consistently in STEM fields, many non-STEM majors can also lead to very high-paying careers, particularly as graduates advance in their careers. The key difference is often in the starting salary and the path to high earnings. STEM graduates often begin with high salaries, while many non-STEM graduates see their salaries grow significantly over time, especially with advanced degrees or by moving into leadership positions.

Top-earning non-STEM majors often fall into two main categories:

1. Majors with a Quantitative Focus:
   • Economics: This is frequently a top non-STEM major for salary potential. Economics majors learn quantitative and analytical skills that are highly valued in finance, consulting, and business. Graduates from top universities like the University of Chicago, Columbia University, and Harvard University often command high salaries.
   • Finance and Accounting: While some may consider these to be business-STEM hybrids, they are often classified separately. They provide direct career paths into lucrative fields like investment banking, financial analysis, and corporate accounting. Colleges like the University of Pennsylvania and Bentley University are known for their strong business programs.
2. Majors that Lead to Professional Degrees:
   • Pre-Law (e.g., Philosophy, Political Science, English): While the undergraduate major itself may not lead to a high starting salary, it is the stepping stone to a Juris Doctor (JD) degree. Lawyers, especially those from top-tier law schools, can earn exceptionally high salaries. Colleges with strong pre-law advising and a track record of sending students to elite law schools are good indicators.
   • Pre-Med (often majors in Biology or Chemistry): A similar dynamic applies here. The undergraduate degree is a prerequisite for medical school, which leads to careers as physicians and surgeons, among the highest-paid professions.

Other non-STEM majors that can lead to strong career earnings include Public Policy, International Relations, and Construction Management.

Are Medicine and Nursing STEM?

This is a point of frequent debate and depends on who you ask.

• Medicine: Medicine is often seen as an “applied science” rather than a core STEM field in the same vein as engineering or computer science. While medical education is rooted in biology and chemistry, the practice of medicine is distinct. However, the U.S. government’s list of STEM disciplines often includes health sciences, and many universities categorize pre-med tracks as a STEM-related path. For the purpose of salary data, careers in medicine are consistently at the top, regardless of their official classification.

• Nursing: Similar to medicine, nursing is an applied science that relies heavily on a foundation of biology, chemistry, and technology. Many organizations and educational institutions recognize it as a STEM field due to its rigorous scientific and technical components. However, some government agencies do not officially list it as such, which can affect funding and visa designations for international students. Despite this categorization ambiguity, nursing is consistently a non-STEM major with one of the highest starting and mid-career salaries.

What About Business?

Business is a broad field, and its classification is a gray area. Most undergraduate business degrees (like Business Administration or Marketing) are not considered STEM.

However, certain specialized business majors and graduate programs are designated as STEM. These programs typically have a strong quantitative and analytical focus. Examples include:

• Business Analytics
• Management Information Systems (MIS)
• Quantitative Finance
• Supply Chain Management

These STEM-designated business programs often have higher earning potential and are particularly attractive to international students as they can qualify for extended post-graduation work visas. Therefore, when evaluating “business” as a major, it’s important to look at the specific concentration. A general business administration degree will have a different salary trajectory than a degree in business analytics from the same school.

JS: Seems like a dumb question, but does a degree in a STEM or STEM-related field alone matter or does the prestige of the granting college also matter? To what exrent?

Gemini: This is a crucial and far from a “dumb” question. The relationship between college prestige, major, and salary is complex, and the answer is not the same for all fields.

The Short Answer

For most STEM fields, the degree itself and the skills you acquire are more important than the college’s prestige. This is a major difference compared to non-STEM fields, particularly business, law, and social sciences.

The Nuances: Why Prestige Matters Less for STEM

Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:

• Standardized Curricula: Many STEM fields, especially engineering, have accredited programs (e.g., by ABET for engineering). This means that regardless of the school, the curriculum covers a standardized body of knowledge. Employers know that a mechanical engineering graduate from a well-regarded state university has a strong foundational skill set, just like one from an Ivy League school.
• Skill-Based Hiring: STEM careers are often skill-based. Employers are looking for specific technical abilities, problem-solving skills, and a portfolio of projects. These can be demonstrated through internships, co-ops, personal projects, and performance in technical interviews. A candidate with a strong GPA and relevant internship experience from a non-elite school can be a more attractive hire than a graduate from a prestigious university with a weak resume.
• The “Core School” Concept: While some top-tier companies (like certain tech firms or investment banks) may have a list of “core” or “target” schools from which they primarily recruit, this is less pronounced in the broader STEM job market. Many companies, particularly in tech and engineering, recruit from a wide range of schools and prioritize a candidate’s actual abilities over their alma mater.
• Cost vs. Reward: A study cited in the Wall Street Journal found that an engineering student who chooses an expensive, prestigious school over a more modest one may only see a negligible increase in starting salary, if any. The massive difference in tuition, however, can result in a student needing to work for decades to make up the difference in cost. For many STEM students, a high-quality education at a public university offers a much better “return on investment.”

Where Prestige Does Still Matter in STEM

While the general rule holds, there are some important exceptions where a prestigious degree can give a STEM graduate an advantage:

• Getting into the Door: For highly competitive, top-tier companies and R&D roles, a degree from a prestigious university can act as a valuable resume filter. This is especially true for initial, entry-level recruitment.
• Academia and Research: If a student’s goal is to pursue a Ph.D. and become a researcher or professor, attending a top-tier research university is a significant advantage. These institutions have more resources, more renowned faculty, and are better “feeder schools” for elite graduate programs.
• Networking: Prestigious schools often have stronger alumni networks and connections to specific industries. This can provide a leg up in finding internships and jobs, though a proactive student can build a powerful network from any school.

The Contrast with Non-STEM Fields

For majors like business, law, and finance, prestige plays a much more significant role. Elite institutions in these fields often have direct pipelines to the highest-paying firms (e.g., Wall Street banks, top law firms, and consulting firms). The hiring process in these industries is often more relationship-based, and a diploma from a highly selective school can be a proxy for a candidate’s abilities and a gateway to these exclusive networks.

In conclusion, for a STEM degree, it’s more about “what you know” and “what you can do.” For many non-STEM degrees, “who you know” and the prestige of your school often matter more, particularly at the beginning of a career.

JS: Do internships and relevant volunteer or work experience while in college make a difference for both STEM and non-STEM graduates?

Gemini: This is an excellent follow-up question. The answer is a resounding yes, internships and relevant work experience make a significant difference for all graduates, regardless of their major. In fact, for many employers, this hands-on experience is often a more powerful indicator of a candidate’s future success than their GPA or even their school’s prestige.

Here’s a breakdown of the impact for both STEM and non-STEM graduates:

For All Graduates (STEM and Non-STEM)

1. A Major Boost to Employability:

Studies consistently show that students who complete internships, particularly paid ones, have a higher chance of receiving a full-time job offer after graduation.1 For many companies, internships are the primary recruiting tool for entry-level positions. It’s a low-risk way for them to evaluate a potential employee’s skills and fit with the company culture.2

2. Higher Starting Salaries:

Research from organizations like the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) has found a direct correlation between paid internships and higher starting salaries.3 Paid interns consistently earn more than unpaid interns and non-interns.4 This is because the experience they gain makes them more valuable to employers from day one, allowing them to negotiate a higher wage.

3. Development of Essential Skills:

Internships and work experience go beyond classroom learning. They provide students with “soft skills” that are crucial for career success, such as communication, teamwork, problem-solving, and professional etiquette. While STEM curricula excel at teaching technical skills, an internship helps students learn how to apply those skills in a real-world, collaborative setting.

4. Career Clarity and Networking:

Work experience allows students to “test drive” a career path. It can either confirm their passion for a field or help them realize it’s not the right fit, saving them time and effort in the long run. It also provides an invaluable opportunity to build a professional network, which can lead to future job opportunities and mentorship.5

Specifics for STEM Graduates

For STEM graduates, internships are often seen as a necessity. The technical skills learned in a computer science or engineering program are only half the battle. Employers want to see that a candidate can apply those skills to solve real-world problems.⁶

• Project Portfolio: Internships and hands-on work provide the perfect opportunity to build a project portfolio, which is often a key part of the hiring process for tech and engineering roles.
• Industry-Specific Knowledge: An internship gives a student exposure to the latest technologies and industry standards that may not be covered in a traditional academic curriculum. This makes them more valuable and ready to contribute on their first day.
• Bridging the Gap: While STEM degrees are already highly valued, an internship can bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, making a candidate more attractive to a wider range of employers.

Specifics for Non-STEM Graduates

For non-STEM graduates, where the connection between the major and a specific job isn’t always as direct, internships and work experience are arguably even more critical.

• Demonstrating Value: An English major who wants to go into marketing can show a potential employer that they have valuable skills by pointing to an internship where they managed social media campaigns or wrote press releases. The internship provides a tangible example of how their skills translate to a business environment.⁷
• Creating a Pathway: For many non-STEM fields, a prestigious college degree is a “door opener,” but it’s the internship that allows a graduate to walk through that door and demonstrate their worth. For instance, a political science major interning on a political campaign or for a government agency gains practical experience and makes connections that are vital for future career advancement.
• Salary and Negotiation Power: Since the starting salaries for many non-STEM fields are lower, having relevant experience can give a graduate more leverage to negotiate a higher starting salary and a faster path to promotions.

In conclusion, a degree, particularly in a high-demand field like STEM, provides a strong foundation.⁸ However, it is the hands-on experience gained through internships, co-ops, and relevant work that transforms a college graduate from a theoretical learner into a valuable, job-ready professional. This is true for both STEM and non-STEM majors and is a key factor in securing employment and maximizing earning potential after graduation.

JS: Is the ability to communicate clearly and effectively in speaking and writing still a factor? What about appearance and health, dress and grooming? Friendliness and ability to work with others? Ethics and values? These are difficult to measure, so am I correct in assuming that data is limited?

Gemini: You’re absolutely right; these “soft skills” are incredibly difficult to quantify with hard data, but they are still a huge factor in career success. The data may be limited in a way that we can’t create a college ranking based on them, but there’s a wealth of research showing their impact.

Communication, Teamwork, and Personal Attributes

1. Communication is King 🗣️ The ability to communicate effectively in both speaking and writing is consistently cited by employers as one of the most important skills for new hires. A number of studies have found that 85% of job success is attributed to well-developed soft and people skills, with hard skills accounting for just 15%. Clear communication is crucial for collaboration, leading teams, and interacting with clients. It’s the “glue” that holds projects and teams together.

2. Ability to Work with Others (Teamwork) 🤝 Most jobs today are not performed in isolation. Employers highly value an individual’s ability to be a productive and respectful team member. Friendliness, empathy, and the capacity to give and receive constructive feedback are all part of this. A candidate who can’t work well with others is a risk to team morale and overall productivity, regardless of their technical skills.

3. Ethics and Values ✅ Ethics and a strong sense of personal values are essential for building trust in the workplace. Companies with ethical cultures tend to have higher employee retention, better morale, and are more profitable in the long run. While a college cannot “teach” a student to be ethical, a student who demonstrates a strong moral compass through their actions and volunteer work is seen as a more reliable and trustworthy employee.

The Role of Appearance, Health, Dress, and Grooming

While this might seem superficial, personal presentation still plays a significant role, particularly in first impressions.

• First Impressions: It takes a person only a few seconds to form a judgment about someone’s character, and a large portion of that initial impression is visual. An employer or client will often associate a professional appearance with a professional attitude.

• Signaling Respect and Attention to Detail: Dressing appropriately and being well-groomed signals that you take the job and the company seriously. It suggests you have a strong sense of personal accountability and an eye for detail, which are highly valued professional traits.
• Health and Wellness: While employers are legally prohibited from discriminating based on health, general wellness can impact an employee’s energy, attendance, and overall performance. A candidate who projects a sense of vitality and self-care is often perceived as more resilient and capable of handling a demanding workload.

Conclusion: Limited Data vs. Universal Importance

You are correct that the data on these skills is limited in a quantitative, comparable way across different colleges. You won’t find a “College of the Most Ethical Graduates” list based on hard numbers. However, the qualitative and survey-based data from employers, hiring managers, and career development organizations are overwhelming: soft skills and personal attributes are not just a factor; they are often the most important factor in securing a job, getting promoted, and achieving long-term career success.

JS: Am I correct in assuming that the vast majority of universities/colleges don’t systematically track their graduates to quantify their success in finding jobs in their majors and starting salaries? Including longer term surveys on promotions and salary increases? And job satisfaction over the years of employment? If true, then why is this practice or shortcoming allowed to continue?

Gemini: You are correct. The vast majority of universities and colleges do not systematically track their graduates’ long-term career success in a comprehensive, longitudinal way. This is a significant shortcoming, and it’s a topic of growing debate in higher education.

Here’s a breakdown of why this is the case and why it’s a problem that’s being allowed to continue.

Why This Practice Continues

1. A Focus on “First-Destination” Data:

The most common practice is to conduct a “first-destination” survey, typically within six months to a year after graduation. These surveys, often following a model from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), aim to capture a graduate’s immediate employment status, starting salary, and whether they are continuing their education.1 This data is easier to collect while contact information is fresh.2 However, it’s a snapshot, not a full picture. It misses the long-term career trajectories, promotions, and salary growth that truly demonstrate the value of a degree.

2. The Difficulty and Cost of Long-Term Tracking:

Tracking alumni for years or even decades is a logistical and financial challenge. People change jobs, move, and change contact information. A survey conducted five or ten years out would require significant resources, dedicated staff, and sophisticated data management systems. For many universities, particularly smaller ones, this is a prohibitive expense.

3. Data Privacy and Response Rates:

Alumni are not always willing to share sensitive information like salary, promotions, and job satisfaction. Response rates for these surveys tend to be low, especially for those conducted years after graduation. This leads to incomplete and potentially biased data, as the most successful graduates might be more likely to respond. Universities must also be careful to comply with privacy laws like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).3

4. The Traditional View of Higher Education:

For a long time, the primary purpose of a university was not seen as a job-training program. The focus was on academic and intellectual development, critical thinking, and producing well-rounded citizens. Therefore, measuring success in terms of salary and promotions was considered a narrow and commercial-minded view of a college education. This mindset is shifting, but it still influences many academic institutions.

5. Lack of Standardized Metrics:

There is no universal standard for what “success” means in a graduate’s career. Is it job satisfaction? Salary? The prestige of the company? The impact they have on the world? The lack of standardized, agreed-upon metrics makes it difficult to compare data across different institutions, even if they were to collect it.

Why It’s a Problem That’s Allowed to Continue

While there are valid reasons for the shortcomings in tracking, the practice is under increasing scrutiny, and this is why it’s becoming a problem:

• Rising Cost of Tuition: With the cost of a college degree soaring, students and their families are rightly demanding a measurable return on their investment. Without reliable data on long-term career outcomes, universities are asking students to make a massive financial commitment with little concrete evidence of the payoff.
• Government and Accreditation Requirements: Regulatory bodies and state governments are starting to require institutions to be more transparent about graduate outcomes.⁴ Initiatives like the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard and state-level mandates are pushing universities to collect and publicize more data on salaries and employment rates.⁵
• Competition from Other Educational Pathways: The rise of online courses, boot camps, and other forms of post-secondary education that offer direct job placement and track their graduates’ success is putting pressure on traditional universities.
• Student Demand: Today’s students are more outcome-focused than previous generations. They want to know that their education will lead to a good job, and they are seeking out institutions that can provide data to back up their claims.

In conclusion, while a few institutions and organizations like NACE are making efforts to collect and standardize some of this data, the practice of comprehensive, long-term graduate tracking is still not the norm. It’s a systemic issue rooted in logistical challenges and traditional academic values. However, as the cost of education continues to rise and the demand for accountability grows, it’s a “shortcoming” that is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

JS: Are you saying that for many or most colleges short-term (shortly after graduation) tracking of graduates is required for accreditation and the results are open to the public or required to be made public?

Gemini: You are correct that for many or most colleges, some form of short-term tracking of graduates is required for accreditation, and this data is often made public. However, the details and standards vary significantly depending on the accrediting body and the type of institution.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

The Role of Accreditation and Reporting

Accrediting agencies, which are recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), consider student achievement and post-graduate outcomes to be key indicators of quality.¹ To maintain accreditation, institutions must demonstrate that their programs are effectively preparing students for their chosen fields of work.²

This often means that colleges are required to:

• Collect “First-Destination” Data: The most common requirement is to track where graduates are six months to a year after graduation. This includes information on whether they are employed, continuing their education, in the military, or volunteering.
• Meet Minimum Thresholds: Some accreditors have specific minimum thresholds for employment or graduation rates. If a school falls below these thresholds, it may be required to take action to improve its programs or could face a loss of accreditation.
• Make Data Public: Transparency is a growing focus. Accrediting agencies and government initiatives like the College Scorecard are pushing institutions to make this data accessible to the public.³ The goal is to provide prospective students and their families with the information they need to make informed decisions.

The Limitations and Why it’s Not Enough

While this is a step in the right direction, it’s crucial to understand the limitations:

• Short-Term Focus: The data is almost exclusively short-term. It doesn’t capture the long-term career success, salary growth, or job satisfaction that you mentioned. A graduate’s salary a decade out can be a far better measure of a college’s value than their starting salary.
• Incomplete Data: The data collected is often incomplete. Response rates for these surveys can be low, and the information is often self-reported.⁴ This can lead to a skewed picture of reality.
• Lack of Standardization: There isn’t a universal standard for how colleges collect and report this data. Different institutions may define “employed” or “in their major” differently, making it difficult to compare colleges directly.
• Focus on Aggregate Numbers: The data is often presented as a broad average for the entire institution or for a specific program. This can hide the fact that some majors have excellent outcomes while others do not.

The Problem and the Path Forward

The reason this system is allowed to continue is that it’s a difficult problem to solve, as we discussed previously. However, the pressure for greater accountability is growing. As the cost of education continues to rise, students and policymakers are demanding more transparency.⁵

Some institutions are taking the lead by investing in more robust data collection methods, such as using public-facing data from sources like LinkedIn, or partnering with data analytics firms. These efforts, though not yet widespread, are a sign that the push for better, more transparent data on graduate outcomes is a trend that is likely to continue.

JS: Mahalo, Gemini. Your thorough and objective responses are much appreciated! A hui hou.

Gemini: It was my pleasure to help. A hui hou kākou!

Filed under: Uncategorized |