Stumbled across this data and found it interesting. Thought I would share. Source is the US Department of Education, which defines Median Earnings as “The median yearly incomes of former students who received federal aid 10 years after entering college.” Not sure how that compares to someone who did not receive federal aid, but interesting nonetheless. Notable is the two military acadamies not listed that tend to be at/near the top of earning lists.
This list is not very insightful because it does not control for majors. An engineer is expected to make $120k+ ten years out, whereas majors such as history, anthropology, social work, and elementary education are expected to earn around $70k. You cannot get an anthropology major at MIT or an engineering major at Pomona.
Another issue is selection bias. Schools like MIT or Princeton University admit students who are already among the highest-achieving in the country. Many of those students would likely earn high salaries regardless of where they attended college, so the list may reflect the ability of the students admitted rather than the value added by the school itself.
The data also only includes students who received federal financial aid. At many elite schools, a significant portion of students come from families that do not qualify for or do not take federal aid, meaning they are excluded from the dataset. As a result, the earnings figures may not accurately represent the full graduating class.
Instead of posting things in multiple categories, thus hitting everyones feed twice, how about post in general? This is a new thing people just started doing in the last couple of weeks and is a bit spammy.
Apologies, there was two different data sets for the list of Men’s and Women’s colleges, however, seeing the general lack of engagement in the Women’s topics in comparison to the Men’s, it probably would have been okay to only post this one.
Agree with wp2024s points, but lack of insight doesn’t mean lack of intrigue. It is easy to guess the 3 STEM schools would top the list, but I would have not guess Santa Clara was above Harvard. There are a few schools that may open some eyes as to what you are getting for you money. While not discounting UCs typically ranked among the top public schools (and obviously costing less), very interesting they are not in the top 11 and only 2 in the top 17 here, but there are definitely some flaws to the list (it also doesn’t take into account if any of these students went on to pursue graduate degrees). It would be great to see different data sets without the aid component and with majors/graduate degrees attached.
I would like to think the average water polo player is an above average student (and thus would be higher than the average earnings for the school in a lot of places). Athletes consider that their playing career will end and have to weigh what was gained in college, whether that be a prestigious degree, a beneficial alumni network, or potentially a large debt/high cost paid. With California being the center of our sport, I don’t see many kids raised here looking to have a job paying 70K/year job in 10 years as that makes it exceedingly difficult to ever buy a home here. However, almost every teacher I know makes six figures.
There is a large body of research on this topic suggesting that several key variables determine earnings at the 10-year mark (roughly six years post-graduation). These include choice of major, inherent ability (intelligence, grit, and ambition), and geography. For example, many Santa Clara University graduates work in Silicon Valley, where compensation is higher to offset the cost of living. Surprisingly, “brand name” (e.g., graduating from Stanford) is often only a secondary explanatory variable. Research indicates that if an individual has the ability to be admitted to a top-tier school, they will likely be a high-earner regardless of where they actually graduate from.
Applying this to water polo, the most significant difference across programs is the academic and career flexibility offered to athletes. When comparing UC schools to the Ivies, the disparity in year-round practice hours, including summers, directly impacts an athlete’s ability to select certain majors or pursue competitive internships. If an athlete wishes to pursue a demanding field like pre-med, pre-law, or engineering, they face a serious tradeoff between athletic commitment and professional development. Ultimately, how an athlete manages this tradeoff likely has a much greater impact on their career and compensation trajectory than the name of the school on their diploma.
Maybe the service academies aren’t listed because Navy and Air Force cadets do not receive “federal aid”?
We used to call it a “Quarter of a Million Dollar Education Shoved Up Your *** One Nickel at a Time”
But if anyone needed to know average earnings of one who stays in at the 5-6 year point afterwards, you can always reference the military pay scale (assuming that at the 5 or 6 year mark, they’re an O3 or O4 with 4+ years in), along with the basic housing allowance scale (and then factor in things like Hazard Pay, if/when it applies).
The academies are generally quoting a guaranteed job with a starting salary of $80k following graduation. Depending on your service selection (job path) there are kickers and promotions during the 5-year commitment.
Additional upside is that approximately 30% of the salary comprising Housing and Food allowances are not taxed.
No student loan debt.
Starting day one as an academy student you earn a stipend of about $1,400 per month and full medical/dental benefits.