Beyond "College Pays"

Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up for the On Student Success newsletter and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week.

he Postsecondary Commission recently published a fascinating report on measuring the value-added of higher education credentials at scale. Most headlines focused on a single message: college pays. The Arizona Board of Regents, for example, summarized the report by claiming that "no matter your major, earning a college degree pays off." Yet that is almost the opposite of what makes the report important. Its contribution is not simply demonstrating that higher education generates positive economic returns. Rather, it demonstrates how misleading it is to reduce educational value to a single earnings figure. Once educational costs, opportunity costs, student characteristics, and non-completion are incorporated, the real questions become where students study, what they study, whether they complete, and how long it takes for returns to emerge.

So what did the report actually say?

The method changes the story

The report's most significant innovation is methodological. Rather than comparing graduates with non-graduates using earnings alone (as many previous studies do), the researchers, in collaboration with Mathematica, estimate Value-Added Earnings (VAE) from the point of enrollment. This approach allows them to account for tuition costs, foregone earnings while studying (opportunity costs), students who never complete their credential, and compare participants with similar individuals who did not attend college. In doing so, the report measures the economic value of higher education as an investment rather than simply comparing graduate salaries.

This methodological shift fundamentally changes the question being asked. Instead of asking whether graduates earn more than non-graduates, it asks whether enrolling in higher education represents a worthwhile investment once educational costs, opportunity costs, student characteristics, and non-completion are taken into account.

The methodology differs from previous studies in three important ways:

• It includes all entrants, not just those who complete a credential.

• It measures outcomes from the point of enrollment, allowing educational costs and foregone earnings to be incorporated.

• It compares statistically matched groups, balancing demographics, household income, and prior academic achievement to isolate the effect of postsecondary education on earnings.

Every credential pays off - but not equally

The report shows that all three types of credential generate a positive economic return. However, both the time it takes for that return to become positive and the magnitude of the return vary considerably by credential type.

At first glance, the findings are reassuring: every type of credential generates a positive value-added return over time. But averages conceal enormous variation. Once the data are dis-aggregated, institution, program of study, and completion emerge as critical determinants of educational value.

Program choice matters more than institution

Conventional discussions of educational quality tend to focus on institutional prestige and rankings. The Texas evidence suggests that program choice has a greater influence on economic returns than institutional choice.

Institution still matters. For all credential types, the institution attended influences the value-added return, and in some cases students experience a negative return overall.

Among bachelor's degree providers, value-added returns vary substantially across institutions. Two public bachelor's degree institutions in Texas produced a negative value-added return, meaning students who enrolled would, on average, have been financially better off had they not enrolled.

Institution also matters for associate degrees and certificates. Among associate degree providers, returns again vary across institutions, with one institution producing a negative value-added return.

Variation is even more striking among certificate providers. Students attending 14 institutions did not experience a positive value-added return. Although returns vary less than for bachelor's degrees—likely reflecting the lower cost of certificate programs—the differences between institutions remain substantial.

But major has an even bigger impact.

For all credential types, program of study has a substantial influence on value-added returns. Among bachelor's degrees, the choice of major affects the overall level of return, with a wide spread across disciplines. Engineering programs generate some of the highest value-added returns, while fields such as the liberal arts generate much lower returns. Even so, the average value-added return remains positive across all majors.

For associate degrees and certificates, however, some fields of study produced a negative value-added return on average.

Comparing bachelor's and associate degree programs side by side illustrates the variation across both institutions and fields of study. The trend lines, rather than the individual data points, tell the story.

This finding is significant because discussions of educational quality have long emphasized institutional prestige, reinforced by rankings. The Texas evidence suggests that field of study has a much greater influence on economic returns than institutional choice.

There is, however, an important limitation. The analysis includes only public institutions in Texas. Had the study also included private institutions—including highly selective universities such as Rice, smaller private colleges, and for-profit institutions—it is possible that the variation across institutions would have been even greater. Whether that would alter the broader conclusion that field of study matters more than institution remains an open question.

Ignoring non-completers distorts the results

The report makes a compelling case for the importance of completion. Most studies examining the economic impact of postsecondary credentials exclude students who never complete their program. Doing so introduces a significant source of bias. Looking only at those who complete a credential is naturally more likely to produce larger and faster economic returns than following all students from the point of enrollment.

This is particularly problematic given the scale of non-completion in U.S. higher education.

Excluding such a large proportion of students introduces substantial measurement bias, and this study directly addresses that problem.

The report also helps quantify the value of completion. It is hardly surprising that students who complete their credential experience greater economic returns, but the report shows just how large that effect is. For bachelor's degrees, for example, each one-percentage-point increase in the completion rate is associated with an additional $2,000 in value-added earnings.

This positive relationship is consistent across bachelor's, associate's, and certificate programs. Institutions with higher completion rates tend to generate greater long-term economic returns for their students.

Finally, accountability systems based solely on graduate outcomes—that is, on students who complete a credential—are likely to overestimate institutional performance. By excluding non-completers, they omit precisely those students who incur the costs of higher education without realizing the economic benefits of a credential.

Returns take time

One of the report's most striking findings is how long it takes for postsecondary education to generate positive economic returns. Students pursuing bachelor's degrees do not break even until nine years after enrollment and do not exceed $80,000 in value-added earnings until 15 years after enrollment. The break-even point is seven years for associate degrees and four years for certificate programs.

These findings add to the growing body of evidence questioning accountability systems that assess institutions too soon after students leave college. For example, the accountability provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) evaluate graduate earnings just four years after graduation. The Texas evidence suggests that this is far too early to assess the long-term economic value of many higher education credentials.

Economic context shapes returns

The report also hints at the influence of broader macroeconomic conditions on educational returns. For example, value-added earnings for bachelor's degree students vary by year of entry. Students who enrolled in 2008–09, at the height of the Great Recession, experienced substantially higher long-term returns than those who enrolled in other years. While the report does not explore this relationship in detail, the pattern suggests that the economic context in which students begin their studies may influence the long-term value of their credential.

One plausible explanation is that the opportunity cost of attending college was lower during the recession because unemployment was high and wages were depressed. Students who enrolled during this period also entered the labor market as the economy recovered, potentially allowing them to benefit from improving economic conditions.

Although the report does not explore this issue in depth, it highlights an important consideration. The economic returns to higher education are shaped not only by the credential itself but also by the broader economic context in which students enroll and graduate. That context should play a larger role in discussions of educational value and in the design of accountability systems.

The student matters, too

The researchers also uncover several interesting patterns in the individual characteristics associated with value-added returns. For example, at the bachelor's and associate degree levels, students with stronger high school math achievement tended to realize higher cumulative value-added returns. This is unsurprising, as these students are more likely to enroll in fields of study associated with higher economic returns.

More surprising is the relationship with household income. For bachelor's degrees, value-added returns vary little by household income, suggesting that the long-term economic benefits of a bachelor's degree are relatively consistent across income groups.

The picture is different for shorter credentials. Household income does influence value-added returns for associate degrees. For certificate programs, the relationship is actually reversed: students from lower-income households tend to realize higher value-added returns than those from higher-income households.

Taken together, these findings challenge the way higher education is often discussed. Public debate tends to ask whether college "pays," assuming that a single average figure can capture educational value. The Postsecondary Commission instead demonstrates that value is conditional. It depends on where students enroll, what they study, whether they complete their credential, when they enter the labor market, and the broader economic context. Measuring educational value therefore requires moving beyond averages toward a richer understanding of variation.

Why this matters

The Postsecondary Commission's report does more than confirm that higher education generally produces positive economic returns. Its real contribution is methodological. By measuring value from the point of enrollment rather than graduation, incorporating educational costs, foregone earnings, and non-completion, it reveals a much more nuanced picture of educational value than conventional earnings studies.

That richer picture has important implications. It suggests that debates about institutional quality should pay greater attention to fields of study; that completion should be treated as central, rather than peripheral, to measures of educational value; and that accountability systems built around early graduate earnings risk producing misleading conclusions. Rather than asking simply whether college "pays," policymakers should instead ask a more useful question: Under what conditions does higher education create value, for whom, and over what time horizon?

The main On Student Success newsletter is free to share in part or in whole. All we ask is attribution.

Thanks for being a subscriber.