Trends in Higher Education Series

Education Pays 2013

The Benefits of Higher Education
for Individuals and Society

Sandy Baum
Jennifer Ma
Kathleen Payea
About the College Board
The College Board is a mission-driven not-for-profit organization that connects
students to college success and opportunity. Founded in 1900, the College
Board was created to expand access to higher education. Today, the membership
association is made up of over 6,000 of the world’s leading educational institutions
and is dedicated to promoting excellence and equity in education. Each year, the
College Board helps more than seven million students prepare for a successful
transition to college through programs and services in college readiness and
college success — including the SAT® and the Advanced Placement Program®.
The organization also serves the education community through research and
advocacy on behalf of students, educators and schools. For further information,
visit www.collegeboard.org.

Trends in Higher Education

The Trends in Higher Education publications include the Trends in College Pricing,
Trends in Student Aid, and Education Pays series in addition to How College Shapes
Lives: Understanding the Issues and other research reports and topical analysis
briefs published periodically. These reports are designed to provide a foundation of
evidence to strengthen policy discussions and decisions.

In addition to the figures and tables included in this report, more information and
data can be found on the Trends in Higher Education website.
trends.collegeboard.org

About the Authors

Sandy Baum
Research Professor, George Washington University Graduate School of Education
and Human Development and Senior Fellow, the Urban Institute
sbaum@gwu.edu

Jennifer Ma
Independent Consultant for the College Board
jma@collegeboard.org

Kathleen Payea
Policy Analyst, the College Board
kpayea@collegeboard.org

For inquiries or ordering hard copies, please contact: trends@collegeboard.org

© 2013 The College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement Program, SAT and the acorn logo are
registered trademarks of the College Board. All other products and services may be trademarks of their respective owners.
Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.org.

2 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

Contents

5 Executive Summary
7 Introduction
10 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits of Higher Education
Earnings
11 Education, Earnings, and FIGURE 1.1 Median Earnings and Tax Payments by Education Level, 2011
Tax Payments
12 Lifetime Earnings FIGURE 1.2 Lifetime Earnings Relative to High School Graduates by Education Level

13 Earnings Premium Relative FIGURE 1.3 Cumulative Earnings Net of Loan Repayment for Tuition and Fees, by
to Price of Education Education Level

14 Earnings by Race/Ethnicity, FIGURE 1.4 Median Earnings by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Education Level, 2009–2011
Gender, and Education Level
15 Earnings by Gender and FIGURE 1.5 Median, 25th Percentile, and 75th Percentile Earnings by Gender and
Education Level Education Level, 2011

16 Earnings over Time by FIGURE 1.6 Median Earnings by Gender and Education Level, 1971–2011
Gender and Education Level
17 Earnings Paths FIGURE 1.7A Median Earnings of Full-Time Workers by Age and Education Level, 2009–2011
FIGURE 1.7B Median Earnings of All Workers by Age and Education Level, 2009–2011

Other Economic Benefits

18 Employment FIGURE 1.8A Number Employed, Unemployed, and Not in the Labor Force by Education
Level, 2002, 2007, and 2012
FIGURE 1.8B Labor Force Participation Rates by Age and Education Level, 2012

19 Unemployment FIGURE 1.9A Unemployment Rates by Education Level, 1992−2012

20 Unemployment FIGURE 1.9B Unemployment Rates by Age and Education Level, 2012
FIGURE 1.9C Unemployment Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level, 2012

21 Job Satisfaction FIGURE 1.10A Sense of Learning New Things on the Job by Education Level, 2002, 2006,
and 2010
FIGURE 1.10B Work Satisfaction Rates by Education Level, 1972–2012

22 Social Mobility FIGURE 1.11 Family Income Quintiles by Education and Parents’ Family Income,
2000–2008

23 Pension Plans FIGURE 1.12A Pension Plan Coverage by Education Level, 1991, 2001, and 2011
FIGURE 1.12B Participation Rates in Pension Plans by Education Level, 2011

24 Health Insurance FIGURE 1.13A Health Insurance Coverage of Full-Time Workers by Education Level,
1991, 2001, and 2011
FIGURE 1.13B Health Insurance Coverage of Part-Time Workers by Education Level,
1991, 2001, and 2011
25 Poverty FIGURE 1.14A Poverty Rates by Household Type and Education Level, 2011
FIGURE 1.14B Living Arrangements of Children by Poverty Status and Parents’
Education Level, 2011
26 Public Assistance Programs FIGURE 1.15 Public Assistance Program Participation Rates by Education Level, 2011

Health Benefits
27 Smoking FIGURE 1.16A Smoking Rates by Education Level, 1940–2012
FIGURE 1.16B Smoking Histories by Education Level, 2012

28 Exercise FIGURE 1.17A Exercise Rates by Age and Education Level, 2012
FIGURE 1.17B Participation in Aerobic Activities by Education Level, 2011

29 Obesity FIGURE 1.18A Adult Obesity Rates by Gender and Education Level, 1988–1994 and 2007–2010
FIGURE 1.18B Childhood Obesity Rates by Gender and Highest Education Level in the
Household, 1988–1994 and 2007–2010

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 3

Contents — Continued
Other Individual and Societal Benefits
30 Parents and Children
31 Civic Involvement
32 Voting
33 Part 2: The Distribution of the Benefits: Who Participates and Succeeds in Higher Education?
College Enrollment
34 College Enrollment
by Income
35 College Enrollment by
Race/Ethnicity
36 College Enrollment by
Gender and Age
37 Stratification Within
Higher Education
38 Stratification Within
Higher Education
Educational Attainment
39 Degrees and
Certificates Awarded
40 College Completion
41 Educational Attainment
Over Time
42 Educational Attainment by
Race/Ethicity and Gender
43 Science, Technology,
Engineering, or Mathematics
(STEM) Fields
Geographic Comparisons
44 College Enrollment and
Attainment by State
45 International Comparisons:
Public Spending on
Higher Education
46 References
4 EDUCATION PAYS 2013
FIGURE 1.19A Time Mothers Spend on Children, by Employment Status and Education
Level, 2003–2012
FIGURE 1.19B Time Mothers Spend on Children, by Type of Activity, Age of Youngest
Child, Mother’s Employment Status and Education Level, 2003–2012
FIGURE 1.20A Understanding of Political Issues by Education Level, 2012
FIGURE 1.20B Rates of Volunteering by Education Level, 2012
FIGURE 1.21A Voting Rates by Age and Education Level, 2010 and 2012
FIGURE 1.21B Voting Patterns by Age and Education Level, 2012
FIGURE 2.1 Enrollment Rates by Family Income, 1987–2012
FIGURE 2.2A Enrollment Rates of Recent High School Graduates by Race/Ethnicity,
1974–2011
FIGURE 2.2B Enrollment Rates of All 18- to 24-Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity, 1974–2011
FIGURE 2.3A Enrollment Rates of Recent High School Graduates and of All 18- to
24-Year-Olds by Gender, 1971–2011
FIGURE 2.3B Enrollment Rates of All 18- to 34-Year-Olds by Age, 1971–2011
FIGURE 2.4A Family Income by Postsecondary Sector, 2011-12
FIGURE 2.4B Postsecondary Sector by Family Income, 2011-12
FIGURE 2.5 Percentage of High School Seniors Academically Undermatched by
Socioeconomic Status, 2004
FIGURE 2.6A Postsecondary Degrees and Certificates Awarded, 2011-12
FIGURE 2.6B Degrees and Certificates Awarded by Sector, 2011-12
FIGURE 2.6C Number of Certificates Awarded by Type, 2001-02 and 2011-12
FIGURE 2.7A Postsecondary Completion for Students Beginning Postsecondary Study
in 2006
FIGURE 2.7B Postsecondary Completion by Dependency Status and Family Income,
1989-90, 1995-96, and 2003-04
FIGURE 2.8A Educational Attainment over Time, 1940–2012
FIGURE 2.8B Educational Attainment by Age Group, 2002 and 2012
FIGURE 2.9 Educational Attainment by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 1973–2012
FIGURE 2.10A Beginning Four-Year College Students Who Earned Bachelor’s Degrees,
Percentage Persisting in the Fields They Entered
FIGURE 2.10B High School Graduates Entering Four-Year Colleges, Graduating in STEM
Fields, and Employed in STEM Fields
FIGURE 2.10C Majors of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients by Occupation, 2009
FIGURE 2.11 Educational Attainment by State
FIGURE 2.12 International Expenditures on Higher Education Institutions from Public,
Household, and Other Private Sources, 2010
Executive Summary
Education Pays 2013: The Benefits of Higher Education for
Individuals and Society documents differences in the earnings
and employment patterns of U.S. adults with different levels of
education. It also compares health-related behaviors, reliance
on public assistance programs, civic participation, and indicators
of the well-being of the next generation. Financial benefits are
easier to document than nonpecuniary benefits, but the latter
may be as important to students themselves, as well as to the
society in which they participate. Our goal is to call attention to
ways in which both individuals and society as a whole benefit
from increased levels of education.
Our focus is on outcomes correlated with levels of educational
attainment, and it is important to be cautious about attributing
all of the differences observed to causation. However, reliable
statistical analyses support the significant role of postsecondary
education in generating the benefits reported.
Many of the averages we report conceal considerable variation
among people with similar levels of education. More information on
this variation can be found in this report’s companion publication,
How College Shapes Lives: Understanding the Issues.
Education Pays 2013 also examines the increases and the
persistent disparities across demographic groups in college
participation and completion. The magnitude of the benefits of
postsecondary education makes ensuring improved access for
all who can benefit imperative.
This executive summary highlights key ideas in the report.
THE BENEFITS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Individuals with higher levels of education
earn more and are more likely than others to
be employed.
––Median earnings of bachelor’s degree recipients with no
advanced degree working full time in 2011 were $56,500,
$21,100 more than median earnings of high school graduates.
Individuals with some college but no degree earned 14%
more than high school graduates working full time. Their
median after-tax earnings were 13% higher (Figure 1.1).
––Compared to a high school graduate, the median four-year
college graduate who enrolls at age 18 and graduates in four
years can expect to earn enough by age 36 to compensate
for being out of the labor force for four years, as well as for
borrowing the full amount required to pay tuition and fees
without any grant assistance (Figure 1.3).
––Although 16% of male high school graduates earned as much
as or more than the median earnings of male four-year college
graduates in 2011 ($66,200), 84% earned less (Figure 1.5).
––As workers age, earnings rise more rapidly for those with
higher levels of education. For example, the gap between
the earnings of full-time workers whose highest degree is a
bachelor’s degree and those of high school graduates grows
For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org.
from 54% ($15,200) for 25- to 29-year-olds to 86% ($32,000)
for 45- to 49-year-olds (Figure 1.7A).
––The 2012 unemployment rate for four-year college graduates
ages 25 to 34 was 7.1 percentage points below that for high
school graduates. The unemployment rates for those with
associate degrees and with some college but no degree
were 4.0 and 1.6 percentage points below that for high school
graduates, respectively (Figure 1.9B).
The financial return associated with college
credentials and the gaps in earnings by
education level have increased over time.
––Between 2008 and 2011, the gap between the median
earnings of high school graduates ages 25 to 34 and those
in the same age range with a bachelor’s degree or higher
declined from 74% to 69% for men and from 79% to 70% for
women, but the long-term trend is upward (Figure 1.6).
––The difference between median earnings for women ages 25
to 34 working full time year-round with a bachelor’s degree
or higher and those in the same age range with high school
diplomas rose from 43% in 1971 to 56% in 1991 and to 70%
in 2011. The earnings premium for men rose from 25% in 1971
to 56% and in 1991 and to 69% in 2011 (Figure 1.6).
Federal, state, and local governments enjoy
increased tax revenues from college graduates
and spend less on income support programs
for them, providing a direct financial return on
investments in postsecondary education.
––In 2011, 12% of high school graduates ages 25 and older lived
in households that relied on SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance Program) benefits, compared to just 2% of those
with at least a bachelor’s degree. The pattern was similar for
the National School Lunch Program (Figure 1.15).
College-educated adults are more likely
than others to receive health insurance and
pension benefits from their employers.
––In 2011, employers provided pension plans to 52% of full-
time workers with high school diplomas, 65% of those with
bachelor’s degrees, and 73% of those with advanced degrees
(Figure 1.12A).
––In 2011, employers provided health insurance to 55% of full-
time workers with high school diplomas, 69% of those with
bachelor’s degrees, and 73% of those with advanced degrees
(Figure 1.13A).
Adults with higher levels of education are
more active citizens than others.
––In 2012, 42% of four-year college graduates, 29% of adults
with some college or an associate degree, and 17% of high
school graduates volunteered for organizations (Figure 1.20B).
EDUCATION PAYS 2013 5
––Among adults ages 45 to 64, 59% of high school graduates
and 80% of bachelor’s degree recipients voted in the 2012
election (Figure 1.21A).
College education leads to healthier lifestyles,
reducing health care costs.
––The gap between the smoking rates of four-year college
graduates and high school graduates increased from 2
percentage points in 1962 to 13 points in 1982, and to 17
points in 2012 (Figure 1.16A).
––Within each age group, college-educated adults are less
likely than others to be obese. In addition, children living in
households with more educated parents are less likely than
other children to be obese (Figures 1.18A and 1.18B).
College-educated mothers spend more time
with children and alter the composition of
that time to suit children’s developmental
needs more than less educated mothers.
––Among both those who are employed and those who are
not, the amount of time mothers spend on their children’s
activities increases with levels of education (Figure 1.19A).
College education increases the chances that
adults will move up the socioeconomic ladder.
––Of adults who grew up in the middle family income quintile,
31% of those with a four-year college degree moved up to the
top income quintile between 2000 and 2008, compared with just
12% of those without a four-year college degree (Figure 1.11).
Substantial evidence indicates that the
associations described above are the result of
increased educational attainment, not just of
individual characteristics.
PARTICIPATION AND SUCCESS IN
HIGHER EDUCATION
Although college enrollment rates continue
to rise, large gaps in enrollment rates and
patterns persist across demographic groups.
––The college enrollment rate of high school graduates from the
lowest family-income quintile increased from 42% in 1992 to
50% in 2002, and to 52% in 2012. The rate for middle-income
students increased from 53% to 55% to 65% over these
decades, while 78% of the highest-income high school
graduates enrolled in college in 1992 and in 2002, and 82%
enrolled in 2012 (Figure 2.1).
6 EDUCATION PAYS 2013
––The gaps between the college enrollment rates of black
and Hispanic high school graduates and white high school
graduates narrowed considerably between 2001 and 2011,
when 70% of white, 66% of black, and 62% of Hispanic
high school graduates enrolled in college within a year of
completing high school (Figure 2.2A).
––Thirty-eight percent of dependent undergraduate students
from families with incomes below $29,600 enrolled in public
two-year colleges in 2011-12, and 10% enrolled in for-profit
institutions. In contrast, 22% of undergraduate students from
families with incomes of $106,360 or higher enrolled in public
two-year colleges, and 2% attended for-profit institutions
(Figure 2.4B).
––Enrolling at institutions that are less selective than those for
which students are academically qualified is most common
among those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Most
of this enrollment pattern is explained by where students
apply rather than by admission decisions (Figure 2.5).
––In 2007-08, the percentage of young people enrolling in
college within a year after they were scheduled to graduate
from high school ranged from 29% in Nevada and 30% in
the District of Columbia to 61% in Massachusetts and South
Dakota (Figure 2.11).
Educational attainment rates are increasing,
but college completion rates and attainment
patterns differ considerably across
demographic groups.
––Among students who began college in 2006 at the age of 24
or younger and enrolled exclusively full time, 78% had earned
a degree or certificate six years later (Figure 2.7A).
––The percentage of adults in the U.S. between the ages of 25
and 34 with a four-year college degree grew from 6% in 1950
to 24% in 1980 and 1990. In 2012, 34% of adults in this age
group had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (Figure 2.8A).
––In 2012, the percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds with at least
a bachelor’s degree ranged from 11% for Hispanic males to
43% for white non-Hispanic women (Figure 2.9).
Postsecondary education relies more on
private funding in the U.S. than in most other
developed countries.
––In 2010, the percentage of expenditures on higher education
coming from public as opposed to private sources ranged
from 22% in Chile and 25% in the United Kingdom, to 96%
in Finland and Norway. In the United States, 36% of funding
was public, 48% came from households, and 16% was from
other private sources (Figure 2.12).
Introduction
As we emerge from the Great Recession, it is increasingly clear
that our postsecondary education system and the economic
and social context supporting it must evolve if we are to take
best advantage of our human and physical resources. While
the developing recovery has improved life for many Americans,
those at the top are benefiting most. The gaps between those
who grow up in privilege and those who do not continue to
widen. Too many young people are struggling to find their
places in the adult world.
A college education does not carry a guarantee of a good life
or even of financial security. But the evidence is overwhelming
that for most people, education beyond high school is a
prerequisite for a secure lifestyle and significantly improves the
probabilities of employment and a stable career with a positive
earnings trajectory. It also provides tools that help people to live
healthier and more satisfying lives, to participate actively in civil
society, and to create opportunities for their children.
The word “college” has come to mean many different things.
It includes universities with ivy-covered walls and small seminar
classes, offering bachelor’s and graduate degrees. But it also
includes public and private for-profit institutions specializing in
short-term training for specific occupations. College students
may be 18-year-olds straight out of high school or they may be
adults seeking new labor-market skills in the middle of their
work lives.
THE EDUCATION PAYS REPORT
Education Pays 2013 contains data on the financial and
nonfinancial benefits of postsecondary education, broadly
defined. Part 1 provides up-to-date information about earnings,
employment and unemployment patterns, and nonwage
attributes associated with the jobs held by people with
different levels of education. Because many of the changes
that education engenders in people’s lives are outside of their
work lives, we report on health and lifestyle patterns as well.
Much of the information in this report pertains to the benefits
that accrue to society as a whole when more people are
college-educated, including increases in tax revenues and
reductions in public expenditures. Other differences associated
with postsecondary education, such as frequencies of smoking,
obesity, voting, volunteering, and participating in educational
activities with children also have a significant impact not only on
individuals, but also on the fiscal and social strength of our nation.
The second part of Education Pays focuses on participation and
success rates in postsecondary education, with an emphasis
on differences among demographic groups. This year, we are
introducing a new companion publication, How College Shapes
For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org.
Lives: Understanding the Issues. This study examines the
variation in postsecondary outcomes, as well as the ambiguity
involved in measuring those outcomes. Education Pays includes
some information on the variation in earnings among individuals
with similar levels of education (Figure 1.5), the impact of
the length of time it takes to earn a degree (Figure 1.3), and
completion rates for those who begin college (Figure 2.7);
however, it does not go into depth on these issues or provide
much insight into growing concerns about the uncertainty
involved in individual decisions about postsecondary education.
Taken together, the two publications should provide readers
with a greater understanding of the importance of investments
in postsecondary education.
Not all investments in education pay off equally well. Well-designed
policies and strong support for individual decision-making in a
complex environment have the potential to make our society
both more equitable and more productive. We should focus
not only on providing more education but also on providing the
opportunities that will best serve the varied needs, preferences,
and circumstances of the population.
Like the College Board’s Trends in College Pricing and Trends
in Student Aid reports, Education Pays collects and reports
data. Some of the benefits of higher education documented
in this report are widely cited; others are less well known. We
bring publicly available government statistics together with
less familiar academic research in order to paint a detailed
and integrated picture of the benefits of higher education
and how they are distributed. Where possible, we have
summarized complex analyses in a manner consistent with the
straightforward presentation style of this report. We provide
references to more in-depth and sophisticated analyses so that
readers can pursue issues of particular interest.
Education Pays is intended as a resource and a reference for
anyone interested in understanding the value of investments
in higher education and how different groups in society
benefit from those investments. Readers will draw their own
inferences about the public policies most consistent with the
evidence provided.
THE PAYOFF OF HIGHER EDUCATION
The latest income data available for most of the indicators in
Education Pays 2013 are for 2011. In the three years since we
reported on 2008 income in Education Pays 2010, the gap
between the median earnings of high school graduates ages
25 to 34 and those in the same age group with a bachelor’s
degree or higher declined from 74% to 69% for men and from
79% to 70% for women. The earnings gap grows as workers
age and move further along their career paths, but discussions
EDUCATION PAYS 2013 7
frequently focus on recent college graduates, particularly when
the economy is weak. The increasing number of students
who face difficulty repaying their student loans provides some
justification for this perspective. But the evidence still strongly
supports the conclusion that the long-term benefits of investing
in postsecondary education exceed the costs, not just for
society but also for the individual students who are bearing an
increasing portion of the cost of their own education.
The long-term upward trend in the earnings premium for
college graduates has led to a focus on that growth. But the
premium does not have to keep growing for the investment
to be a good one. According to Greenstone and Looney (2011)
of the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, “On average,
the benefits of a four-year college degree are equivalent to an
investment that returns 15.2 percent per year. This is more than
double the average return to stock market investments since
1950, and more than five times the returns to corporate bonds,
gold, long-term government bonds, or home ownership. From
any investment perspective, college is a great deal.”
Our calculation in Figure 1.3 compares the median cumulative
earnings of high school graduates to those of college graduates
and finds that by about age 36, higher earnings compensate not
only for four years out of the labor force, but also for average
tuition and fee payments at a four-year university funded fully
by student loans at 6.8% interest. The cumulative earnings of
associate degree recipients reach this point when graduates
are about 34. Modifying the assumptions underlying these
calculations by, for example, increasing the assumed time
spent in school, allowing for paid work while in school, or taking
grant aid into consideration will lengthen or shorten the time
required to make up the investment. But the key point is that
for the typical student, the investment pays off very well over
the course of a lifetime — even considering the expense.
Anecdotes about individual students whose paths through
postsecondary education have not worked out well do not
contradict the fact that on average and for most students,
college is an excellent financial investment. Benson, Esteva,
and Levy (2013) find that even after accounting for actual
time to degree, the probability of enrolling in college but not
completing a degree, and the higher taxes paid by those with
higher levels of education, the average rate of return to college
remains high. They explain that this reality is not incompatible
with the perception that more former students are facing
difficulties repaying their loans. This issue has gained attention
because of a combination of rising tuition and debt levels with
increasing variation in the earnings of college graduates.
In addition to the variation in earnings characterizing the weak
economy in recent years, unemployment has become more
8 EDUCATION PAYS 2013
common, even for college graduates. But the data show large
differences associated with level of education. Figure 1.9A
shows that the unemployment rate for college graduates fell
from its peak of 4.7% in 2010 to 4.0% in 2012, but it remained
2 percentage points higher than the 2007 level of 2.0%.
However, the unemployment rate for high school graduates,
which fell from its peak of 10.3% in 2010 to 8.3% in 2012, was
almost 4 percentage points higher than its 2007 level of 4.4%.
It is important that we not allow the financial returns to college
to obscure the other benefits of a college education. Paying
for college requires too large of an expenditure to ignore the
expected earnings on the other side, but we would lose a
tremendous amount as a society if each individual set as his or
her life goal maximizing lifetime income. College means many
different things to people — partly depending on the stage of
life at which they enroll, the type of institution they attend, the
subjects they choose to study, whether they enroll full time
or part time, and whether they are residential or commuter
students. But as the data in Education Pays indicate, overall
behavior patterns and attitudes differ considerably by level of
education. The knowledge, fulfillment, self-awareness, and
broadening of horizons associated with education transform the
lives of students and of those with whom they live and work.
Postsecondary education should pay off well enough for people
to pay back their loans and not suffer a diminished standard of
living. But the personal growth, increased understanding of the
world, and wider range of options available to college-educated
adults deserve our attention. Our society would become
immeasurably poorer if financial pressures were to lead us to
think of higher education as synonymous with job training.
The fact is that the typical college graduate is considerably
more likely than the typical high school graduate to have a
job, and that job is likely to pay significantly more than the
average earnings of high school graduates. The data may not
be as colorful as the anecdotes we see so often in the press,
but they tell a more realistic story. They also allow for a better
understanding of which students and which circumstances are
most likely to create the stories of the outliers who attract so
much attention.
COLLEGE COMPLETION
Some of the doubts about the benefits of higher education arise
from the fact that increasing college enrollment rates over time for
all demographic groups have been accompanied by persistently low
degree-completion rates. Not well known is that over three-quarters
of students who begin college at age 24 or younger and enroll
exclusively full time earn a degree or certificate within six years
(Figure 2.7A). Moreover, the overall graduation rates for first-time
full-time students are actually rising slowly.
Still, too many people begin college, invest both time and confuse the idea of increasing postsecondary participation
money, and never earn a credential. The gaps in completion and attainment with the idea that almost everyone should
rates by family income level, age, and enrollment intensity earn a bachelor’s degree are misleading. There are many
are large. We also know that there is considerable variation postsecondary options. Students need better guidance
in completion rates across types of institutions and among about which options to pursue. With that guidance, for most
individual institutions with similar student bodies. Unfortunately, individuals the choice with the best long-run outcomes will
these very real problems have led some observers to the involve some form of postsecondary study.
unwarranted conclusion that people who do not have strong
academic preparation, who do not have the required financial INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE
resources, or who are unfamiliar with the expectations and
Many of the graphs in this report compare the experiences of
requirements of colleges and universities should not pursue
people with different education levels. In general, while simple
postsecondary education.
descriptions of correlations provide useful clues, they do not
reliably determine causation or measure the exact size of the
Research, however, tells us otherwise. Numerous economic
effects. They are best interpreted as providing broadly-gauged
analyses indicate that students who, because of their
evidence of the powerful role that higher education plays in the
demographic characteristics and academic experiences,
lives of individuals and in society. That said, a growing body of
hesitate to go to college stand to benefit the most from a
evidence points to the direct impact of higher education not
postsecondary degree (Card, 2001; Brand & Xie, 2010; Hout,
only on specific job-related skills, but also on the attitudes and
2012). This finding does not imply that individuals on the margin
behavior patterns of students. Education enables people to
of college attendance will end up earning more than those
better adapt to change. It also makes them more likely to take
who knew from an early age that they would attend college.
responsibility for their health and for the society in which they
It means that the incremental gain in their earnings resulting
live, and to parent in ways that improve the prospects for their
from a college education may be larger. It is relatively rare for
own children.
young people whose parents are affluent — or even middle-
class — college graduates to skip college altogether. For them,
The evidence is overwhelming that higher education
going to college and earning a bachelor’s degree is the “default
improves people’s lives, makes our economy more efficient,
option.” Those who choose not to enroll usually have actively
and contributes to a more equitable society. As Figure 1.11
considered and rejected the idea. But for too many low-income
illustrates, postsecondary education is key to the ability of adults
and first-generation students, financial and logistical barriers
to rise above the socioeconomic status of their parents. Without
loom so large that the possibility of going to college never
a college education, those born into the lower economic rungs
seems realistic. Many of these students would likely benefit
are likely to stay there.
from appropriate postsecondary educational opportunities.

Narrowing the gaps in college participation and success across

First-generation students and those from low-income
income groups is vital to our future as a nation. Different paths
backgrounds frequently lack the information needed to make
are appropriate for different individuals, and our challenge is to
the best choices when they do enroll in college. As the data
make the most promising paths readily available to students
in Part 2 of Education Pays reveal, many students enroll in
from all backgrounds. Money alone cannot solve this problem.
colleges that are less selective and less challenging than
As inequality in the distribution of resources in our society
those to which they would likely be admitted based on their
increases over time, the hurdles facing disadvantaged children
academic qualifications. Numerous studies have shown that
grow in relative terms. Our education system must do better at
this enrollment pattern significantly decreases the probability
helping them to overcome these hurdles.
of graduating.

The tables supporting all of the graphs in this report, a

As Figure 2.6A indicates, over 40% of the undergraduate
PDF version of the report, and a PowerPoint file containing
credentials awarded in 2011-12 were certificates or associate
individual slides for all of the graphs are available on our
degrees. Some people who begin bachelor’s degrees and
website at trends.collegeboard.org. Please feel free to cite or
end up leaving school without a credential might have been
reproduce the data in this report for noncommercial purposes
better served by enrolling in a shorter program; on the other
with proper attribution.
hand, many who enroll in shorter programs diminish their
chances of ever earning a four-year degree. Arguments that

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 9

Part 1:
Individual and Societal Benefits of Higher Education
The benefits of investments in higher education are shared by
individual students and the societies of which they are a part.
Individuals with college degrees, and to a lesser extent those
who have some college experience but do not have a degree,
earn more than others and enjoy better working conditions.
They contribute more to society, both through higher tax
payments and through their civic involvement. College-
educated adults also give their children benefits that increase
the prospects that the next generation will prosper and will be
in a position to contribute to society in a variety of ways.
The indicators in Part 1 of Education Pays document the
financial benefits of college participation and success and other
ways in which higher education improves the lives of adults and
their communities.
Earnings are too often emphasized as the primary benefit of
higher education, and may overshadow other outcomes that
could well be as important. Nonetheless, the price of college
makes an understanding of the financial benefits critical, and
several of the following pages focus on earnings differences
corresponding to levels of educational attainment. During their
working lives, college graduates earn, on average, about 65%
more than high school graduates, and those with advanced
degrees earn two to three times as much as high school
graduates. The earnings premium increases as workers move
further along their career paths.
Salaries are not the only form of compensation correlated with
education level. For example, college graduates are more likely
than other employees to enjoy employer-provided health and
pension benefits. They are more likely to feel that they learn
new things on their jobs and are somewhat more satisfied with
their work than others. These findings do not mean that there
are no exceptions to the rule. Some individuals make fortunes
despite little formal education, and some struggle financially,
even with a college education. As Figure 1.5 illustrates, there is
considerable variation in earnings among people with the same
level of education. But the overall patterns are clear and dramatic
— more education means increased opportunities. Although it
requires the considerable investment of dollars, time, and effort,
higher education measurably improves the lives of most who
participate and significantly increases the probability that adults
will move up in the socioeconomic hierarchy.
10 EDUCATION PAYS 2013
Society as a whole also enjoys a financial return on the
investment in higher education. In addition to widespread
productivity increases, the higher earnings of educated
workers generate higher tax payments at the local, state, and
federal levels. Four-year college graduates pay, on average,
78% more in taxes each year than high school graduates,
and for those who continued on to earn a professional
degree, average tax payments are more than three and a
half times as high as those paid by high school graduates.
Spending on social support programs such as unemployment
compensation, SNAP, and Medicaid is much lower for
individuals with higher levels of education.
While the pages in this section report relationships between
education and outcomes and not measures of causation,
a large body of reliable research provides evidence that
most of the differences in outcomes are, in fact, the result
of individuals’ education. The evidence is compelling that
postsecondary education not only provides valued credentials
but also increases skills and knowledge and changes the way
people approach their lives.
Beyond the economic return to individuals and to society as
a whole, higher education improves quality of life in a variety
of ways, only some of which can be easily quantified. High
levels of labor force participation, employment, and earnings
increase the material well-being of individuals and the wealth
of society, and also carry psychological benefits. Adults
with higher levels of education are more likely to engage in
organized volunteer work, to understand political issues, and
to vote. They are also more likely to live healthy lifestyles. The
issue is not just that they earn more and have better access
to health care; college-educated adults smoke less, exercise
more, and have lower obesity rates. These differences not
only affect the lifestyles and life expectancies of individuals
but also reduce medical costs for society as a whole.
Mothers with higher levels of education spend more time
on their children’s activities. In other words, participation in
postsecondary education improves the quality of civil society.
The pages in this section do not provide a comprehensive
measure of the benefits of higher education. They do, however,
provide an indication of the nature and extent of the return on
our investment in educational opportunities.
Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits
 Earnings

Education, Earnings, and Tax Payments

In 2011, median earnings of bachelor’s degree recipients with no advanced degree working
full time were $21,100 higher than those of high school graduates. The difference includes
$5,000 in tax payments and $16,100 in after-tax income.

––Individuals with some college but no degree earned 14%

ALSO IMPORTANT:
more than high school graduates working full time year-round.
Their median after-tax earnings were 13% higher. ––Seventy-seven percent of four-year college graduates ages 25 and older
had earnings in 2011 and 58% worked full time year-round. Fifty-nine
––Median earnings for individuals with associate degrees percent of high school graduates ages 25 and older had earnings, and
working full time were 27% higher than median earnings 41% worked full time. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Table PINC-03)
for those with only a high school diploma. After-tax earnings ––The gap between the earnings of high school graduates and the earnings
were 25% higher. of individuals whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree is 60% for
full-time workers and 73% for all earners. The corresponding difference
––Individuals with master’s degrees earned twice as much in tax payments is 77% for full-time workers and 96% for all earners.
before taxes and took home 90% more than high school (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Table PINC-03)
graduates working full time. Those with doctoral degrees
––All of the differences in earnings reported here may not be attributable
working full time earned 2.6 times as much and had after-tax
to education level. Educational credentials are correlated with a variety
earnings 2.4 times as high school graduates. of other factors that affect earnings, including, for example, parents’
socioeconomic status and some personal characteristics.
––The median total tax payments of full-time workers with
a professional degree in 2011 were over three and a half ––While the average high school graduate may not increase his or her
times as high as the median tax payments of high school earnings to the level of the average college graduate simply by earning
graduates working full time. After-tax earnings were about a bachelor’s degree, careful research on the subject suggests that the
2.7 times as high. figures cited here do not measurably overstate the financial return to
higher education. (Carneiro, Heckman, & Vytlacil, 2003; Rouse, 2005;
Harmon, Oosterbeek, & Walker, 2003)

FIGURE 1.1
Median Earnings and Tax Payments of Full-Time Year-Round Workers Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 2011

Taxes Paid After-Tax Earnings

Professional Degree (2%) $23,400 $78,800 $102,200

Doctoral Degree (2%) $20,300 $70,700 $91,000

Master’s Degree (10%) $14,800 $55,200 $70,000

Education Level

Bachelor’s Degree (25%) $11,400 $45,100 $56,500

Associate Degree (11%) $8,600 $36,200 $44,800

Some College,
No Degree (17%) $7,500 $32,900 $40,400

High School Diploma (27%) $6,400 $29,000 $35,400

$4,100
Less than a
High School Diploma (7%) $21,000 $25,100
$20,500

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000

Median Earnings

The bars in this graph show median earnings at each education level. The blue segments represent the estimated average federal, state, and
local taxes paid at these income levels. The orange segments show after-tax earnings.

NOTE: The numbers in parentheses on the y-axis indicate the percentage of all full-time year-round workers with each education level in 2011. Taxes paid
include federal income, Social Security, Medicare, state and local income, sales, and property taxes. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Table PINC-03; Internal Revenue Service, 2010; Davis et al., 2013; calculations by the authors.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 11

 Earnings

Lifetime Earnings
During a 40-year full-time working life, the median earnings of bachelor’s degree recipients
without an advanced degree are 65% higher than the median earnings of high
school graduates.

––The median lifetime earnings of individuals with an associate
degree and those with some college education but no
degree (a category that includes certificate holders) are
27% and 13% higher than the median earnings of high
school graduates, respectively.
––While including advanced degree holders with those whose
highest degree is a bachelor’s degree would overstate the
payoff of a four-year degree, excluding them understates the
payoff because part of the benefit of a bachelor’s degree is
the option it provides for obtaining a graduate degree.

––The calculations in Figure 1.2 are based on earnings of

individuals working full time year-round. Because the
proportion of adults working full time year-round increases
with education level (for example, 65% of four-year college
graduates and 51% of high school graduates between the
ages of 25 and 64 worked full time in 2011), the lifetime
earnings differentials would be larger if all adults — or all
adult workers — were included in these calculations.
ALSO IMPORTANT:
––There are a variety of ways to estimate lifetime earnings for people
with different levels of education. Although some reasonable
assumptions would lower the ratios shown here and other reasonable
assumptions would increase those ratios, the results consistently
reveal significantly higher earnings levels associated with higher levels
of education.

––A number of careful studies show that people who are kept out of
––As Figure 1.1 reports, higher earnings correspond to higher tax
college by barriers like a shortage of funds or the absence of nearby
payments. If after-tax earnings were used to calculate lifetime
appropriate colleges earn higher than average returns when the
earnings, the ratio of lifetime earnings for individuals with more barriers are lowered. In other words, the idea that students who are
than a high school diploma to lifetime earnings for high school not enrolling in college would be unlikely to enjoy the average benefits
graduates would decline slightly. reported here is not supported by the evidence. (Brand & Xie, 2010)

FIGURE 1.2
Expected Full-Time Lifetime Earnings Relative to High School Graduates, by Education Level

3.50

2.92
3.00
2.43
2.50
Earnings Ratio

1.96
2.00
1.65

1.50 1.27
1.13
1.00
1.00
0.72

0.50

0.00
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Professional
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree
Diploma
Education Level

NOTE: Based on the sum of median 2011 earnings for full-time year-round workers at each age from 25 to 64 for each education level. No allowance is
made for the shorter work life resulting from time spent in college or out of the labor force for other reasons. Future earnings are discounted at a 3% annual
rate to account for the reality that because of forgone interest, dollars received in the future are not worth as much as those received today. Discounting
does not have a large impact on the lifetime earnings ratios. The calculations are illustrative and do not represent what individuals will actually earn in the
future. Earnings ratios calculated using data from another year will likely yield slightly different results. For example, the earnings ratio of bachelor’s degree
recipients to high school graduates is 1.61 based on 2005 earnings data, 1.66 based on 2008 earnings data, and 1.65 based on 2011 earnings data.
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Table PINC-03; calculations by the authors.

12 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Earnings

Earnings Premium Relative to Price

of Education
FIGURE 1.3 Compared to a high school
Estimated Cumulative Full-Time Earnings (in 2011 Dollars) Net of Loan graduate, the median four-year
Repayment for Tuition and Fees, by Education Level college graduate who enrolls at
$1,200,000 age 18 and graduates in four years
Bachelor’s Degree can expect to earn enough by age
$1,000,000 36 to compensate for being out of
the labor force for four years and
Cumulative Net Earnings

$800,000
Associate Degree
for borrowing the full tuition and
fee amount without any grant aid.
$600,000
High School Diploma
––For the median associate degree recipient who
$400,000 borrows to cover tuition and fees at a community
college and earns an associate degree two years
$200,000
after high school graduation, total earnings net of
loan repayment exceed the total earnings of high
school graduates by age 34.
$0
18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 64
All the break-even ages below refer to high school
Age
graduates as the comparison group:
Orange solid line: cumulative median earnings at each age for high school
graduates entering the workforce full time at age 18. Light blue solid line: 1. The lower tuition and fee level in public colleges
cumulative median earnings at each age for four-year college graduates entering and universities lowers the break-even age for
the workforce at age 22 after four years out of the labor force. Loan payments are bachelor’s degree recipients graduating in four
subtracted from earnings for the first 10 years after graduation, covering both the years from 36 to 33.
principal and 6.8% interest during and after college. Light orange dotted line: the
same calculation for students borrowing to cover two years of public two-year
2. If a student stays out of the labor force and
college tuition and fees and entering the workforce at age 20.
borrows the full tuition and fees for five years
NOTE: Based on median 2011 earnings for individuals working full time year-round at each to complete a bachelor’s degree, the break-even
education level and each age. Includes only students who complete degrees; excludes
bachelor’s degree recipients who earn advanced degrees. Assumes college graduates borrow age will be 37 instead of 36. Taking three years
$14,352 to cover total first-year tuition and fee charges for 2011-12 (weighted average of $8,256 instead of two to complete an associate degree
average public four-year in-state and $27,883 private nonprofit four-year tuition and fees) for
the first year and 5% more each of the next three years. Assumes associate degree recipients raises the break-even age from 34 to 38.
borrow $2,959 2011-12 average public two-year college tuition and 5% more the next year.
Tuition payments and earnings are discounted at 3%, compounded every year beyond age 18. 3. If a student borrows the average tuition and
In previous editions of Education Pays, this calculation was based on public four-year in-state
tuition and fees, rather than a weighted average. fees net of grant aid, the break-even age for
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Table PINC-03; Baum and Ma, 2012; calculations by both associate and bachelor’s degree recipients
the authors. declines to 32.

4. Assuming average in-school earnings of $4,060

Break-Even Ages Under Alternative Assumptions per year for bachelor’s degree recipients lowers
the break-even age from 36 to 34. The higher
AA BA BA
Recipient Recipient Recipient average in-school earnings ($7,060) of associate
vs. vs. vs. degree recipients lowers their break-even age
HS HS AA
Graduate Graduate Recipient from 34 to 30. Associate and bachelor’s degree
Baseline (as shown in Figure 1.3) 34 36 37
recipients’ in-school earnings are based on
earnings of students who were enrolled in
Alternative Assumptions
2003-04 and earned an associate degree by 2006
1. In-state tuition and fees at public four-year institutions instead of 34 33 33 and a bachelor’s degree by 2009, respectively.
weighted average of public and private nonprofit four-year tuition and fees
2. Longer time to degree: 3 years out of the labor force and 3 years of 38 37 37 5. If the earnings of all working adults — instead
tuition borrowed for associate degree recipients; 5 years out of the labor
force and 5 years of tuition borrowed for bachelor’s degree recipients of only those working full time year-round —
3. Borrowing weighted net tuition and fees (tuition and fees minus all 32 32 32 are considered, the typical four-year college
grants and tax benefits) graduate makes up for time out of the labor
4. Work average amount in college instead of no earnings 30 34 36 force and for paying tuition by age 33.
5. Based on all workers instead of just full-time year-round 30 33 35

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 13

 Earnings

Earnings by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and

Education Level
Median earnings for Asian men between the ages of 25 and 34 with a four-year college
degree working full time year-round in 2009–2011 were 91% ($27,400) higher than median
earnings for Asian men with a high school diploma. The college earnings premium for white
males was 40% ($14,800).
––For women ages 25 to 34, the full time were 38% ($10,300) higher Ratio of Median Earnings of Bachelor’s
earnings premium for a four-year than median earnings for white female Degree Recipients to Median Earnings of
college degree ranged from 56% for high school graduates. Among bachelor’s High School Graduates, by Race/Ethnicity
and Gender, Full-Time Year-Round Workers,
black and white women ($14,200 degree recipients, the gender gap was
2009–2011
and $15,300, respectively) to 85% 23% ($9,800).
($22,700) for Asian women. BA/HS Earnings Ratio
Ages Ages
––Among full-time workers ages 25 to 34, ALSO IMPORTANT: 25–34 25 and Older
the earnings differential between those Asian Female 1.85 1.83
––Figure 1.4 shows the median earnings of
with some college but no degree and
individuals working full time year-round. The Male 1.91 1.93
high school graduates ranged from 9%
proportion of individuals working full time
($3,200) for white men to 27% ($8,200) Black Female 1.56 1.68
year-round increases with education level.
for Asian men. For example, in 2009–2011, the proportion Male 1.67 1.56

––The earnings differential between of the Asian female population working Hispanic Female 1.60 1.64
associate degree recipients and high full time year-round ranged from 22% for Male 1.58 1.72
school graduates ranged from 17% those without a high school diploma to
White Female 1.56 1.59
($4,300) for black women to 37% 48% for those with an advanced degree.
The proportion of white men working full Male 1.40 1.61
($10,000) for Asian women.
time year-round ranged from 37% for those All Female 1.60 1.61
––Median earnings for 25- to 34-year-old without a high school diploma to 78% for
Male 1.52 1.63
white male high school graduates working those with an advanced degree.

FIGURE 1.4
Median Earnings (in 2011 Dollars) of Full-Time Year-Round Workers Ages 25–34, by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Education Level,
2009–2011

$100,000

Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s Advanced

High School Diploma Diploma No Degree Degree Degree Degree
$76,200

$80,000
$70,700

$68,800
$67,300
$66,300

$58,300
$57,600
Median Earnings

$52,500

$52,400

$60,000
$52,200

$51,800
$50,800
$49,500

$48,200
$47,400

$46,100
$45,300

$42,400
$42,400

$42,100
$40,600
$40,300
$40,100

$40,000
$39,500

$39,200
$38,400

$37,200

$37,400
$36,800

$35,500
$35,300

$34,000
$34,000
$33,800
$32,300

$40,000
$31,600

$30,500

$30,300
$30,200

$29,900
$29,900
$29,600

$29,200
$27,900

$27,200

$27,100
$26,800

$26,300
$25,200
$25,300

$25,200

$24,400
$23,200

$22,700

$21,800

$19,300
$19,300

$18,300

$20,000

$0
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Asian Black Hispanic White All

Race/Ethnicity and Gender

NOTE: Based on combined data from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey. Earnings in 2009
and 2010 are adjusted to 2011 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers. Median earnings are the median of combined data. The “Asian,”
“Black,” and “White” categories include individuals who reported one race only and who reported non-Hispanic. The sample size for Asian females with less
than a high school diploma is too small to allow for reliable reporting.
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a; calculations by the authors.

14 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Earnings

Earnings by Gender and Education Level

Earnings of full-time year-round workers are strongly correlated with level of education,
but there is considerable variation in earnings among both men and women at each level of
educational attainment.
––In 2011, although 16% of male high ––In 2011, 16% of female four-year college ALSO IMPORTANT:
school graduates earned as much as or graduates with no advanced degree ––Figure 1.5 includes only full-time year-round
more than the median earnings of male earned less than the median earnings of workers ages 25 and older. Among both men
four-year college graduates ($66,200), female high school graduates ($30,000), and women, the percentage of individuals who
84% earned less. while 84% earned more. are employed rises with level of education,
as does the percentage of those employed
––In 2011, 20% of male four-year college ––In 2011, 62% of males with some who are working full time. (Bureau of Labor
graduates with no advanced degree college education but no degree Statistics, 2013b)
earned less than the median earnings of and 68% of males holding associate
male high school graduates ($40,400), degrees earned more than the median
while 80% earned more. earnings of male high school graduates.

––In 2011, although 14% of female high
school graduates earned as much as
or more than the median earnings of
female four-year college graduates
($49,100), 86% earned less.
––In 2011, 63% of females with some
college education but no degree and
70% of females holding associate
degrees earned more than the median
earnings of female high school graduates.

FIGURE 1.5
Median, 25th Percentile, and 75th Percentile Earnings of Full-Time Year-Round Workers Ages 25 and Older, by Gender and Education
Level, 2011

$200,000
75th Percentile
Median $170,000
25th Percentile
$150,000
$150,000
$141,000

$125,000
$119,500
$109,000
Earnings

$100,000 $100,800
$100,000

$81,400 $77,500 $80,700 $83,000

$69,000 $71,900
$67,200 $66,200
$60,300 $71,800
$53,400 $49,100 $56,500 $65,200
$50,900
$50,000 $47,000 $47,100 $56,600
$40,500 $39,300 $53,100 $54,100 $40,200 $40,400
$34,600 $44,600 $43,900
$27,100 $30,000 $35,100
$27,300
$36,000
$31,700
$20,700 $25,200 $26,900 $27,300
$21,100 $19,900
$15,800
$0
Less than a Some College, Bachelor’s Doctoral Less than a Some College, Bachelor’s Doctoral
High School No Degree Degree Degree High School No Degree Degree Degree
Diploma Diploma
High School Associate Master’s Professional High School Associate Master’s Professional
Diploma Degree Degree Degree Diploma Degree Degree Degree
Female Male
Gender and Education Level

This graph shows earnings by education level separately for male and female full-time year-round workers ages 25 and older. The bottom
of each bar shows the 25th percentile; 25% of the people in the group earn less than this amount. The box shows median earnings for the
group. The top of the bar shows the 75th percentile; 25% of the people in the group earn more than this amount.
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, Table PINC-03; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a; calculations by the authors.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 15

 Earnings

Earnings over Time by Gender and

Education Level
In 2011, median earnings were 70% higher for females ages 25 to 34 with a bachelor’s degree or
higher working full time year-round than for those with only a high school diploma; the premium
for males was 69%. These earnings gaps were higher than the gaps a decade earlier, but lower
than the peaks for women in 2009 and for men in 2008.

––Between 2006 and 2011, real median earnings declined by ALSO IMPORTANT:
7% for male high school graduates and by 2% for men with ––The overall distribution of income in the United States became more
bachelor’s degrees or higher. Real median earnings rose by unequal between 1971 and 2011. The share of total income received
2% for female high school graduates but declined by 2% for by households in the lowest 20% of the income distribution declined
women with a bachelor’s degree or higher. from 4.1% in 1971 to 3.8% in 1991, and to 3.2% in 2011.

––Within the “Bachelor’s Degree or Higher” category, 25% ––The share of total income received by households in the highest 20%
of men and 31% of women had advanced degrees in 2011, of the income distribution rose from 43.5% in 1971 to 46.5% in 1991,
compared to 23% of men and 24% of women a decade earlier. and to 51.1% in 2011.

––The share of total income received by households in the top 5% of the

––The gap between median earnings for 25- to 34-year-old males
income distribution rose from 16.7% in 1971 to 18.1% in 1991 and to
with advanced degrees and those with only bachelor’s degrees 22.3% in 2011. (U.S. Census Bureau 2012, Historical Income Table H-2)
increased from 23% in 2001 to 36% in 2011; for women the
increase was from 15% to 25%.

FIGURE 1.6
Median Earnings (in 2011 Dollars) of Full-Time Year-Round Workers Ages 25–34, by Gender and Education Level, 1971–2011

$80,000 Advanced Degree

Bachelor’s Degree
or Higher
Median Earnings in 2011 Dollars

$60,000
Bachelor’s Degree

Associate Degree

$40,000 Some College or

Associate Degree

Some College
$20,000
High School
Diploma

$0 Grades 9−11
1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011

Female Male
Gender and Year

Percentage of “Bachelor’s Degree or Higher” Category with Advanced Degrees (Master’s, Doctoral, or Professional)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Female 20% 19% 20% 21% 21% 21% 22% 24% 23% 22% 24% 26% 27% 27% 27% 28% 31% 30% 28% 32% 31%
Male 25% 24% 23% 23% 25% 22% 22% 22% 22% 21% 23% 24% 25% 25% 25% 25% 24% 28% 27% 24% 25%

SOURCES: Data for 1993 and prior: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2004a; Data for 1994 and after: U.S. Census Bureau, 1995–2012, PINC tables;
CPI-U: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a; calculations by the authors.

16 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Earnings

Earnings Paths
Earnings peak at ages 45–49 or 50–54 for workers at all levels of education. The increase
in earnings from ages 25–29 to the peak is largest for four-year college graduates.

––For full-time year-round workers, median earnings of 45- to ––The earnings gap between high school graduates and
49-year-olds with high school diplomas are 33% higher than bachelor’s degree holders ages 25 to 29 increases from 54%
those of 25- to 29-year-olds. The difference is 60% for four-year ($15,200) to 72% ($15,500) when part-time workers are
college graduates and larger for those with advanced degrees. included. For those ages 45 to 49, the earnings premium for
four-year college graduates working full time is 86% ($32,000)
––The earnings gap between high school graduates and individuals
and for all workers it is 87% ($26,700).
with higher levels of education is smallest for 25- to 29-year-olds.
For example:
ALSO IMPORTANT:
ƒƒFor full-time workers with associate degrees, the earnings
Percentage of All Workers Working Full-Time Year-Round, by Age and
gap grows from 25% ($7,000) for 25- to 29-year-olds to 34% Education Level, 2009–2011
($12,500) for 45- to 49-year-olds and to 36% ($12,800) for
Less
60- to 64-year-olds. than a Some
High High College, Profes-
ƒƒFor full-time workers whose highest degree is a bachelor’s School School No Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral sional
Age Diploma Diploma Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree
degree, the earnings gap grows from 54% ($15,200) for
25- to 29-year-olds to 86% ($32,000) for 45- to 49-year-olds 25 to 29 49% 60% 59% 65% 71% 68% 65% 68%
and is 74% ($26,500) for 60- to 64-year-olds. 45 to 49 60% 70% 72% 73% 76% 78% 80% 84%
60 to 64 56% 61% 62% 63% 64% 60% 70% 71%
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012f; calculations by the authors.

FIGURE 1.7A FIGURE 1.7B

Median Earnings of Full-Time Year-Round Workers by Age and Median Earnings of All Workers by Age and Education Level,
Education Level, 2009–2011 2009–2011

$140,000 Professional Degree

$140,000
Doctoral Degree
$120,000
Master’s Degree $120,000

$100,000 Bachelor’s Degree $100,000

Median Earnings

Median Earnings

$80,000 Associate Degree

$80,000
Some College,
$60,000 No Degree
$60,000
High School
$40,000 Diploma
$40,000
Less than a
$20,000 High School $20,000
Diploma
$0
25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 $0
25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64
Age
Age

Full-Time Year-Round Workers All Workers

Less than Some Less than Some
a High High College, Profes- a High High College, Profes-
School School No Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral sional School School No Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral sional
Age Diploma Diploma Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Diploma Diploma Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree
25 to 29 $22,000 $27,900 $31,100 $34,900 $43,100 $50,000 $59,400 $56,200 $16,000 $21,600 $23,900 $28,700 $37,100 $42,400 $48,900 $48,600
45 to 49 $26,900 $37,100 $44,300 $49,600 $69,100 $81,300 $100,000 $122,400 $21,200 $30,800 $36,700 $41,500 $57,500 $72,000 $92,300 $103,900
60 to 64 $27,300 $35,600 $43,100 $48,400 $62,100 $74,200 $100,900 $120,500 $20,100 $26,800 $32,500 $37,000 $47,000 $57,000 $84,300 $100,600

NOTE: Based on the 2009–2011 American Community Survey three-year combined data file. Earnings in 2009 and 2010 are adjusted to 2011 dollars using the
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers. Median earnings are the median of combined data.
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012f; calculations by the authors.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 17

 Other Economic Benefits

Employment

FIGURE 1.8A In 2012, among adults between

Civilian Population Ages 25 to 64: Number (in Millions) and Percentage the ages of 25 and 64, 67% of high
Employed, Unemployed, and Not in the Labor Force, 2002, 2007, and 2012
school graduates, 71% of those with
Employed Unemployed Not in the Labor Force some college but no degree, 77% of
3% those with associate degrees, and
Degree or Higher

2012 82% 15% 53.3

Bachelor´s

2% 82% of those with four-year college

2007 84% 14% 49.3
3%
degrees were employed.
2002 84% 14% 43.2
––For all groups without any postsecondary
5% degrees, the percentages employed were 6
2012 77% 18% 17.2 points lower in 2012 than they had been in 2007.
Associate
Degree

3% 16%
2007 81% 15.0
The percentage employed for associate degree
3% 16% holders was 4 percentage points lower in 2012
Education Level and Year

2002 81% 13.5 than in 2007. For those with a bachelor’s degree
or higher, the decline was 2 percentage points.
6%
Some College,

2012 71% 23% 28.0 ––The number of employed four-year college

No Degree

3% graduates between the ages of 25 and 64

2007 77% 20% 27.6
4% increased from 36.2 million in 2002 to 41.4
2002 77% 19% 26.3 million in 2007 and to 43.5 million in 2012.
––Among both associate degree holders and those
2012 67% 6% 26% 47.0 with at least a bachelor’s degree, the number of
High School

employed adults between the ages of 25 and

Diploma

3%
2007 73% 24% 47.9 64 increased between 2007 and 2012, while
4%
2002 73% 22% 46.7 employment declined for other groups.
––The overall educational attainment in the
8%
population increased between 2002 and 2012.
Less than a High
School Diploma

2012 53% 39% 17.2

5% For example, the total number of adults between
2007 59% 36% 18.3 the ages of 25 and 64 without a high school
6%
58% 37% 18.6
diploma declined by 1.4 million during this
2002
time period, while the number with at least a
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
bachelor’s degree grew by 10.1 million.
Number of Individuals (Millions)
––In 2012, 18% of individuals ages 65 and older
NOTE: To be considered a member of the labor force, individuals must either be employed or were in the labor force, ranging from 10% of
be actively seeking employment. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. those without a high school diploma to 28%
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002b, 2007a, and 2012b; calculations by the authors. of those with at least a bachelor’s degree. In
contrast, 77% of individuals ages 25 to 64 were
in the labor force, ranging from 61% of those
FIGURE 1.8B without a high school diploma to 85% for those
Labor Force Participation Rates by Age and Education Level, 2012
with at least a bachelor’s degree.
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s
HS Diploma Diploma No Degree Degree Degree or Higher
100%
Labor Force Participation Rates by Age and Education
85%
82%
Labor Force Participation Rate

Level, 2012
77%
80% 74% 73% 76%
Less than Some
66%
61% a High High College, Bachelor’s
59%
60% School School No Associate Degree or
Age Diploma Diploma Degree Degree Higher Total
46%
25 to 34 68% 79% 80% 86% 88% 82%
40%
28% 35 to 44 69% 80% 82% 87% 88% 83%
20% 22%
20% 15% 45 to 54 63% 77% 80% 85% 88% 80%
10%
55 to 64 43% 60% 65% 69% 75% 65%
0%
25 to 64 65 and Older 25 and Older
Age and Education Level
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b; calculations by the authors.

18 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Other Economic Benefits

Unemployment
The unemployment rate for individuals with at least a bachelor’s degree has consistently
been about half the unemployment rate for high school graduates.

––The 4.0% 2012 unemployment rate for individuals ages 25 and
older with at least a bachelor’s degree represented a decline
from the 4.7% peak for this group in 2010. For associate
degree holders, the decline was from 7.0% to 6.2% and for
those with some college but no degree, the unemployment
rate fell from 9.2% in 2010 to 7.7% in 2012.
––The 8.3% 2012 unemployment rate for individuals ages 25 and
older with high school diplomas represented a decline from the
10.3% peak for this group in 2010. For those who are not high
school graduates, the decline was from 14.9% to 12.4%.
––Over the 20 years from 1992 to 2012, the largest gaps between
the unemployment rates for four-year college graduates and
high school graduates were 5.6 percentage points in 2010 and
5.1 points in 2009 and 2011. The smallest gaps were 1.7 to 1.9
percentage points from 1999 through 2001.
––From 1992 through 2012, the difference between the annual
unemployment rate for individuals with some college but no
degree and high school graduates ranged from 0.3 percentage
points in 2003 to 1.1 percentage points in 2010.

FIGURE 1.9A
Unemployment Rates Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 1992–2012

16% Less than a High School Diploma

High School Diploma
14% Some College, No Degree
Associate Degree
12% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Unemployment Rate

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year

Unemployment Rates Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 1992–2012, Selected Years
Unemployment Rate
Less than a Some College, Bachelor’s Degree BA/HS
Year High School Diploma High School Diploma No Degree Associate Degree or Higher Unemployment Rate Ratio
1992 11.5% 6.8% 6.0% 4.8% 3.2% 0.46
1997 8.1% 4.3% 3.5% 2.7% 2.0% 0.47
2002 8.4% 5.3% 4.8% 4.0% 2.9% 0.55
2007 7.1% 4.4% 3.8% 3.0% 2.0% 0.46
2010 14.9% 10.3% 9.2% 7.0% 4.7% 0.46
2012 12.4% 8.3% 7.7% 6.2% 4.0% 0.48

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013b.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 19

 Other Economic Benefits

Unemployment

FIGURE 1.9B In 2012, when the unemployment

Unemployment Rates of Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by Age and rate for 25- to 34-year-olds with
Education Level, 2012
four-year college degrees was 4.1%,
11.2% of high school graduates in
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree or Higher this age range were unemployed.
Diploma

25% ––The 2012 unemployment rates for 25- to

34-year-olds were 9.6% for those with some
college but no degree and 7.2% for those with
20%
associate degrees.
Unemployment Rate

15%
––In 2012, the unemployment rate for 25- to
34-year-old four-year college graduates was
slightly higher than the 3.9% rate for those ages
10% 45 to 54. However, the unemployment rate for
25- to 34-year-old high school graduates was
15.4%

11.9%
12.1%

11.2%, much higher than the 7.4% rate for those

10.6%
11.2%

5%
9.6%

8.7%

ages 45 to 54.
7.7%

7.4%
7.2%

6.6%

6.3%
6.5%
5.9%
6.0%

5.3%

4.5%
4.1%

3.9%
3.4%

0%
––The gaps in unemployment rates by education
25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 level were narrower for Asians than for other
Age and Education Level groups. The 2012 unemployment rate for Asian
bachelor’s degree recipients was 70% of that
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b; calculations by the authors.
for high school graduates, compared to 47%
for blacks and Hispanics and 49% for whites.

––The 6.3% unemployment rate for black

four-year college graduates in 2012 was about
70% higher than the 3.7% unemployment
FIGURE 1.9C rate for white four-year college graduates.
Unemployment Rates of Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by Race/Ethnicity The 13.4% unemployment rate for black high
and Education Level, 2012 school graduates was 79% higher than the
7.5% unemployment rate for white high
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s school graduates.
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree or Higher
Diploma
––The 7.1 percentage point gap between the
25% unemployment rates for blacks with at least
a bachelor’s degree and black high school
graduates is larger than the differences within
20%
other racial/ethnic groups, which range from 1.8
percentage points for Asians to 3.9 percentage
Unemployment Rate

15% points for Hispanics.

10% Labor Force Participation Rates of Individuals Ages 25

and Older, by Race/Ethnicity and Education Level, 2012
20.4%

Less than Some

13.4%
11.6%

a High High College, Bachelor’s

11.0%

11.4%

5%
10.2%

9.0%

School School No Associate Degree or

8.0%
8.0%
6.8%

7.5%
7.0%
6.3%

6.3%

6.9%
6.1%

5.1%

5.4%

Diploma Diploma Degree Degree Higher

4.3%

3.7%

0% Asian 44% 60% 69% 72% 76%

Asian Black Hispanic White
Black 37% 62% 69% 75% 79%
Race/Ethnicity and Education Level
Hispanic 61% 71% 76% 79% 80%
White 47% 59% 65% 73% 76%
SOURCES: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013b; calculations by the authors.
SOURCES: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013b; calculations by
the authors.

20 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Other Economic Benefits

Job Satisfaction

FIGURE 1.10A Among workers ages 30 to 45

Sense of Learning New Things on the Job Among Employed Individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher,
Ages 30 to 45, by Education Level, 2002, 2006, and 2010
56% strongly agree that their
jobs require them to keep learning
100%
89%
94% new things. Among those with
some college or an associate
Percentage of Individuals

81% 81%
80% Agree
44% 38%
Strongly Agree
degree, 44% strongly agree with
60% 46% 48% this statement, compared to just
40%
over 30% of those with a high
44% 56% school diploma.
20% 35% 32%
––The percentage of workers ages 30 to 45 who
0%
Less than a High Some College or Bachelor’s report being very satisfied with their work ranges
High School School Associate Degree or
Diploma Diploma Degree Higher
from 42% of those with less than a high school
diploma and 47% of those with a high school
Education Level
diploma to 51% of those with a bachelor’s degree
or higher.

––Differences in the percentage of workers who

report being at least moderately satisfied with their
work are smaller, ranging from 83% of those with
less than a high school diploma to 89% of those
FIGURE 1.10B with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Work Satisfaction Rates Among Employed Individuals Ages 30 to 45,
by Education Level, 1972–2012
ALSO IMPORTANT:
––Over the 40 years from 1972 to 2012, 44% of employed
100%
88% 87% 89% individuals ages 30 to 45 who report being very
83%
Percentage of Individuals

80% satisfied with their jobs also report being very happy,
Moderately
Satisfied while 24% of those who report being moderately
60% 40% 41% 39% 38% satisfied with their jobs and 17% of those who report
Very Satisfied
being dissatisfied with their jobs report being very
40% happy. (National Opinion Research Center, 2013;
42% 47% 48% 51% calculations by the authors)
20%
––Many factors determine job satisfaction. They include
0% demographic factors, job characteristics, and earnings.
Less than a High Some College or Bachelor’s
High School School Associate Degree or ––Controlling for many individual demographic
Diploma Diploma Degree Higher
characteristics and income, education still has a
Education Level significant and positive effect on job satisfaction.
(Oreopoulos & Salvanes, 2011)

NOTE: Based on the General Social Survey 1972–2012 cumulative data file with combined
data from each survey year. Includes individuals ages 30 to 45 who were working full time
or part time at the time of the survey. Figure 1.10A reports on the percentage of individuals
who agreed with the following statement: “My job requires that I keep learning new things”
(available in survey years 2002, 2006, and 2010) and Figure 1.10B reports on responses to the
following question: “On the whole, how satisfied are you with the work you do?” (available in
most years from 1972 to 2012). Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: National Opinion Research Center, 2013.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 21

 Other Economic Benefits

Social Mobility

FIGURE 1.11 Of adults who grew up in the middle

Family Income Quintiles of Adult Children, by Education and Parents’ Family family income quintile, 31% of those
Income Quintile, 2000 to 2008
with a four-year college degree
Non-College Graduate Adult Children
moved up to the top income quintile
Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest
between 2000 and 2008, compared
Top 13% 16% 22% 24% 25%
with just 12% of those without a
four-year college degree.
Parents’ Income Quintile

Fourth 12% 26% 22% 22% 18% ––Of adults who grew up in the bottom family
income quintile, 47% of those without a
Third 17% 22% 25% 23% 12%
bachelor’s degree remained in the bottom
quintile, compared to 10% of those with a
four‑year college degree. Three percent of those
Second 28% 24% 20% 18% 9% without a bachelor’s degree had moved up to the
3%
top quintile, compared to 10% of those with a
four-year college degree.
Bottom 47% 26% 16% 8%

––Of adults who grew up in the top family income

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
quintile, 51% of those with a bachelor’s degree
Percentage of Adult Children remained in the top quintile, compared with 25%
of those without a four-year college degree. Four
Four-Year College Graduate Adult Children percent of those with a bachelor’s degree had
Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest
moved down to the bottom quintile, compared with
13% of those without a four-year college degree.
Top 4% 5% 16% 23% 51%

ALSO IMPORTANT:
Parents’ Income Quintile

Fourth 5% 10% 23% 27% 35% ––There is geographic variation in upward mobility
within the United States, with less mobility in
metropolitan areas in the Southeast and industrial
Third 7% 15% 21% 26% 31%
Midwest and the highest mobility in metropolitan
areas in the Northeast, Great Plains and West.
Second 12% 14% 10% 27% 37% (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2013)

––There is less economic mobility across generations

in the United States than in other developed countries
Bottom 10% 37% 26% 17% 10%
such as the U.K., France, Germany, Sweden, Italy,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Australia, Finland, Denmark, and Canada. (Pew
Charitable Trusts, 2011)
Percentage of Adult Children
––The high level of economic inequality in the United
States is widely viewed as an important explanation for
Family Income Quintiles of Adult Children, by Parents’ Family Income Quintile the relatively low level of social mobility in this country.
Family Income Quintile of Adult Children Other explanations include inequality in childhood
Parents’
Income Quintile Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest educational opportunities and disparities in the resources
parents at different levels of the income distribution
Top 8% 10% 19% 23% 40%
devote to enrichment activities for their children.
Fourth 9% 20% 23% 24% 24% (Krueger, 2012; Corak, 2013; Greenstone et al., 2013)
Third 14% 20% 23% 24% 19%
––Over the past four decades, high-income families
Second 25% 24% 18% 20% 14%
have gone from spending slightly more than four
Bottom 43% 27% 17% 9% 4% times as much as low-income families on education
NOTE: “Family income” includes all taxable income (such as earnings, interest, and dividends) and enrichment activities for their children to spending
and cash transfers (such as Social Security and welfare) of all family members and has been nearly seven times as much. (Duncan & Murnane, 2011)
adjusted for family size and inflation. “Income for parents” is computed as the mean value
of total family income taken as reported in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), 1967
through 1971. “Income for children” is computed as the mean value of total family income
taken as reported in the PSID for the years 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. Percentages may
not sum to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCE: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012, Figures 3 and 18.

22 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Other Economic Benefits

Pension Plans
College-educated workers are more likely than others to be offered pension plans by their
employers. Among those to whom these plans are available, participation rates are higher
for individuals with higher education levels.

––Employer-provided pension coverage has declined

FIGURE 1.12A
Employer-Provided Pension Plan Coverage Among Full-Time Year-Round over the past 20 years, with the most rapid
Workers Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 1991, 2001, and 2011 declines occurring in the most recent decade
and for workers without a college education,
1991 2001 2011 particularly those without a high school diploma.
100%
––The percentage of high school graduates
78% 79% working full time year-round who were offered
80% 72% 74% 73%
Percentage Offered

66% 66% 68% 70% 65% pension coverage was 60% in 1991 and 2001,
60%60% 59% 63%
60% 52% but had declined to 52% by 2011. The percentage
43%
38%
of full-time workers with a bachelor’s degree
40%
29% who were offered pension plans was 72%
in 1991, 74% in 2001, and 65% in 2011.
20%
The coverage rate for those with advanced
0% degrees was 78% in 1991, 79% in 2001,
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s Advanced and 73% in 2011.
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree Degree
Diploma
Education Level and Year ––In 2011, the percentage of full-time workers
offered pension plans by their employers who
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 1992, 2002a, and 2012a; calculations by the authors. chose to participate ranged from 77% for those
without a high school diploma to 94% for those
with an advanced degree.

ALSO IMPORTANT:
FIGURE 1.12B
Participation Rates in Employer-Provided Pension Plans Among Eligible Full- ––In 2011, the percentage of part-time workers (those
Time Year-Round Workers Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 2011 who worked at least 20 hours a week for at least 26
weeks but less than full time year-round) offered pension
plans ranged from 20% for those without a high school
100% diploma and 33% for high school graduates to 46%
for bachelor’s degree recipients and 58% for those
Percentage Participating

80%
with an advanced degree. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a;
calculations by the authors.)
60%
––In 2010, 68% of private sector employees with pension
40% 77% 86% 88% 89% 92% 94%
plans had access only to defined contribution plans, in
which the payout depends on the amount accumulated
20%
in a personal account. Over time, these plans have
become more common than defined benefit plans,
0%
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s Advanced which provide a predetermined income level each year
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree Degree after retirement. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012d, Table 655)
Diploma
Education Level
––Low earnings levels, which are more common among
individuals with lower education levels, may explain
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a; calculations by the authors. some decisions not to participate in employer-provided
pension plans that require workers to contribute a
portion of their wages.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 23

 Other Economic Benefits

Health Insurance

FIGURE 1.13A Among both full-time and part-time

Employer-Provided Health Insurance Coverage Among Full-Time Year-Round workers, those with higher levels
Workers Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 1991, 2001, and 2011
of educational attainment are more
likely than others to be covered by
employer-provided health insurance.
1991 2001 2011

100% ––Between 1991 and 2011, health insurance coverage

83% declined by 15% (10 percentage points) for high
80% 75% 74% 76%
school graduates working full time year-round. The
Percentage Covered

69% 66% 71% 69% 69% 73%

65% 62% 64%
60% coverage rate declined from 65% in 1991 to 62% in
60% 55%
52% 2001 and to 55% in 2011.
45%
40% 34%
––Between 1991 and 2011, health insurance coverage
20% declined by 8% (6 percentage points) for four-year
college graduates without advanced degrees
0% working full time year-round. The coverage rate
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s Advanced
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree Degree declined from 75% in 1991 to 74% in 2001 and to
Diploma 69% in 2011.
Education Level and Year

––In 1991, 61% of advanced degree holders, 45%

of bachelor’s degree holders, and 36% of high
school graduates working part time were covered
by employer-provided health insurance. By 2011,
FIGURE 1.13B those percentages had declined to 48%, 39%,
Employer-Provided Health Insurance Coverage Among Part-Time Workers and 27%, respectively.
Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 1991, 2001, and 2011

ALSO IMPORTANT:
1991 2001 2011 ––In 2011, hospitals in the U.S. provided about $41.1 billion
100% in care for which they were not compensated. This cost
fell indirectly on federal and state governments and
80% insured patients. (American Hospital Association, 2012)
Percentage Covered

61% ––In 2011, when 18% of adults ages 18 and older were
60% 57%
45%
49% 48% not covered by health insurance at any time during the
38% 39% 43% 39% year, only 9% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher
40% 36% 35% 34% 32%
30%
25% 22% 27% were not covered. This was the case for 15% of those
20% 16% with associate degrees, 18% of those with some college
but no degree, and 21% of high school graduates. (U.S.
0% Census Bureau, 2012h, Table HI01)
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s Advanced
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree Degree
Diploma
––In 2011, when 30% of adults ages 18 and older were
Education Level and Year covered by government health care plans, 20% of adults
with a bachelor’s degree or higher, 25% of those with
an associate degree, 27% of those with some college
NOTE: Part-time workers are those who worked at least 20 hours a week for at least 26 weeks
during the year, but did not work full time year-round. but no degree, and 36% of high school graduates had
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 1992, 2002a, and 2012a; calculations by the authors. government coverage. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012h,
Table HI01)

24 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Other Economic Benefits

Poverty
The 5% poverty rate in 2011 for bachelor’s degree recipients was about one-third of the
14% poverty rate for high school graduates.

––Individuals living in households headed by

FIGURE 1.14A
Percentage of Individuals Ages 25 and Older Living in Households in Poverty, unmarried females with children under 18
by Household Type and Education Level, 2011 have particularly high poverty rates. This family
structure accounts for 6% to 9% of households
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s headed by individuals with less than a four-year
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree or Higher
Diploma
college degree, but only 3% of households
headed by four-year college graduates. (Not
100% shown in graph; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a;
calculations by the authors.)
Percentage in Poverty

80%
––The 12% poverty rate for bachelor’s degree
60% 58%
recipients living in families headed by unmarried
40% females in 2011 was two and a half times as
40% 33%
29% 28% high as the overall poverty rate for those with a
24%
20% 14% 11%
bachelor’s degree or higher, but was less than
12% 11% 8%
7% 4%
2% 5% a third of the 40% poverty rate for high school
0% graduates living in similar families.
Female Householders with Married Couples with All Households
Related Children Related Children
Under 18 (6%) Under 18 (25%) ––The 2011 poverty rate for all associate degree
Household Type and Education Level recipients was 8%, compared to 11% for
individuals with some college but no degree
NOTE: The numbers in parentheses on the x-axis represent each household type as a percentage and 14% for high school graduates with no
of all households.
college experience.
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a; calculations by the authors.

––In 2011, the percentage of all children under age

FIGURE 1.14B 18 who lived with both parents increased with
Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years of Age, by Poverty Status the highest education level of either parent.
and Highest Education of Either Parent, 2011

Living with Living with Living with Fathers Only ALSO IMPORTANT:
Both Parents Mothers Only or Other Living Arrangements
––The official poverty threshold varies with family
size, number of children under 18, and senior citizen
All Children 69% 24% 7%
status. In 2011, a family of four with two children was
Poverty Status and Parents’ Education Level

considered poor if it had an income below $22,811.

Below 100% of Poverty 42% 47% 11% The poverty threshold was $11,702 for a single person
Poverty
Status

under age 65 and $18,123 for a family of three with two

100% of Poverty
and Above 77% 17% 6% children. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011e)

––The poverty threshold is the official measure of poverty

Less than a High and is slightly different from the poverty guidelines
School Diploma 53% 31% 16%
used to determine eligibility for public programs. In
Highest Education

2011, the poverty guideline for families of four issued

of Either Parent

High School Diploma 59% 26% 14%

by the Department of Health and Human Services
Some College or 67% 23% 10% was $22,350. (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Associate Degree
5% Services, 2011)
Bachelor’s Degree 86% 9%
5% 3%
Advanced Degree 92%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Children Under 18

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011d, Table C-3.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 25

 Other Economic Benefits

Public Assistance Programs

In 2011, the percentages of high school graduates ages 25 and older living in households
receiving benefits from SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — formerly
known as Food Stamps) and from the free and reduced-price school lunch program were
about six times as high as the percentages of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher
participating in these programs.
––In 2011, about a quarter of adult high
ALSO IMPORTANT: reduced-price school lunches, at a total cost
school graduates and 43% of those
of $8.3 billion to the federal government. In
without a high school diploma lived ––Medicaid provides health insurance to
2006, 57.8 million participants received a total
in households that received Medicaid many low-income families and other eligible
of $269.9 billion in Medicaid benefits. (U.S.
coverage. Participation rates were 19% individuals. The National School Lunch
Census Bureau, 2010c, Tables 144 and 558)
for those with some college but no Program provides free or reduced-price
degree, 17% for those with an associate lunches to eligible school children. SNAP ––A 2009 study from the RAND Corporation
degree, and 9% for those with at least a subsidizes food purchases for eligible estimated that the discounted lifetime
low-income households. savings to taxpayers from reduced spending
four-year college degree.
on social programs resulting from the
––The participation rates for Medicaid, SNAP,
increase from a high school diploma to
and the school lunch program were higher in
some college ranged from $9,000 per white
2011 than in 2008 and 2005, with the largest
man to $22,000 per black woman (in 2002
increases seen in adults without a high school
dollars). Estimated reductions resulting
diploma and the smallest increases seen in
from the increase from some college to a
those with a four-year college degree. (Baum
bachelor’s degree range from $9,000 per
& Ma, 2007; Baum, Ma, & Payea, 2010)
white man to $32,000 per black woman.
––In 2008, 28.4 million participants received an (Carroll & Erkut, 2009, Tables 7.3 and 7.4)
annual average of $1,218 in SNAP benefits.
Thirty-one million children received free or

FIGURE 1.15
Percentage of Individuals Ages 25 and Older Living in Households Participating in Selected Public Assistance Programs, by Education
Level, 2011

Less than a High School Diploma Some College, Associate Degree Bachelor’s Degree
High School Diploma No Degree or Higher

50%
43%
Percentage Participating

40%

30%
24% 24%
22%
19%
20% 17%
11% 12% 10%
9% 9% 7% 7%
10%
2% 2%
0%
Medicaid School Lunch SNAP

Public Assistance Program

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a; calculations by the authors.

26 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Health Benefits

Smoking
Smoking rates among college graduates have been significantly lower than smoking rates
among other adults since information about the risks of smoking became public.

FIGURE 1.16A ––Smoking rates in the United States increased in

Smoking Rates Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, the 1940s, peaked at 46% in 1957, and began a
1940–2012 steady decline in the 1960s.
Less than a High School Diploma
––College graduates were at least as likely as others
High School Diploma
to smoke before the medical consensus on the
Some College or Associate Degree
60%
dangers of smoking became clear. By 1970, when
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
information was widespread and clear public
warnings were mandatory, the smoking rate
among college graduates had declined to 37%,
Smoking Rate

40%
while 44% of high school graduates smoked. This
gap increased to 13 points in 1982, to 16 points in
20% 1992, and to 17 points in 2012.

––In 2012, only 8% of individuals with at least a

0% bachelor’s degree smoked, compared to 20% of
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2012
those with some college or an associate degree
Year and 25% of high school graduates and of those
NOTE: Data for 2001 through 2005 are three-year moving averages. without a high school diploma.
SOURCES: de Walque, 2004; National Center for Health Statistics, 2002–2013; calculations
by the authors. ––Among smokers with at least some college
experience, almost half attempted to stop
smoking in 2012. Among those with high school
FIGURE 1.16B diplomas, 11% out of the 25% who smoked
Distribution of Smoking Histories Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by tried to quit.
Education Level, 2012

Current Smoker Who Did Not Try to Quit in the Past 12 Months
Current Smoker Who Tried to Quit in the Past 12 Months ALSO IMPORTANT:
Former Smoker
Never Smoked ––Statistical analysis suggests that higher levels of
3%
100% education are not just correlated with lower smoking
4%
11% 9% 5% rates, but also cause declines in smoking. (de Walque,
14% 14%
3% 2004; Grimard & Parent, 2007)
9%
10% 22%
80% 10% 11% 23%
––In their analysis of the positive relationship between
Percentage of Individuals

25% education and health outcomes, much of which

22% 26% 27% is explained by differences in behaviors, Cutler
60%
and Lleras-Muney (2010) find that income, health
insurance, and family background account for about
40%
30% of the differences, but knowledge and measures
of cognitive ability explain an additional 30%, with
53% 49% 52% 57% 68% 72% social networks explaining another 10% of the
20% differences. The authors argue that “more important
than specific knowledge is how one thinks.” They find
that much of the difference seems to be driven by
0% the fact that education raises cognition, which in turn
Less than a High School Some College, Associate Bachelor’s Advanced improves behavior.
High School Diploma No Degree Degree Degree Degree
Diploma
Education Level

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCES: National Center for Health Statistics, 2013; calculations by the authors.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 27

 Health Benefits

Exercise

FIGURE 1.17A Among young adults between

Exercise Rates Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by Age and Education the ages of 25 and 34, 68% of
Level, 2012
Vigorous Light/Moderate four-year college graduates and
Less than a High School Diploma
High School Diploma
40% of high school graduates
Some College, No Degree reported exercising vigorously
Associate Degree
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher at least once a week in 2012;
17% of four-year college graduates
39% 19%
40% 20% and 20% of high school graduates
25 to 34

53% 18% reported light or moderate exercise.

56% 20%
68% 17% ––Among 55- to 64-year-olds, 52% of high school
28% 23%
graduates reported some exercise and 25%
40% 20%
reported exercising vigorously; 80% of four-year
35 to 44

50% 20% college graduates reported some exercise and

54% 20% 53% reported vigorous exercise.
65% 19%
Age and Education Level

––In 2011, 63% of four-year college graduates and

23% 22% 38% of high school graduates reported meeting
33% 25% the federal guidelines for physical activity of at
45 to 54

42% 23% least 2½ hours a week of moderate or 1¼ hours

44% 28% of intensive aerobic activity.
59% 24%

18% 22%
25% 27%
ALSO IMPORTANT:
55 to 64

34% 32% ––Numerous studies investigating the relationship

38% 29% between education and health support the idea that
53% 27% the skills, attitudes, and thought patterns fostered
12% 26% by education lead to more responsible health-related
behaviors. (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003)
65 and older

17% 33%
25% 32% ––Improvements in health are associated with each
24% 36% additional year of schooling, but in contrast to the
39% 33% relationship between education and wages, there
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% does not appear to be a “sheepskin” effect with the
completion of a degree having a bigger impact than
Percentage of Individuals
just the completion of an additional year of education.
SOURCES: National Center for Health Statistics, 2013; calculations by the authors. (Cutler & Lleras-Muney, 2006)
––Additional health care costs in the United States in
2000 attributable to physical inactivity have been
estimated at about $200 billion. (Sari, 2009)
FIGURE 1.17B
Age-Adjusted Percentage Distribution of Leisure-Time Aerobic Activity
Levels Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older, by Education Level, 2011

100% NOTE: “Inactive” is participating in no leisure-time aerobic

Inactive
30% 17% activity that lasted at least 10 minutes. “Insufficiently Active”
Percentage of Individuals

is participating in aerobic activities for at least 10 minutes

80% 54% 43% Insufficiently Active
21% but less than 150 minutes per week. “Sufficiently Active,”
which meets 2008 federal physical activity guidelines, is
60% 22% Sufficiently Active
participating in moderate-intensity leisure-time physical
(met guidelines)
19% activity at least 150 minutes per week, or in vigorous-intensity
40% 17% leisure-time physical activity at least 75 minutes per week,
48% 63% or an equivalent combination. Percentages shown were age-
20% adjusted using the projected 2000 U.S. population provided
29% 38%
by the U.S. Census Bureau as the standard population. Age
0% adjustment was used to allow comparisons among various
Less than a High Some College or Bachelor’s population subgroups that have different age distributions.
High School School Associate Degree or Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
Diploma Diploma Degree Higher
SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012,
Education Level Table 29.

28 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Health Benefits

Obesity

FIGURE 1.18A In 2007–2010, when 35% of all men

Age-Adjusted Obesity Rates Among Adults Ages 25 and Older, by Gender and 36% of all women ages 25 and
and Education Level, 1988–1994 and 2007–2010
over were defined as obese, 28%
Less than a High 23%
1988–1994 of men and 26% of women with
2007–2010
School Diploma 33% bachelor’s degrees were obese.
High School 22%
Diploma 37%
––Among those without four-year college degrees,
Men

Some College or 22%

Associate Degree 42% higher levels of education were not associated
Gender and Education Level

Bachelor’s Degree 16% with lower levels of obesity in 2007–2010.

or Higher 28%

All
21% ––Obesity rates increased dramatically from
35%
1988–1994 to 2007–2010 for both men and
Less than a High 33% women at all levels of education. The largest
School Diploma 44%
increases were for those with some college or
High School 28%
Diploma 39% an associate degree.
Women

Some College or 25%

Associate Degree 40% ––In 2007–2010, 11% of boys and 7% of girls
Bachelor’s Degree 17% ages 2–19 whose household head had at least
or Higher 26% a bachelor’s degree were obese. Obesity rates
27%
All 36% were much higher for children whose parents had
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% lower levels of education.
Obesity Rate ––The gap between the obesity rates of girls whose
household head had a high school diploma and
NOTE: Data from 1988 to 1994 were combined to generate estimates for 1988–1994; data from those whose household head had at least a
2007 to 2010 were combined to generate estimates for 2007–2010. Obesity is defined as body
mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher, equivalent to being at least about 30 pounds overweight at bachelor’s degree increased from 7 percentage
average heights. points (12% vs. 5%) in 1988–1994 to 14
SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, 2011a, Figure 37. percentage points (21% vs. 7%) in 2007–2010.

FIGURE 1.18B ALSO IMPORTANT:

Obesity Rates Among Children and Adolescents Ages 2 to 19, by Gender and
Highest Household Education Level, 1988–1994 and 2007–2010
Less than a High
School Diploma
High School 11%
Gender and Household Education Level
––At least a portion of the correlation between obesity and
education levels is likely due to income and the prices of
different types of food. Differences in exercise patterns
15% 1988–1994 and in dietary knowledge and choices are also relevant.
24% 2007–2010
––Some estimates suggest the additional health care

Diploma 19%
cost attributable to obesity was about $361 per adult
Boys

in 2008; the total cost could increase fourfold by 2018

Some College or 9%
Associate Degree 18% if the current rate of increase in obesity continues.
Bachelor’s Degree (United Health Foundation, 2009)
or Higher * 11%
––More sophisticated statistical estimates of the health
care costs of obesity are higher. Cawley and
Less than a High 11% Meyerhoefer (2012) find that obesity raises annual
School Diploma 22% medical costs by an average of $2,826 (in 2005 dollars).
High School 12% They estimate the annual cost of treating obesity in the
Diploma 21% adult population as $168.4 billion, or 16.5% of national
Girls

Some College or 9% spending on medical care.

Associate Degree 14%
––Research indicates that disparities in obesity by
Bachelor’s Degree 5%
or Higher 7% socioeconomic status increase with age. One estimate
suggests that an additional year of maternal education
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
reduces obesity by an average of 1.2 percentage points
Obesity Rate and that this effect increases by 0.07 points per year of
age. (Baum & Ruhm, 2009)
* For boys from households with at least a bachelor’s degree, the variation within the group in
1988–1994 is too large to generate a reliable estimate.
NOTE: Obesity is defined as a BMI at or above the 95th percentile for children of the same
gender and age in months, based on the 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States.
SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, 2011a, Figure 25.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 29

 Other Individual and Societal Benefits

Parents and Children

Among both those who are employed and those who are not, the amount of time mothers
spend on their children’s activities increases with levels of education.
––Employed mothers with four-year playing with their children increases with child-related activities. Differences
college degrees report spending about level of education. When children are between those with bachelor’s degrees
51% more time (113 minutes vs. 75 between the ages of 3 and 5, mothers and those without are large, especially
minutes per day) on their children’s with bachelor’s degrees report more play among mothers who are not employed.
activities than employed mothers who time, but those with some college or an
are high school graduates. Among those associate degree spend about the same
ALSO IMPORTANT:
who are not employed, the difference amount of time as high school graduates
is about 42% (188 minutes vs. 132 playing with their children. ––Kalil, Ryan, and Corey (2012) find that “highly
minutes per day). educated mothers not only spend more
––For older children, mothers spend more time in active child care than less educated
––The amount of time mothers with time facilitating children’s outside and mothers, but that they alter the composition
children under the age of 3 report enrichment activities than on other of that time to suit children’s developmental
needs more than less educated mothers.”

FIGURE 1.19A Percentage of Mothers Who Are Employed, by Age

Total Amount of Time (in Minutes) Mothers Spend per Day on Children
of Youngest Child and Mother’s Education Level,
Under the Age of 18, by Employment Status and Education Level, 2003–2012
2003–2012
Age of Youngest Child
Less than a High High School Some College or Bachelor’s
School Diploma Diploma Associate Degree Degree or Higher Mother’s
Education Under Under Between Between Between
200 188 Level 18 3 3 and 5 6 and 13 14 and 17
Amount of Time (in Minutes)

160 Less than a

141 High School 43% 32% 41% 48% 53%
132 132
124 Diploma
120 113
97 95 102 High School
65% 51% 59% 70% 76%
87 Diploma
80 75
61 Some
College or
40 72% 61% 72% 76% 80%
Associate
Degree
0
Employed Unemployed or All Bachelor’s
Not in the Labor Force Degree or 75% 67% 75% 79% 82%
Higher
Employment Status

FIGURE 1.19B
Total Amount of Time (in Minutes) Mothers Spend per Day on Children’s Activities, by Type of Activity, Age of
Youngest Child, Mother’s Employment Status and Education Level, 2003–2012

100
88 Less than a High High School Some College or Bachelor’s
Amount of Time (in Minutes)

School Diploma Diploma Associate Degree Degree or Higher

80
63
60 52 55 54
50
45 42
39 41 38 39
40 36 32
30 28 29 30 29 30 29 30
26 26
24 22 21 25 24
20 18 18 21 16
20
11
6
0
Employed Unemployed All Employed Unemployed All Employed Unemployed All
or Not in the or Not in the or Not in the
Labor Force Labor Force Labor Force
Under 3, Play Activities Between 3 and 5, Play Activities Between 6 and 13, Management Activities
Age of Youngest Child and Mother’s Employment Status

NOTE: Figures 1.19A, 1.19B and the table are based on the 2003–2012 American Time Use Surveys (ATUS) and include mothers ages 25 and older who have
at least one “own child” in the household. “Play activities” include sports, arts and crafts, and general play with household children. “Management activities”
include attending events, traveling, planning activities for children, picking up/dropping off children, and waiting for/with household children.
SOURCES: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013; calculations by the authors.

30 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

 Other Individual and Societal Benefits

Civic Involvement
Among adults ages 25 and older, 45% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree, 34% of
those with some college or an associate degree, 21% of high school graduates and only 15%
of those without a high school diploma reported understanding quite a bit or a great deal
about the political issues facing our country.

––Among those with a high school diploma, 30%

FIGURE 1.20A
Understanding of Political Issues Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older, 2012 of adults reported understanding nothing or only
a little about political issues. Fourteen percent of
None A Little Some Quite a Bit A Great Deal
those with some college or an associate degree
and 11% of four-year college graduates gave
1% this response.
Bachelor’s Degree
10% 44% 35% 10%
or Higher ––The percentage of four-year college graduates
who donate their time to organizations is over
twice as high as the percentage of high school
Education Level

Some College or
Associate Degree 5% 9% 52% 25% 9%
graduates who volunteer.
3%
––Among adults with at least a bachelor’s degree,
High School Diploma 8% 22% 49% 18%
42% volunteered from Sept. 1, 2011, through
2%
Sept. 1, 2012, and the median amount of time
Less than a High they spent volunteering was 52 hours. The 29% of
School Diploma 8% 46% 32% 13%
adults with some college or an associate degree,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% the 17% of high school graduates, and the 9%
of adults without a high school diploma who
Percentage of Individuals
volunteered gave similar amounts of their time.

NOTE: Figure 1.20A reports on responses to the following question: “How good is your
understanding of the important political issues facing our country?” Percentages may not sum ALSO IMPORTANT:
to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCE: National Opinion Research Center, 2013, 2012 Experiment Topic Module. ––As is the case with most of the indicators included
in this report, the correlation seen here should not
necessarily be interpreted as causation. Personal
characteristics may make people more likely both to
pursue higher education and to volunteer. However,
FIGURE 1.20B
Percentage of Individuals Ages 25 and Older Who Volunteered and the statistical analysis suggests that the actual increments
Median Number of Hours Volunteered, by Education Level, 2012 in volunteer activity attributable to increased education
are similar to those described here. Enrolling in college
significantly increases the likelihood of volunteering,
50% 42%
controlling for other demographic characteristics. (Dee,
(52 hours) 2004; Oreopoulos & Salvanes, 2011)
Percentage Volunteering

40%
––At each education level, within each age group, and
29%
(50 hours) within each employment category, higher percentages
30%
of women than of men volunteered. Overall, 24% of
17%
20% (50 hours) men and 30% of women ages 25 and older volunteered
9% in 2011–2012. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013c, Table 1)
10% (52 hours)
––Volunteering was most common among the 35–44 age
group (32%), and least common among those ages 20
0%
Less than a High School Some College or Bachelor’s Degree to 24 (19%). (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013c, Table 1)
High School Diploma Diploma Associate Degree and Higher

Education Level

NOTE: Volunteers are defined as individuals who performed unpaid volunteer activities for
organizations during the year ending September 2012.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013c, Tables 1 and 2.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 31

 Other Individual and Societal Benefits

Voting
In the 2012 presidential election, the voting rate of 25- to 44-year-old four-year college
graduates (73%) was 1.7 times as high as the voting rate of high school graduates (42%) in
the same age group. In the 2010 election, 25- to 44-year-old four-year college graduates were
twice as likely to vote as high school graduates in the same age group.
––At all levels of education, voting rates college graduates ages 45 and older
ALSO IMPORTANT:
increase with age, but the increase to 15% for those ages 75 and older
is generally greater for those with without a high school diploma. ––The highest overall voting rate in presidential
lower levels of education. In 2012, elections since 1972 was 65% in 1992. In 2008 and
the voting rate for 65- to 74-year-old ––Within each age group, registration 2012, 64% and 62% of citizens ages 18 and older
high school graduates was 1.6 times rates increase with education level. voted, respectively. The highest voting rate among
the rate for 25- to 44-year-old high In 2012, the percentage of citizens not four-year college graduates was in 1992 (85%), but
school graduates. For four-year college registered to vote (or not responding to the 1972 presidential election saw the highest voting
the registration question) ranged from rates for those without a bachelor’s degree. (U.S.
graduates, the voting rate was 1.2
13% for four-year college graduates Census Bureau, 2012i, Historical CPS Time Series
times as high for the older group as
for the younger group. between the ages of 65 and 74 to 69% Tables, Table A-2)
for those between the ages of 18 and
––In 2012, the percentage of citizens 24 without a high school diploma.
who were registered but did not vote
ranged from 3% to 4% for four-year

FIGURE 1.21A FIGURE 1.21B

Voting Rates Among U.S. Citizens, by Age and Percentage Distribution of Voting Patterns of U.S.
Education Level, 2010 and 2012 Citizens in the 2012 Presidential Election, by Age
and Education Level

2010 2012 Voted Registered, No Vote Not Registered

9% 23% Less than a High School Diploma 23% 8% 69%

18 to 24

High School Diploma

18 to 24
15% 29% 29% 13% 58%
27% 50% Some College or Associate Degree 50% 14% 36%
33% 63% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 63% 12% 26%

15% 26% Less than a High School Diploma 26% 14% 60%
High School Diploma
25 to 44

25% 42%

25 to 44
42% 14% 44%
38% 58% Some College or Associate Degree 58% 13% 29%
51% 73% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 73% 8% 19%
Age and Education Level

Age and Education Level

26% 39% Less than a High School Diploma 39% 13% 48%
High School Diploma
45 to 64

44% 59%
45 to 64
59% 10% 31%
58% 72% Some College or Associate Degree 72% 7% 20%
69% 80% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 80% 15%
4%
39% 53% Less than a High School Diploma 53% 12% 35%
High School Diploma
65 to 74

58% 69%
65 to 74

69% 7% 24%
68% 78% Some College or Associate Degree 78% 5% 17%
75% 84% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 84% 13%
3%
40% 54% Less than a High School Diploma 54% 15% 31%
75 and Over

75 and Over

58% 69% High School Diploma 69% 10% 21%

67% 78% Some College or Associate Degree 78% 7% 15%
77% 80% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 80% 15%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Voting Rate Percentage of U.S. Citizens

NOTE: “Not registered” includes both those who reported that they were not registered and those who did not respond to the registration question. Percentages
may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010d, 2012i, Table 5; calculations by the authors.

32 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 1: Individual and Societal Benefits

Part 2:
The Distribution of the Benefits: Who Participates and
Succeeds in Higher Education?
Participation and success rates in higher education differ
considerably among demographic groups. Although the gaps
in college enrollment rates across racial/ethnic groups have
narrowed over time, the gaps between the least privileged youth
and their more affluent peers have grown. The percentage of
high school graduates from the lowest family income quintile
enrolling immediately in college has been stagnant for over a
decade, while participation rates for middle- and upper-income
youth have continued to increase.
When they do enroll in college, students from low-income families
are less likely than others to enroll in four-year institutions and
particularly unlikely to enroll in the selective institutions for which
they would likely qualify. Moreover, outcomes are highly correlated
with family incomes. The percentage of enrolling students from
the highest family income quintile earning bachelor’s degrees
within six years is twice as high as the percentage from the
lowest family income quintile achieving this outcome. And the
percentage of those from the least affluent families leaving school
without a credential is over twice as high as the percentage of
those from the most affluent families experiencing this outcome.
While international comparisons receive more attention, there
is considerable variation in educational attainment across
states in the U.S. These differences are likely explained by a
combination of factors, including demographics and financing
patterns. Financing patterns are also important to international
comparisons. As Figure 2.12 indicates, the United States relies
relatively less on public financing and more on household
financing than most other developed countries.
Documenting the different patterns observed among segments
of the population is an important first step toward generating
awareness that a problem exists and finding solutions. But
careful interpretation of the evidence and in-depth analysis
of the causes of differences in educational attainment are
prerequisites to real progress. A shortage of money may
interfere with educational opportunities, but money cannot
remove all the barriers faced by many individuals.
For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org.
As the data reported in Part 1 of Education Pays reveal,
adults with some college but no degree earn more and have
different life experiences than high school graduates. They do
not, however, fare as well as those who earn degrees. There
is a growing and valid concern about the detrimental effect
on individuals and the wasted resources resulting from low
degree completion rates. The indicators that follow rely on a
variety of sources to provide multiple views of the educational
experiences of different groups of students.
The number of postsecondary certificates awarded doubled
between 2001 and 2011, and over 40% of the credentials
awarded in 2011 were associate degrees or short-term
certificates, as opposed to bachelor’s degrees. Our goal in
highlighting gaps in educational attainment is not to suggest
that everyone needs a bachelor’s degree or that success in life
should be defined by education level.
Individual preferences, goals, and capabilities differ. However, the
differences across demographic groups documented here are
unsettling. The gap between students from high- and low-income
backgrounds in degree attainment is much larger than the gap in
college enrollment. The enrollment and degree attainment rates of
women have far outpaced those of men in recent years, and black
and Hispanic students have not caught up with white students.
The data on college enrollment and completion reported in the
following pages are more disturbing in light of the benefits for
individuals and for society documented in Part 1 of Education
Pays. Limited participation in postsecondary education seriously
constrains individual opportunities and living standards. Society
as a whole suffers from lower levels of civic engagement
and from unnecessary barriers to the success of the next
generation, in addition to a loss of productivity and output,
when individuals miss out on educational opportunities.
The indicators on the following pages describe pressing
problems for our nation. We hope readers will use this
information to work toward constructive solutions.
EDUCATION PAYS 2013 33
 College Enrollment

College Enrollment by Income

In 2012, when about 82% of high school graduates from families with incomes above $90,500
enrolled immediately in college, 65% of those from the middle income quintile ($34,060 to
$55,253) and 52% of those from families with incomes below $18,300 enrolled.

––From 2001 through 2009, high school graduates

FIGURE 2.1
Postsecondary Enrollment Rates of Recent High School Graduates by Family
in the lowest income quintile went to college at
Income, 1987 to 2012 about the same rate as those from families in
the second quintile. However, the gap between
these two groups grew from 3 percentage points
100% Highest
Income in 2009 to 6 points in 2012.
Quintile

80%
––Between 1992 and 2002, the college enrollment
4th Income
Quintile rate grew most rapidly for students from the
lowest family-income quintile, increasing 8
3rd Income
Enrollment Rate

60% Quintile percentage points (19%) from 42% to 50%,

while remaining relatively stable for higher-
2nd Income
Quintile income students.
40%
Lowest
Income
––Between 2002 and 2012, the enrollment rate
Quintile grew only slightly at the bottom and the top of
20% the income distribution, with more rapid growth
for middle-income students, particularly those
in the third income quintile. In 2012, 65% of this
0%
group enrolled in college immediately after high
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2012
school, an increase from 55% a decade earlier.
Year

ALSO IMPORTANT:
NOTE: Based on enrollment in college within 12 months of high school graduation. Income
quintiles are defined in terms of all households. In 2012, the upper income limits of the
––Because of the difficulty of accounting for young people
quintiles were: lowest, $18,300; 2nd, $34,059; 3rd, $55,253; and 4th, $90,500. High school who leave their parents’ homes, the Census data on
graduates are not evenly distributed among income quintiles because graduation rates which Figure 2.1 is based are likely to underestimate
are lower among students from low-income backgrounds. Enrollment rates reflect moving
averages. the gaps in enrollment rates. When high school
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013.
graduates move away but do not enroll in college
they form their own households. This pattern is more
common among low-income households and these
nonenrollees are not included.
Postsecondary Enrollment Rates of Recent High School Graduates by Family Income ––Immediate enrollment rates of high school graduates
Percentage do not capture students who wait more than a year
Point Change after graduation to continue their education, a pattern
Between 1987
Income Quintile 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 and 2012 more common among lower-income students than
among those from higher income backgrounds.
Lowest 37% 42% 47% 50% 54% 52% + 15
2nd 35% 46% 43% 52% 55% 58% + 23
3rd 47% 53% 62% 55% 62% 65% + 18
4th 60% 65% 68% 65% 69% 71% + 11
Highest 73% 78% 81% 78% 80% 82% +9

34 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 2: Distribution of Benefits

 College Enrollment

College Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity

FIGURE 2.2A The gaps between the college

Postsecondary Enrollment Rates of Recent High School Graduates by Race/ enrollment rates of black and
Ethnicity, 1974 to 2011 Hispanic high school graduates
White, Non-Hispanic and white high school graduates
Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic narrowed considerably between
80% 2001 and 2011. In 2011, 70% of
70% white, 66% of black, and 62% of
65%
63% 66% Hispanic high school graduates
60% 56% 62% enrolled in college within a year of
52%
49% 52% completing high school.
Enrollment Rate

48% 50% 49% 49%

40% 41% 44% ––In 2001, when 65% of white recent high school
graduates enrolled in college, only 56% of black
students and 49% of Hispanic students followed
this path within one year.
20%

––Although these gaps have also narrowed over the

past decade, 44% of all white 18- to 24-year-olds
0% were postsecondary students in 2011, while only
1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2011
36% of blacks and 31% of Hispanics in this age
Year range were enrolled.

FIGURE 2.2B ––Differences in high school graduation rates

Postsecondary Enrollment Rates of All 18- to 24-Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity, account for part of the difference between the
1974 to 2011 enrollment rates graphed in Figure 2.2A and
White, Non-Hispanic Figure 2.2B. In 2010, 89% of whites, 83% of
Hispanic blacks, and 73% of Hispanics between the ages
Black, Non-Hispanic of 18 and 24 were high school graduates (NCES
80% 2012a, Table 213).

ALSO IMPORTANT:
60%
––Blacks compose about 15% of the 18- to 24-year-old
population, and Hispanics represent about 18%.
Enrollment Rate

44%
39% ––About 1.9% of blacks, 1% of Hispanics, and 0.2% of
40% 38%
35% whites between the ages of 18 and 24 are in prison.
31% 31%
27%
These individuals are excluded from the population
26% 24% reported on in Figures 2.2A and 2.2B.
17% 20% 21%
20% 17%
(SOURCES: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012, Table 7; U.S.
16% 16% Census Bureau, 2012c, Table 10.)

––Postsecondary enrollment rates are higher for Asians

0% than for other racial/ethnic groups. In fall 2011, when
1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2011
71% of white recent high school graduates enrolled
Year immediately in college, 88% of Asians continued their
education. Two-thirds of Asians ages 18 to 24 were
Figure 2.2A shows the percentage of high school graduates who enrolled in enrolled in postsecondary institutions in 2011.
college within 12 months of high school graduation. Figure 2.2B shows the
percentage of all 18- to 24-year-olds in the civilian noninstitutionalized population
(i.e., not in the military or in prison) enrolled in college in the specified year. This
population includes those who have not completed high school.

NOTE: Postsecondary enrollment includes undergraduate and graduate students. Enrollment

rates are three-year moving averages. Because of small sample sizes for Hispanics and blacks,
annual fluctuations in enrollment rates may not be significant.
SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 2013a, Tables 235 and 239; calculations by
the authors.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 35

 College Enrollment

College Enrollment by Gender and Age

FIGURE 2.3A In 2001, 60% of males and 65%

Postsecondary Enrollment Rates of Recent High School Graduates and of All of females who had completed
18- to 24-Year-Olds by Gender, 1971 to 2011 high school in the past year were
Recent High School Graduates All 18- to 24-Year-Olds enrolled in college. By 2011, those
80%
Female Male Female Male percentages had increased to 64%
73% and 73%, respectively.
64% 65%

64%
––As shown in Figure 2.3A, in 2011, 39% of males
60% 58% 60%
51% 58% and 44% of females between the ages of 18 and
24 were enrolled in college.
Enrollment Rate

51% 44%
49%
38% ––In 1971, males were 9 percentage points more
40%
33% 32% 39% likely than females to enroll in college immediately
26% 32% 33% after completing high school. Between 2001 and
25% 2011, the enrollment rate for recent female
20%
21% graduates exceeded the enrollment rate for
recent male graduates by 5 percentage points,
on average.
0%
1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 ––In 1971, males between the ages of 18 and
Year 24 were 13 percentage points more likely than
females of the same ages to be enrolled in
NOTE: “Recent high school graduates” completed high school during the 12 months college. By 1981, the gap had narrowed to 2
preceding postsecondary enrollment. “Postsecondary enrollment” includes both
undergraduate and graduate students. Some 18- to 24-year-olds have completed college
percentage points. By 2001, the enrollment rate
and are no longer enrolled. They are not included in enrollment rates. Enrollment rates are for females was 5 percentage points higher than
three-year moving averages. the rate for males, and the gap has remained 6 to
SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 2013a, Tables 234 and 239; calculations by 7 percentage points since that time.
the authors.

––The percentage of all 18- and 19-year-olds

enrolled in postsecondary education increased
FIGURE 2.3B from 38% in 1971 to 43% in 1991 and 44% in
Postsecondary Enrollment Rates of All 18- to 34-Year-Olds by Age,
2001. The enrollment rate for this age group had
1971 to 2011
grown to 50% by 2011. The pattern for 20‑ and
21-year-olds was similar. The most rapid growth
80% 18–19
20–21
in enrollment rates for young people was in the
22–24 1980s and the 2000s.
25–29
60% 30–34 ALSO IMPORTANT:
52%
Enrollment Rate

45% ––In 2011, 7.7% of males and 6.5% of females between

50%
43% the ages of 16 and 24 had not completed high school and
44%
40% 38% 36% were not enrolled. (NCES, 2013a, Table 128)
40%
30%
33%
––The percentage of all postsecondary students who were
31% 25%
21% over the age of 30 rose from 15% in 1970 to 22% in 1980,
20% 16% and to 29% in 1990. From 2001 to 2011, 24% to 25% of
15% 14%
10% 11% students were in this age range.
8% 9%
8% ––The percentage of all postsecondary students (including
7% 6% 7%
5% graduate students) who were age 21 or younger fell from
0%
1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 55% in 1970 to 40% in 1990. From 2001 to 2011, 44% to
Year 45% of students were in this age range.

––In both 2001 and 2011, just over half of all undergraduate
NOTE: Includes all 18- to 34-year-olds, whether or not they have graduated from high school.
“Postsecondary enrollment” includes part-time and full-time enrollment in an institution with students were age 21 or younger, and between 21% and
programs of at least two years. Enrollment rates are three-year moving averages. 22% were over the age of 30.
SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 2013a, Table 7; calculations by the authors.
(NCES, 2013a, Table 225; NCES, 2004b, Table 177)

36 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 2: Distribution of Benefits

 College Enrollment

Stratification Within Higher Education

FIGURE 2.4A
Lower-income students, who come
Family Income Distribution of Dependent Students Within Postsecondary from families with incomes less
Sectors (with Percentage of Students Enrolled in Each Sector), 2011-12 than $29,600, are overrepresented
Less than $29,600 $29,601 to $65,460 $65,461 to $106,360 $106,361 or More
in the for-profit and two-year public
sectors, but underrepresented
Private Nonprofit
Four-Year (16%)
18% 23% 27% 33% in four-year public and private
nonprofit institutions. The reverse
Postsecondary Sector

Public
Four-Year (38%) 22% 23% 26% 29% is true for higher-income students,
who come from families with
  Public
Two-Year (32%)
30% 29% 24% 17%
incomes above $106,360.
  For-Profit (5%) 45% 27% 17% 11% ––Among dependent students from the lowest
family income quartile of undergraduate
  Attended More than
One Institution (9%)
21% 23% 26% 30% students, 38% were enrolled in public two-year
colleges in 2011‑12, while 44% attended four-year
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
public or private nonprofit colleges.
Percentage of Students
––Among dependent students from the highest
family income quartile of undergraduate
FIGURE 2.4B students, 22% were enrolled in public two-year
Dependent Students’ Postsecondary Sector by Family Income, 2011-12 colleges, while 65% attended four-year public or
private nonprofit colleges.
 Public Public Private Nonprofit   For-Profit Attended More than
Two-Year Four-Year Four-Year One Institution ––Only 5% of dependent undergraduate students
attended for-profit institutions, but 20% of
independent students were enrolled in this
Less than $29,600 38% 32% 12% 10% 8%
sector. While 54% of dependent students
attended four‑year public and private nonprofit
Family Income

colleges and universities, only 27% of

  $29,601 to $65,460 36% 35% 15% 6% 9%
independent students were enrolled in these
4%
sectors.
  $65,461 to $106,360 31% 39% 17% 10%
ALSO IMPORTANT:
2%
––In 2011-12, 51% of undergraduate students were
  $106,361 and Higher 22% 44% 21% 11%
independent and 49% were dependent. About
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
two‑thirds of the undergraduate students at both
public four‑year and private nonprofit four-year
Percentage of Students institutions were dependent. But only 40% of public
two-year college students and 23% of undergraduates
NOTE: The income brackets in Figures 2.4A and 2.4B represent quartiles of family income
for all dependent undergraduate students enrolled in 2011-12. The “Attended More than One enrolled in for-profit institutions were dependent.
Institution” category shown here includes the 9% of dependent students who were enrolled in (NCES, 2013b)
more than one institution. Omitted here are a small number of students (about 1%) who were
enrolled in less-than-two-year public and less-than-four-year private nonprofit institutions.
Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 2013b; calculations by the authors.

2011-12 Undergraduate Enrollment by Dependency Status and Sector

Private Attended
Public Public Nonprofit More than
Two-Year Four-Year Four-Year For-Profit One institution
Dependent 32% 38% 16% 5% 9%
Independent 44% 20% 7% 20% 7%
SOURCE: NCES, 2013b.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 37

 College Enrollment

Stratification Within Higher Education

Virtually all 2004 high school graduates eligible for very selective colleges enrolled
immediately after high school. However, 53% of lower-SES and 40% of upper-SES students
with these characteristics enrolled in either less selective four-year institutions or in
two-year colleges.

––Among high school graduates eligible for somewhat selective

ALSO IMPORTANT:
colleges, 8% of lower-SES students did not enroll anywhere
and another 42% “undermatched.” Among those from ––Numerous studies have shown that students who enroll in the most
upper-SES families, only 3% did not enroll in college and 26% selective colleges for which they are qualified are more likely to earn
“undermatched.” bachelor’s degrees than similar students who attend colleges where
most students are less well prepared academically. (Bowen, Chingos,
––Among students who had little chance of admission to any & McPherson, 2009; Light & Strayer, 2000; Nagaoka, Roderick, &
four-year college, 49% of lower-SES and 29% of upper-SES Coca, 2009)
high school graduates did not enroll in college, passing up or
Academic Undermatching of 1992 and 2004 High School Graduates
postponing the opportunity to attend a community college.
  Lower SES Upper SES
––The percentage of lower-SES students not applying to any Class of Class of Class of Class of
  1992 2004 1992 2004
colleges declined from 40% in 1992 to 24% in 2004. For upper-
SES students, the decline was from 13% to 7%. No applications 40% 24% 13% 7%
Applied to less selective schools only 16% 9% 23% 12%
––The percentage of lower-SES students applying to at least Did not enroll 1% 1% 1% 0%
one school of the highest selectivity for which they qualified Enrolled in less selective school 15% 8% 23% 11%
increased from 45% in 1992 to 67% in 2004. However, 69% of Applied to match schools 45% 67% 65% 81%
lower-SES students qualified only for public two-year colleges,
Rejected, did not enroll 1% 2% 1% 1%
while 12% qualified for very selective or selective colleges.
Rejected, enrolled in less selective school 1% 2% 2% 3%
––The percentage of upper-SES students applying to at least Accepted, did not enroll 4% 9% 2% 4%
one school of the highest selectivity for which they qualified Accepted, enrolled in less selective school 4% 4% 8% 8%
increased from 65% in 1992 to 81% in 2004. Among upper-SES Accepted, enrolled in match school 34% 50% 52% 66%
students, 35% qualified only for two-year public colleges and NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
another 35% qualified for very selective or selective colleges. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, 2000 and 2008. 

FIGURE 2.5
Percentage of High School Seniors Not Enrolling in College or Enrolling in Less Selective Colleges than Those for Which They Qualify
for Admission by Socioeconomic Status, 2004

100%
Lower-SES Undermatched (by one level) Higher-SES Undermatched (by one level)

80% Lower-SES Substantially Undermatched (by two or more levels) Higher-SES Substantially Undermatched (by two or more levels)
Percentage of Students

Lower-SES Not Enrolled Higher-SES Not Enrolled

60%

12%
40% 35%
31%
25% 30%
30% 8% 30% 49%
20% 25%
20% 29%
21% 17%
1% 15% <1% 11% 2% 3%
5% 8% 10% 8%
0%
Lower- Higher- Lower- Higher- Lower- Higher- Lower- Higher- Lower- Higher-
SES (1%) SES (8%) SES (11%) SES (27%) SES (11%) SES (20%) SES (9%) SES (10%) SES (69%) SES (35%)

Very Selective Selective Somewhat Selective Nonselective Two-Year

Socioeconomic Status (SES) and College Selectivity Category for Which Students Qualified

Students are defined as “undermatching” if they enroll in institutions less selective than the most selective at which they would have an
estimated probability of at least 90% of being admitted. Nonenrollment is reported separately from undermatching.
NOTE: Lower-SES refers to the lower half of the socioeconomic distribution and higher-SES refers to the upper half. College selectivity levels are based on
Barron’s categories and are determined by the SAT scores, GPA, and acceptance rates of applicants and enrollees. Students’ access to college selectivity levels
is predicted by their academic credentials. Percentages on the horizontal axis show the percentage of students in the indicated SES category who qualified for
admission to institutions in the specified selectivity category.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, 2008.

38 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 2: Distribution of Benefits

 Educational Attainment

Degrees and Certificates Awarded

FIGURE 2.6A In 2011-12, 58% of the 4.9

Postsecondary Degrees and Certificates Awarded, 2011-12 million postsecondary degrees
and certificates awarded were
Doctoral Degrees
Certificates of Less than One Year bachelor’s or advanced degrees.
Master’s Degrees
The other 42% were certificates or
3% 10% Certificates of One Year
16%
to Less than Four Years in Length associate degrees.
Post-Baccalaureate
11%
or Higher Certificates 1%
––Ninety-one percent of the credentials awarded
Total
by private nonprofit institutions, 90% of those
4.9 Million Associate Degrees awarded by public four-year institutions, and 58%
21% of those awarded by four-year for-profit institutions
were bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate degrees.
Bachelor’s Degrees 38% Almost no baccalaureate or advanced degrees were
awarded by public two‑year and for-profit two-year
or less institutions.

––The number of postsecondary certificates

awarded increased from 550,000 in 2001-02
FIGURE 2.6B to almost 1.1 million in 2011-12, an increase of
Percentage Distribution of Degrees and Certificates Awarded by Sector, 92%. The most rapid growth (114%) was for
2011-12
certificates requiring between one and two
Certificates Certificates Associate Bachelor’s Post- Master’s Doctoral years of study.
of Less than of One Year Degrees Degrees Baccalaureate Degrees Degrees
One Year to Less than or Higher
Four Years Certificates
––In 2011-12, 44% of the certificates awarded were
in Length for programs of less than one year in duration,
while 46% were for programs requiring between
For-Profit
Two-Year or Less
29% 56% 15% one and two years of study.
2% 1% 0%
For-Profit
5% 35% 34% 21%
Four-Year or More
2%
Public Two-Year
or Less 25% 18% 56%
1% 1% 0%
Public Four-Year 7% 65% 19% 5%
or More
2% 2%
All Private 5% 52% 30% 7%
Nonprofit
2%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage

FIGURE 2.6C
Number of Certificates Awarded by Type, 2001-02 and 2011-12

Certificates Certificates Certificates Post-Baccalaureate

of Less than of One Year of Two Years or Higher Certificates
One Year to Less than to Less than
NOTE: Degrees reported in these figures were conferred
Two Years Four Years in Length
during the 12-month period July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. The
5% number of degrees includes those from U.S. institutions, Title
44% 46% 1,060,000 IV and non-Title IV participating, and both degree-granting and
2011-12
non-degree-granting institutions. Percentages may not sum to
5% 4% 100 because of rounding.
2001-02 49% 42% 550,000 SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 2013c;
4% calculations by the authors.
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

Number of Certificates Awarded

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 39

 Educational Attainment

College Completion

FIGURE 2.7A Among students who began

Percentage Distribution of Outcomes for Students Beginning Postsecondary college in 2006 at age 24 or
Study in 2006 (with Percentage of Students in Each Category)
younger and enrolled exclusively
Completed at Completed at Still Enrolled No Degree,
full time, 78% had earned a degree
Starting Institution Different Institution
4%
Not Enrolled or certificate six years later.
Full-Time (37%)
24 or Younger (82%)

67% 11% 18%

3% ––Eleven percent of these traditional-age full-
Part-Time (3%) 7% 13% 77% time students (15% of those who completed
credentials) completed their studies at an institution
Mixed FT/PT
(43%) 25% 16% 28% 31% other than the one at which they first enrolled.

4% ––The 7% of students who enrolled exclusively part

Full-Time (5%) 56% 36% time had very low completion rates, with 77% of
Over 24 (18%)

3% 4% students ages 24 or younger and 62% of older

Part-Time (4%) 24% 11% 62%
students leaving college without a degree or
Mixed FT/PT certificate.
31% 9% 20% 40%
(8%)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ––Among students who began their postsecondary
Percentage studies in 2003-04, 58% of dependent students
SOURCE: Shapiro et al., 2012,Table 7.
from the highest family income quartile (with
family incomes of $88,517 or more), 26% of those
FIGURE 2.7B
with family incomes below $30,489, and 6%
Percentage Distribution of Outcomes by Dependency Status and Family
Income, Students Enrolling in 1989-90, 1995-96, and 2003-04 of independent students had earned bachelor’s
degrees by 2009.
Attained Attained Attained No Degree, No Degree,
Bachelor's Degree Associate Degree Certificate Still Enrolled Left Without Returning ––Twenty percent of dependent students from the
highest income quartile, 38% from the lowest
Lowest Quartile

2003-04 26% 9% 11% 16% 38%

family income quartile, and 52% of independent
1995-96 26% 15% 11% 16% 33% students had not earned a credential and were
1989-90 17% 11% 18% 13% 42%
no longer enrolled in 2009.

––The percentage of beginning postsecondary

Dependent Students’ Family Income

2003-04 35% 11% 6% 17% 31%

students from the lowest family income quartile
2nd Quartile

1995-96 32% 10% 9% 17% 32% who earned a credential in 5 or 6 years increased
1989-90
from 46% in 1989-90 to 52% in 1995-96, but
26% 13% 11% 15% 35%
declined to 46% for the 2003-04 cohort.
2003-04 44% 10% 5% 14% 27%
––For those from the highest income quartile,
3rd Quartile

1995-96 40% 12% 4% 16% 28% completion rates increased from 62% to 67%
to 68% over these years. Credential completion
1989-90 35% 12% 10% 14% 30%
rates were 37%, 40%, and 34%, respectively, for
independent students.
Highest Quartile

2003-04 58% 8% 12% 20%

2%
1995-96 57% 7% 14% 19% ALSO IMPORTANT:
3%
1989-90 43% 12% 7% 13% 25% ––Official college graduation rates include only first-time
full-time students who complete their degrees or
certificates at the same institution at which they
2003-04 6% 10% 18% 15% 52% first enrolled.
Independent
Students

1995-96 9% 27% 12% 48% ––The official six-year graduation rate for four-year
4%
institutions increased from 55% for the 1996 starting
1989-90 5% 8% 24% 11% 52%
cohort to 58% for the 2005 cohort. The three-year
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
completion rate for students enrolling full time in two-year
Percentage
institutions was between 28% and 31% for all cohorts
NOTE: The upper income limits of the 2003-04 cohort quartiles were: lowest, $30,489; 2nd, $56,068; from 2005 through 2008. (NCES, 2013a, Tables 376 and
3rd, $88,516. Students classified as full time were enrolled full time throughout their studies. 377)
SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 1994, 2001, and 2009; calculations by the authors.

40 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 2: Distribution of Benefits

 Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment over Time

FIGURE 2.8A The percentage of adults in the

Education Level of Individuals Ages 25 to 34, 1940–2012 U.S. between the ages of 25
and 34 with a four-year college
Less than a High School Some College Bachelor’s degree grew from 6% in 1950 to
High School Diploma or Associate Degree
Diploma Degree or Higher 24% in 1980 and 1990. In 2012,
34% of adults in this age group
2012 11% 27% 29% 34%
had earned a bachelor’s degree
2011 11% 27% 29% 33%
or higher.
2010 12% 27% 28% 33%

2000 12% 31% 28% 29% ––The percentage of adults ages 25–34 with some
1990 14% 41% 22% 24% college or an associate degree grew rapidly in the
Year

1970s and again in the 1990s but has stabilized at

1980 15% 40% 22% 24%
28% to 29% since 2000.
1970 26% 44% 14% 16%

1960 42% 36% 11% 11% ––In 1940, only 13% of adults in the U.S. ages
25–34 had any education beyond high school.
1950 51% 34% 10% 6%
That percentage had risen to 46% by 1980 and to
1940 64% 22% 7% 6% 63% by 2012.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
––In 2012, when 34% of adults ages 25–34 had a
Percentage of Individuals
bachelor’s degree or higher and 63% had at least
some college, 33% of those ages 35–54 had
NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
four-year degrees and 60% had at least some
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012g, Table A-1.
college. Attainment levels were lower for those
ages 55 and older, among whom 28% had a
bachelor’s degree or higher and 52% had at least
some college.
FIGURE 2.8B
Percentage of Adults with Some College or an Associate Degree and with a
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher, by Age Group, 2002 and 2012 ALSO IMPORTANT:
––The fact that the earnings differential between high
100% school graduates and college graduates has increased
Some College or Associate Degree
over time despite the increasing prevalence of college
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
degrees indicates that the demand for college-educated
80% workers in the labor market has increased more rapidly
Percentage of Individuals

than the supply. (See Goldin and Katz [2008] and Autor
[2010] for discussion of the failure of the supply of
60%
college graduates to keep up with the demand.)

––According to the Organisation for Economic

28% 29% 28% 27%
40% 24% Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 2011,
20% when 33% of adults ages 25–34 in the U.S. had
four-year college degrees, the highest attainment
20% rates were 46% in Norway and 39% in Korea, Poland,
31% 34% 29% 33% 21% 28% and the U.K. (OECD, 2013, Table A1.3a)

0% ––In 2011, when 43% of adults ages 25–34 in the U.S.

2002 2012 2002 2012 2002 2012 had either bachelor’s degrees or vocational associate
Ages 25−34 Ages 35−54 Ages 55 and older degrees, the highest attainment rates for comparable
Year and Age Group degrees were 64% in Korea and 59% in Japan. (OECD,
2013, Table A1.3a)

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012g, Table A-1.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 41

 Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment by Race/Ethnicity

and Gender
FIGURE 2.9 Among blacks, whites, and
Percentage of 25- to 29-Year-Olds Who Have Completed High School, Some Hispanics, larger percentages of
College, or a Bachelor’s Degree, by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 1973–2012 females than of males between the
ages of 25 and 29 had completed
Females Males
At Least a High School Diploma At Least a High School Diploma high school, had completed some
At Least Some College Experience At Least Some College Experience college, and had completed
At Least a Bachelor’s Degree At Least a Bachelor’s Degree
bachelor’s degrees in 2012.
Black, Non-Hispanic
100%
90% ––The percentage of black females ages 25 to 29
87%
79%
83%
87%
who had completed a bachelor’s degree doubled
80% 87%
80% from 12% in 1982 to 24% in 2012, while the
78%
60% percentage of black males with four-year degrees
Percentage

60% 54% rose from 11% to 16%.

37% 50% 51%
40% 35% ––The percentage of Hispanic females ages 25 to
34% 34% 24% 29 who had completed a bachelor’s degree more
20%
13%
18% than doubled, from 7% in 1982 to 17% in 2012,
12%
18% 16% while the percentage of Hispanic males with
11% 11%
0% four-year degrees rose from 9% to 11%.
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Year ––The percentage of white females ages 25 to 29
who had completed a bachelor’s degree almost
Hispanic doubled, from 22% in 1982 to 43% in 2012,
100% while the percentage of white males with
four-year degrees rose from 26% to 35%.
80% 75%
66% ––Over the decade from 1992 to 2002, most of
60% 59% 69% the gaps in bachelor’s degree attainment across
Percentage

60%
59% 58% 60%
racial/ethnic groups remained stable, but the gap
44%
40% 36% between white and black males grew from 13
25% 26% percentage points in 2002 to 15 points in 2007
35%
20% 24% 29% 17% and to 19 points in 2012.
22%
9% 10% 11%

7% 8% 9% 11%
0% ALSO IMPORTANT:
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Year ––Educational attainment is higher for U.S.-born
Hispanics than for Hispanic immigrants. Among
Hispanic adults ages 25 and older in 2011, about 15%
White, Non-Hispanic
100% 95% of those born outside the U.S. and 33% of those born
94%
89% 91% in the U.S. to immigrant Hispanic mothers had some
93% 94%
89% 89% college experience but less than a bachelor’s degree.
80% 75%
69% Seventeen percent of the second generation had at
64% least a bachelor’s degree, compared to only 10% of
Percentage

60%
49% 51% 61% Hispanic immigrants. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012e)
50% 43%
40% 37% ––Hispanics include individuals from many different
44%
26% 27% countries, with considerable variation in educational
35%
32% attainment rates. For example, both first- and
20% 27%
22% second-generation Mexican immigrants are much
less likely than immigrants from other Latin
0%
American countries to have completed college.
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012e)

NOTE: Enrollment rates are three-year moving averages.

SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009,
2010b, 2011b, and 2012c, Table 1; calculations by the authors.

42 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 2: Distribution of Benefits

 Educational Attainment

Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Mathematics (STEM) Fields
Students who enter the fields of engineering and mathematics are more likely than other
students to earn their bachelor’s degrees in the fields in which they began.

––While 24% of 2004 high school graduates had earned math-related jobs one year after graduation had majored in STEM
bachelor’s degrees by 2009, only 4% (17% of those earning fields. Twenty percent majored in social sciences, humanities, or
degrees) earned bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields. While education, and 21% majored in business.
2.5% of high school graduates were employed in STEM fields
a year after graduating from college, about 38% of the STEM
ALSO IMPORTANT:
graduates did not have STEM jobs.
––In 2008, 31% of bachelor’s degrees, 20% of master’s degrees,
––Many STEM jobs are filled by non-STEM majors. Only 53% and 67% of doctoral degrees were in STEM fields. (National Science
of 2003-04 beginning postsecondary students who earned Foundation, 2013)
bachelor’s degrees by 2009 and were employed in computer- and

FIGURE 2.10A FIGURE 2.10B

Of 2003-04 Beginning Four-Year College Students Who Earned Percentage of High School Graduates Entering Four-Year Colleges,
Bachelor’s Degrees, Percentage Persisting in the Fields They Entered Graduating in STEM Fields, and Employed in STEM Fields

STEM Major Non-STEM Major

80%

60%
Percentage

High School Graduates: 100%

40%
73% 71% 67% 66% 65% 64% 59% 57% 55% 47%

20% Graduate
Four-Year College: 24%

0%
Graduate in STEM Field: 4%
Mathematics

 Physical
Sciences

Business

  Humanities

Health
Sciences

Education
 Engineering/
Technologies

  Social/
Behavioral
Sciences

Biological/
Life Sciences
  Computer/
Information
Sciences

Enter College (as Freshman

at Four-Year College): 39%
Enter STEM Job One Year
After Graduation: 2.5%

SOURCES: Chen & Ho, 2013, Table 2; calculations by the authors. NOTE: Based on 2003-04 beginning postsecondary students who complete
a STEM degree within six years.
SOURCE: Salzman, Kuehn, & Lowell, 2013, Figure A.

FIGURE 2.10C
Majors of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in Selected STEM Occupations One Year After Graduation (with Percentage of All Employed Graduates
Working in Occupation), 2009

Major Field of Study

STEM 77% Social Sciences, 17% Business
6% Other Non-STEM
Humanities, Education
2% NOTE: Percentages may not sum to totals because of
Engineers and 83% 6% 8% rounding.
Engineering Technicians (4%)
4% SOURCES: Woo, Green, & Matthews, 2013, Table 3.3;
Occupation in 2009

Physical and Life Scientists (2%) 85% 11% calculations by the authors.
2%
Computer/Information Services/ 53% 20% 21% 6%
Math-Related (5%)
2% 1%
Nurses (4%) 96%
1%
Other Health Care
Occupations (4%) 53% 27% 6% 15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Graduates

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 43

 Geographic Comparisons

College Enrollment and Attainment by State

The percentage of young people enrolling in college within a year after they were scheduled
to graduate from high school in 2007-08 ranged from 29% in Nevada and 30% in the District
of Columbia to 61% in Massachusetts and South Dakota.

––Over the years from 2008 to 2010, the percentage of adults
ages 25 and older with at least a bachelor’s degree ranged
from 17% in West Virginia and 19% in Arkansas to 39% in
Massachusetts and 50% in the District of Columbia.
––Arkansas and Mississippi have college enrollment rates
close to the national average of 48%, but they have only
19% and 20%, respectively, of adults with bachelor’s
degrees, compared to the national average of 28%.
––The District of Columbia has the highest attainment rate in the
country, but the second lowest college enrollment rate — 30%
of high school graduates.
––In South Carolina in 2007-08, 70% of recent public high
school graduates enrolled in college, compared to the national
average of 64%. However, because 38% did not graduate
from high school (compared to the national average of 25%),
only 44% of all young people enrolled in college — less than
the national average of 48%.
ALSO IMPORTANT:
––About 78% of public high school 12th-graders graduate, compared to
98% of those enrolled in private high schools. (NCES, 2012a, Table 125;
Broughman & Swain, 2013, Table 13)

FIGURE 2.11
Educational Attainment of Youth Scheduled to Graduate from High School in 2007-08

Percentage of All Youths Enrolling in Postsecondary Education

Percentage Graduating from High School, but Not Enrolling in Postsecondary Education
Percentage of Students Not Completing High School Diploma
100%
60%
60%

44%
61%
61%

57%
56%
56%
55%
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
52%
52%
51%
50%
49%
49%
49%
48%
48%
48%
48%
47%
47%
47%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
46%
45%
45%
45%
45%

44%
43%
43%
43%
42%
41%
39%
39%
37%
36%
36%
32%
30%
29%
80%

60%
Percentage

26%
28%
19%

22%
28%

38%
34%
41%
22%

35%
31%

32%
20%
14%

23%
31%
32%

29%

41%
24%
27%
29%
28%
25%

29%

34%
31%
34%
29%

34%

39%
40%
18%

25%

25%
30%
29%

33%
25%
24%

27%

46%
30%
24%
24%
27%
27%
26%
31%
29%
30%
37%
21%

20%

44%
18%
16%
15%
14%
16%
18%
14%
16%
17%
10%
17%
23%
29%
21%
24%
20%
21%
36%
18%
26%
27%
24%
28%
25%
24%
25%
29%
20%
25%
31%
24%
23%
35%
26%
33%
21%
24%
22%
38%
26%
11%
18%
27%
36%
33%
20%
28%
29%
23%
31%
44%
0%
(68%) NM

(51%) WA
(63%) MA

(60%) MO

(59%) WV
(77%) MS

(59%) WY
(57%) ME

(52%) MT
(69%) MN
(68%) ND

(64%) NH
(75%) MA

(63%) OH

(66%) NC

(70%) GA

(51%) NV
(72%) SD
(71%) NJ

(65%) NE

(59%) WI

(74%) NY

(63%) AR

(64%) US

(63%) CO
(65%) CA

(62%) TN

(56%) OK

(47%) OR
(46%) AK
(53%) DC
(69%) VA
(64%) PA

(65%) KS

(66%) DE

(60%) MI

(70%) SC
(58%) UT

(51%) AZ
(68%) CT

(67%) AL

(61%) KY

(48%) VT

(57%) TX
(65%) LA
(66%) IN
(64%) IA

(62%) HI

(59%) FL
(49%) ID
(67%) RI

(57%) IL

STATE (Percentage of Public High School Graduates Enrolling in College)

50%
Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and Older with at Least a Bachelor’s Degree, 2008–2010
40%
Percentage

30%

20%
39%
26%
35%
32%
27%
36%
25%
28%
33%
26%
27%
34%
32%
30%
30%
36%
24%
20%
25%
23%
26%
19%
27%
28%
29%
36%
30%
31%
23%
22%
25%
17%
27%
20%
25%
26%
24%
22%
24%
29%
34%
28%
26%
21%
26%
24%
31%
26%
29%
28%
50%
22%

10%

0%
MA
SD
NJ
MN
ND
CT
IA
NE
NH
WI
PA
VA
NY
KS
RI
MA
OH
MS
MO
IN
NC
AR
DE
US
HI
CO
CA
IL
TN
AL
MI
WV
GA
KY
NM
ME
WY
OK
SC
UT
VT
MT
TX
LA
FL
ID
WA
AZ
OR
AK
DC
NV

State

NOTE: High school graduation rates are estimated based on data for public high schools. Actual graduation rates are slightly higher because 7% to 8% of
students are enrolled in private high schools, which have higher graduation rates. Attainment data are estimates using three-year averages of 2008–2010 data.
Use of a three-year average increases the sample size, thereby reducing the size of sampling errors and producing more stable estimates. Percentages may not
sum to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, 2012a, Tables 113, 212; NCES, 2013a, Table 16; calculations by the authors.

44 EDUCATION PAYS 2013 Part 2: Distribution of Benefits

 Geographic Comparisons

International Comparisons: Public Spending

on Higher Education
Public funding constitutes a lower percentage of total funding for higher education in the
United States than in most other countries.

––In 2010, 36% of funding for U.S. higher Norway to 56% in the United Kingdom students attend public institutions. In
education institutions came from and 70% in Chile, compared to 48% in contrast, in 2011 28% of U.S. students
public sources, while 48% came from the United States. attended private institutions. (NCES, 2013a,
households and 16% came from other Table 221)
private sources. ––In 2012-13, 63% of the annual average tuition
ALSO IMPORTANT:
and fees paid by households in the United
––In four OECD countries, higher ––In 2010, governments in the U.S. provided States was covered by grant aid from all
education institutions received smaller an average of $12,112 per student in funding sources and federal tax benefits. (College
percentages of their funding from to public higher education institutions — 6% Board, 2013)
public sources than the U.S.: 22% in more than the OECD average of $11,382.
Chile, 25% in the United Kingdom, (OECD 2013, Indicator B3.4) ––Considering room and board charges in
27% in Korea, and 34% in Japan. addition to tuition and fees, in 2012-13,
––Per-student public funding for public higher on average 36% of the total was covered
––In Finland and Norway, 96% of higher education institutions in 2010 ranged from by grants and federal tax benefits, 26%
education funding was public. $4,248 in Chile and $4,680 in Argentina to was covered by loans through the federal
$21,893 in Switzerland and $21,982 in Israel. government, and 38% by other resources.
––The percentages of higher education (OECD 2013, Indicator B3.4) (College Board, 2013)
funding coming from households ranged
––In countries such as Switzerland, Norway,
from 0% in Sweden and 3% in Austria and
and Sweden, almost all postsecondary

FIGURE 2.12
Proportions of Expenditures on Higher Education Institutions from Public, Household, and Other Private Sources, 2010
Other Private
Household
Public
0%

0%

0%

0%
1%

1%

2%
6%

5%

4%

100%
0%

10%

7%

7%

8%

8%

8%
10% 8%
9%
8%

9% 12%

15%
13%

14%
16%
18%

16%

19%
11%
4%

24%

26%
5%
3%

16%

18%
5%

18%

30%

34%
23%
3%

15%

24%

80%
23%
12%

30%

39%
20%

48%

60%
Percentage

52%

47%

56%

70%
40%

20%
96%

96%

95%

91%

91%

90%

88%

85%

82%

81%

79%

78%

75%

72%

71%

70%

70%

69%

68%

66%

57%

54%

46%

36%

34%

27%

25%

22%

0%
Norway ($19,050)

Finland ($16,714)

Denmark ($18,432)

Iceland ($8,728)

Sweden ($19,727)

Belgium ($14,776)

Austria ($15,007)

Slovenia ($8,517)

France ($14,699)

Ireland ($15,911)

Czech Republic ($7,338)

Spain ($13,300)

Estonia ($5,715)

Netherlands ($17,254)

Poland ($6,714)

Slovak Republic ($6,768)

Mexico ($7,872)

Portugal ($9,498)

Italy ($9,501)

New Zealand ($10,418)

Canada ($24,704)

Israel ($10,876)

Australia ($16,020)

United States ($25,576)

Japan ($18,191)

Korea ($11,218)

United Kingdom ($15,206)

Chile ($6,794)

Country (with Estimated Total Expenditures on Higher Education Institutions per Student)

NOTE: “Other Private” sources include private businesses and nonprofit organizations, such as religious and charitable organizations and business and labor
organizations. Money transferred to educational institutions from private sources, including public funding via subsidies to households, is included in the
private funds total. Total expenditures per student are estimated based on the portion of total expenditures coming from public sources and the average public
expenditure per student. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCES: OECD, 2013, Indicator 3.2b; calculations by the authors.

For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. EDUCATION PAYS 2013 45

References
American Hospital Association. (2012, January).
American Hospital Association Uncompensated
Hospital Care Cost Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
www.aha.org/content/12/11-uncompensated-care-
fact-sheet.pdf
Autor, D. (2010). The polarization of job opportunities
in the U.S. labor market: Implications for employment
and earnings. Center for American Programs
and the Hamilton Project. Retrieved from http://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/
report/2010/04/30/7687/the-future-of-american-jobs/
Baum, C. L., & Ruhm, C. J. (2009). Age,
socioeconomic status and obesity growth.
Journal of Health Economics, 28 (3), 635–648.
Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Education pays 2007:
The benefits of higher education for individuals and
society. New York: The College Board.
Baum, S. & Ma, J. (2012). Trends in college pricing
2012. New York: The College Board.
Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays
2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals
and society. New York: The College Board.
Benson, A., Esteva, R., & Levy, F. (2013). The economics
of BA ambivalence: The case of California higher
education (Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Working Paper).
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S.
(2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at
America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Brand, J. E., & Xie, Y. (2010). Evidence for negative
selection in heterogeneous economic returns to higher
education. American Sociological Review, 75 (2),
273–302.
Broughman, S. P., & Swaim, N. L. (2013).
Characteristics of private schools in the United
States: Results from the 2011-12 private school
universe survey (NCES 2013-316). U.S. Department
of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012). Prisoners
in 2011. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4559
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). American
time use survey, 2003–2012. Available from
http://www.bls.gov/tus/datafiles_0312.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013a). Consumer price
index for all urban consumers (current series), U.S.
city average. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/
special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
46 EDUCATION PAYS 2013
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013b). Labor force
statistics from the current population survey.
Available from http://www.bls.gov/cps/data.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013c). Volunteering
in the United States, 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
Card, D. (2001). Estimating the return to school:
Progress on some persistent econometric problem.
Econometrica, 69 (5), 1127–1160.
Carneiro, P., Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil, E. (2003).
Understanding what instrumental variables estimate:
Estimating marginal and average returns to education
(University of Chicago Working Paper).
Carroll, S., & Erkut, E. (2009). The benefits to taxpayers
from students’ educational attainment. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation.
Cawley, J., & Meyerhoefer, C. D. (2012). The medical
care costs of obesity: An instrumental variables
approach. Journal of Health Economics, 31 (1),
219–230.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012,
December). Summary health statistics for U.S. adults:
National health interview survey, 2011. National
Center for Health Statistics.
Chen, X. & Ho, P. (2013). STEM in postsecondary
education: Entrance, attrition, and coursetaking among
2003-04 beginning postsecondary students (NCES
2013-152). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Chetty, R. Hendren, N., Kline, P., Saez, E. (2013).
The economic impacts of tax expenditures: Evidence
from spatial variation across the U.S. Retrieved from
www.equality-of-opportunity.org
College Board. (2013). How students and parents pay
for college. New York: The College Board. Retrieved
from trends.collegeboard.org
Corak, M. (2013). Income inequality, equality of
opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 27 (2), 79–102.
Cutler, D. M., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2006). Education
and health: Evaluating theories and evidence (NBER
Working Paper 12352).
Cutler, D. M., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2010).
Understanding differences in health behaviors by
education. Journal of Health Economics, 29 (1), 1–28.
Davis, C., Davis, K., Gardner, M., McIntyre, R.,
McLynch, J., & Sapozhnikova, A. (2013). Who pays?
A distributional analysis of the tax systems in all 50
states (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Institute on Taxation
and Economic Policy.
Dee, T. S. (2004). Are there civic returns to education?
Journal of Public Economics, 88 (9–10), 1697–1720.
de Walque, D. (2004). Education, information, and
smoking decisions: Evidence from smoking histories,
1940–2000 (World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 3362).
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Introduction:
The American dream, then and now. In G. J. Duncan
& R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?
Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances
of low-income children. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation Press.
Goldin, C., and Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between
education and technology. Harvard University Press.
Greenstone, M., & Looney, A. (2011). Where is the
best place to invest $102,000 — In stocks, bonds, or
a college degree? Washington, DC: Hamilton Project,
The Brookings Institution.
Greenstone, M., Looney, A., Patashnik, J., & Yu, M.
(2013, June). Thirteen economic facts about social
mobility and the role of education. Washington, DC:
Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution.
Grimard, F., & Parent, D. (2007). Education and
smoking: Were Vietnam war draft avoiders also more
likely to avoid smoking? Journal of Health Economics,
26 (5), 896–926.
Harmon, C. P., Oosterbeek, H., & Walker, I. (2003).
The returns to education: Microeconomics. Journal
of Economic Surveys, 17 (2), 115–156.
Hout, M. (2012). Social and economics returns to
college education in the United States. Annual Review
of Sociology, 38 (1), 379–400.
Hoxby, C., & Avery, C. (2012). The missing one-offs:
The hidden supply of high-achieving, low-income
students (NBER Working Paper 18586).
Internal Revenue Service. (2010). Statistics of
income tax stats, 2010 tax year. Retrieved from
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-
Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income
Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging
destinies: Maternal education and the
developmental gradient in time with children.
Demography, 49 (4), 1371–1383.
Krueger, A. B. (2012, January 12). The rise and
consequences of inequality in the United States.
Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisers.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/krueger_cap_speech_final_remarks.pdf
References — Continued
Light, A., & Strayer, W. (2000). Determinants of college
completion: School quality or student ability? Journal
of Human Resources, 35 (2), 299–332.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2003). Education,
social status, and health. Somerset, NY: Aldine
de Gruyter publisher.
Nagaoka, J., Roderick, M., & Coca, V. (2009). Barriers
to college attainment, lessons from Chicago. Chicago:
The Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/2009/01/pdf/ChicagoSchools.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (1994,
2001, 2009). Beginning postsecondary students
longitudinal study [Data file]. Available from
http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000).
National education longitudinal study of 1988, third
follow up (NELS 1988/2000) [Data file]. Available from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004a,
2010). The condition of education 2004 and 2010.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
getpubcats.asp?sid=091#060
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004b,
2012a, 2013a). Digest of education statistics 2003,
2011, and 2012. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
Programs/digest/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008).
Education longitudinal study of 2002, second follow
up (ELS 2002/2006) [Data file]. Available from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013b).
National postsecondary student aid study 2011-12
[Data file]. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013c).
Unpublished tabulation using data from Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System. Available from
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
National Center for Health Statistics. (2011a).
Health, United States, 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm
National Center for Health Statistics. (2002–2013).
National health interview survey, 2001 through 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm
National Opinion Research Center. (2013). General
social survey, 1972–2012 [Cumulative data file].
Retrieved from http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm
National Science Foundation. (2013). Science and
engineering degrees: 1966–2010. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/
For detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org.
Oreopoulos, P., & Salvanes, K. (2011). Priceless:
The nonpecuniary benefits of schooling. Journal of
Economic Literature, 25 (1), 159–184.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). (2013). Education at a glance
2013. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/
eag.htm
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2011). Does America promote
mobility as well as other nations? Retrieved from
http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/
does-america-promote-mobility-as-well-as-other-
nations-85899380321
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2012). Pursuing the American
dream: Economic mobility across generations.
Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_
report_detail.aspx?id=85899403846
Rouse, C. E. (2005). The labor market consequences
of an inadequate education (Princeton University
Working Paper).
Salzman, H., Kuehn, D., & Lowell, B. L. (2013).
Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/bp359-
guestworkers-high-skill-labor-market-analysis/
Sari, N. (2009). Physical inactivity and its impact
on health care utilization. Health Economics, 18 (8),
885–901.
Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Chen, J., Ziskin, M., Park, E.,
Torres, V., & Chiang, Y. (2012). Completing college: A
national view of student attainment rates. Herndon,
VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
United Health Foundation, American Public Health
Association, & Partnership for Prevention. (2009).The
future costs of obesity: National and state estimates
of the impact of obesity on direct health care
expenses. Retrieved from Partnership to Fight Chronic
Disease website: http://www.fightchronicdisease.
org/sites/fightchronicdisease.org/files/docs/
CostofObesityReport-FINAL.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (1992, 2002a, 2010a, 2011a,
2012a). Current population survey, annual social
and economic supplement. Available from
http://dataferrett.census.gov
U.S. Census Bureau. (1995–2012). Income, poverty
and health insurance in the United States, various
years. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/
www/income/data/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002b, 2007a, 2012b). Basic
monthly current population survey, January through
December. Available from
http://dataferrett.census.gov/
U.S. Census Bureau (2009, 2010b, 2011b, 2012c).
Current population survey, annual social and economic
supplement, table 1 [Table]. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/
cps/2012/tables.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010c, 2012d). The
statistical abstract of the United States, 2010 and
2012. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
compendia/statab/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010d). Voting and registration
in the election of November 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/
publications/p20/2010/tables.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011d). America’s families and
living arrangements 2011. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/
cps2011.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011e). Poverty thresholds.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
poverty/data/threshld/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012e). 2011 American
community survey (ACS) 1-year public use microdata
sample (PUMS) [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012f). American community
survey, 2009–2011 three-year data file [Data file].
Available from http://dataferrett.census.gov/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012g). Educational attainment
in the United States, 2012 [Data table]. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/
data/cps/historical/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012h). Health insurance
coverage status and type of coverage by selected
characteristics: 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
cpstables/032012/health/h01_000.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012i). Voting and registration
in the election of November 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/
publications/p20/2012/tables.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Current population survey,
October 1975 through 2012 [Unpublished data].
U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services.
(2011). The 2011 HHS poverty guidelines. Retrieved
from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml
Woo, J., Green, C., & Matthews, M. (2013). Profile
of 2007-08 first-time bachelor’s degree recipients
in 2009 (NCES 2013-150). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
EDUCATION PAYS 2013 47
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Charles Kurose for his invaluable input on this project
and to Kathleen Little and Anne Sturtevant for their excellent editorial help.
The publication would not have been possible without the cooperation and
support of many people at the College Board, particularly Craig Jerald, Rohit
Tandon, Silvia Ivanova, Marilyn Cushman, Jess Howell, Mike Hurwitz, Kathryn
McGinley, Matea Pender, and Jonathan Smith. Barbara Kridl and her colleagues
at RTI International provided expert graphic design work, as well as advice on
content. Tom Snyder of the Department of Education provided valuable data.

www.collegeboard.org
trends.collegeboard.org

12b-7104
130505555