In the academic year of 2020/21, about 202,334 Master's degrees were earned in business across the United States, making it the most common master's degree earned. In that same year, another 47,257 Master's degrees were earned in engineering.

In the academic year of 2022, it is expected that 551,460 female and 331,530 male students will earn a Master’s degree in the United States. These figures are a significant increase from the academic year of 1950, when 16,980 female students and 41,220 male students earned a Master’s degree.

What is a Master’s degree?

A Master’s degree is an academic degree granted by universities after finishing a Bachelor’s degree. Master’s degrees focus in on a specific field and are more specialized than a Bachelor’s. A typical Master’s program is about two years long, with the final semester focusing on the thesis. Master’s degree programs are usually harder to get into than Bachelor’s degree programs, due to the rigor of the program. Because these programs are so competitive, those with a Master’s degree are typically paid more than those with a Bachelor’s degree.

Master’s degrees in the United States

The number of master’s degrees granted in the United States has steadily increased since the 1970s and is expected to continue to increase. In 2021, the Master’s degree program with the worst job prospects in the United States by mid-career median pay was counseling, while the program with the best job prospects was a physician's assistant.

The Colleges and Universities feature class/shapefile is composed of all Post Secondary Education facilities as defined by the Integrated Post Secondary Education System (IPEDS, http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, https://nces.ed.gov/), US Department of Education for the 2018-2019 school year. Included are Doctoral/Research Universities, Masters Colleges and Universities, Baccalaureate Colleges, Associates Colleges, Theological seminaries, Medical Schools and other health care professions, Schools of engineering and technology, business and management, art, music, design, Law schools, Teachers colleges, Tribal colleges, and other specialized institutions. Overall, this data layer covers all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico and other assorted U.S. territories. This feature class contains all MEDS/MEDS+ as approved by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP) Team. Complete field and attribute information is available in the ”Entities and Attributes” metadata section. Geographical coverage is depicted in the thumbnail above and detailed in the "Place Keyword" section of the metadata. This feature class does not have a relationship class but is related to Supplemental Colleges. Colleges and Universities that are not included in the NCES IPEDS data are added to the Supplemental Colleges feature class when found. This release includes the addition of 175 new records, the removal of 468 no longer reported by NCES, and modifications to the spatial location and/or attribution of 6682 records.

Introduction This STEM advising outreach program was developed for undergraduate students who are contemplating future applications to PhD programs in the life sciences. The audience of ~20 students ranged in academic stage, and was composed mostly of life sciences undergraduates enrolled at Bowdoin College.

We have previously described two similar outreach events (ref. 1,2); this 90-minute combination of seminar and discussion built on that pilot program. This session at Bowdoin College was intended to complement the advising that students receive from their primary research mentors on campus. Although undergraduates at many excellent institutions have access to extensive pre-professional advising for careers in medicine, law and some other directions, the structure of advising for scientific research and the many career options that rely on PhD training is less consistent. Independent study or thesis research mentors are often a student’s primary source of advice. Career advisors have confirmed that reiteration and reinforcement of advising principles by professionals external to the school environment is helpful. Therefore, this outreach program’s content was developed with a goal of demystifying PhD programs and the benefits that they provide. The topics covered included (a) determining the key differences between programs, (b) understanding how PhD admissions works, (c) preparing an effective application, (d) proactive planning to strengthen one’s professional portfolio (internships, independent research, cultivating mentors), (e) key transferable skills that most students learn in graduate school, (f) what career streams are open to life science PhDs, and, (g) some national and institutional data on student career aspirations and outcomes (ref. 3). Methods The approach of bringing a faculty member and an administrative staff member who both have life science PhD training backgrounds was intentional. This allowed the program to portray different perspectives and experience to guide student career development, while offering credible witnesses to the types of experiences, skills and knowledge gained through PhD training. Central to the method of this outreach program is the willingness of graduate educators to meet the students on their own ground. The speakers guided students through a process of identifying national graduate programs that might best serve their individual interests and preferences. In addition to recruiting prospective applicants to Harvard Medical School (HMS) summer internships and PhD programs, the speakers made an explicit appeal to students to hone their professional portfolio proactively by discussing important skills that undergraduates need to be competitive in admissions and the career workplace including acquiring training in statistics and programming, soliciting diverse mentorship, acquiring authentic research experiences/internships, conducting thesis research, and obtaining fellowships). By reinforcing much of the anecdotal and formal advising content that is made available by faculty mentors and career counselors, our host saw the value of external experts to validate guidance.

This event built off our most recent event (ref. 2); we delivered a presentation covering the relevant topics and transitioned into an open discussion featuring a third visitor in our team. In contrast to the aforementioned previous event, the time constraint at lunch time prevented us from doing a formal panel. Our third speaker was a HMS Curriculum Fellow (ref. 4) whose career goals included teaching at a comparable institution (primarily undergraduate institution, PUI).

Students were encouraged to have lunch during the session, as the program was held at midday to avoid conflicts with other academic or extracurricular events. ResultsAs the principal goal of the session was to encourage and engage students, not to evaluate them, and the students ranged widely in stage and long-term career objectives, there were no assessment surveys of learning gains. Informally, student engagement was excellent as judged by the frequency and thoughtful nature of questions asked during the discussion phase of the session. Ad hoc student feedback directly following the event was extremely positive, as was our host’s follow up by email after the event. The success of the program was also evident by an invitation for a repeat of the program or other forms of collaboration in the future, including the possibility of reciprocal visits to HMS.DiscussionThis advising session was a continued refinement of our prototype, and thus served to prepare us for a series of similar events across a larger network of colleges. Our decision to incorporate a HMS Curriculum Fellow served three purposes: (1) to engage speaker who pursued doctoral training at three different institutions (UCLA, Tufts University, Harvard University), (2) to broaden the range of career trajectories presented as outcomes from doctoral programs, and (3) to provide networking and career development opportunities for the Curriculum Fellow.

About this Dataset

Data & Sons recently completed our analysis of top tier economics journal publications from 2014 to 2017 and is pleased to announce the world’s top Economics PhD Programs based on alumni productivity.

Category

Social Sciences

Keywords

economics phd programs,best phd programs,best economics phd programs

Row Count

1491

Price

Free

This graph shows the list of graduate degrees with the highest mid-career salary in the U.S. in the academic year 2016/17. In 2016/17, petroleum engineering was ranked first with the mid-career salary of 172,000 U.S. dollars.

The International STEM Graduate Student Survey assesses why international students are coming to the United States for their graduate studies, the challenges they have faced while studying in the US, their future career plans, and whether they wish to stay or leave the US upon graduation. According to the Survey of Earned Doctorates by the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, international students accounted for over 40% of all US doctoral graduates in STEM in 2013. The factors that influence international students' decisions to study in the US and whether they will stay or leave are important to US economic competitiveness. We contacted graduate students (both domestic and international) in STEM disciplines from the top 10 universities ranked by the total number of enrolled international students. We estimate that we contacted approximately 15,990 students. Individuals were asked to taken an online survey regarding their background, reasons for studying in the US, and whether they plan to stay or leave the US upon graduation. We received a total of 2,322 completed surveys, giving us a response rate of 14.5%. 1,535 of the completed were from domestic students and 787 of which were from international students. Raw survey data are presented here.Survey participants were contacted via Qualtrics to participate in this survey. The Universe of this survey data set pertains to all graduate students (Master's and PhD) in STEM disciplines from the following universities: Columbia University, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, Michigan State University, Northeastern University, Purdue University, University of Southern California, Arizona State University, University of California at Los Angeles, New York University, University of Washington at Seattle. Data are broken into 2 subsets: one for international STEM graduate students and one for domestic STEM graduate students, please see respective files.

About the Digest of Education StatisticsThe 2022 edition of the Digest of Education Statistics is the 58th in a series of publications initiated in 1962. The Digest has been issued annually except for combined editions for the years 1977–78, 1983–84, and 1985–86. Its primary purpose is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private, and draws especially on the results of surveys and activities carried out by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). To qualify for inclusion in the Digest, material must be nationwide in scope and of current interest and value. The publication contains information on a variety of subjects in the field of education statistics, including the number of schools and colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition to data on educational attainment, finances, federal funds for education, libraries, and international comparisons. Supplemental information on population trends, attitudes on education, education characteristics of the labor force, government finances, and economic trends provides background for evaluating education data. The Digest contains important information on federal education funding, though more detailed information on federal activities is available from federal education program offices.The Digest contains tables organized into seven chapters: All Levels of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education, Postsecondary Education, Federal Funds for Education and Related Activities, Outcomes of Education, International Comparisons of Education, and Libraries and Use of Technology. Each chapter is divided into a number of topical subsections.About this DatasetThis dataset represents the tables from the Most Current Digest Tables page: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp, as downloaded 2025-07-13.The folder system has three levels. Level 1 is the chapters of the data digest. Level 2 is the subsections of the chapters. Level 3 is a folder each for each table. Each table folder contains an excel file for the table.The top level folder contains a catalog csv with a cross walk between the folder name and the original table titles.There is also a folder for Machine Readable tables downloaded from this page in the top level folder: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/mrt_tables.asp.

Data on the top universities for Computer Science in 2025.

This graph shows the list of highest paying majors in the U.S. in 2016/17, distinguished by degree level. In 2016/17, median pay with a PhD in statistics after 20 years of work experience totaled to 172,000 U.S. dollars.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F3e3c54f587ab17e92580cc95201c4b31%2FRplot.png?generation=1705869808232376&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Fa6b42e79e6e7d7678ca631cfff5466f2%2Ffile2ecc50e01cf4.gif?generation=1705869826569671&alt=media" alt="">

The QS Rankings, renowned for its esteemed university evaluations, annually releases the QS World University Rankings. The 2024 edition comprises a dataset encompassing the top 100 universities globally, with each entry defined by 12 features.

The 'rank' feature denotes the university's position in the QS rankings, offering a quantitative representation of its standing. The 'university' column identifies the institution by name. The 'overall score' is a floating-point value derived from various contributing factors, reflecting the comprehensive evaluation undertaken by QS.

Academic reputation, an integral aspect, is quantified in the 'academic reputation' feature, while 'employer reputation' gauges the institution's standing in the professional realm. The 'faculty student ratio' is calculated by dividing the faculty count by the number of students, a metric often indicative of the learning environment's quality.

'Citations per faculty' delves into the scholarly impact, measuring the total citations received by an institution's papers over five years, normalized by faculty size. The 'international faculty ratio' and 'international students ratio' shed light on the global diversity of the academic community, capturing the proportion of foreign faculty and students.

The 'international research network' employs a formula to quantify the institution's global partnerships and collaborations. 'Employment outcomes' are assessed through a formula involving alumni impact and graduate employment indices, providing insights into the professional success of graduates.

Finally, the 'sustainability' feature evaluates an institution's commitment to environmental sciences, considering alumni outcomes and academic reputation within the field. It also examines the inclusion of climate science and sustainability in the curriculum, reflecting the growing emphasis on environmental consciousness in higher education.

In essence, this dataset encapsulates a multifaceted evaluation of universities worldwide, encompassing academic, professional, and sustainability dimensions, making it a valuable resource for individuals and institutions navigating the dynamic landscape of global higher education. VALUE FOUNDS IS HIPOTICALY data 2021

Data on the top universities for Education Studies in 2025.

The best master's degree for getting a job was considered to be Physicians Assistant with a mid-career median salary of ****** U.S. dollars in 2021. Salaries for nurse practitioner and computer science master's were also high.

Description: These are research indicators of doctorate holders in Europe that were compiled from the criteria and factors of the Eurostat. This dataset consists of data in five categories (i.e. Career Development of Doctorate Holders; Labour Market - Job Vacancy Statistics; Skill-related Statistics; European and International Co-patenting in EPO Applications and Ownership of Inventors in EPO Applications). The Eurostat Research Indicators consist of (1) Doctorate holders who have studied, worked or carried out research in another EU country (%); (2) Doctorate holders by activity status (%); (3) Doctorate holders by sex and age group; (4) Employed doctorate holders working as researchers by length of stay with the same employer (%); (5) Employed doctorate holders working as researchers by job mobility and sectors of performance over the last 10 years (%); (6) Employed doctorate holders by length of stay with the same employer and sectors of performance (%); (7) Employed doctorate holders by occupation (ISCO_88, %); (8) Employed doctorate holders by occupation (ISCO_08, %); (9) Employed doctorate holders in non-managerial and non-professional occupations by fields of science (%); (10) Level of dissatisfaction of employed doctorate holders by reason and sex (%); (11) National doctorate holders having lived or stayed abroad in the past 10 years by previous region of stay (%); (12) National doctorate holders having lived or stayed abroad in the past 10 years by reason for returning into the country (%); (13) Non-EU doctorate holders in total doctorate holders (%); (14) Unemployment rate of doctorate holders by fields of science; (15) Employment in Foreign Affiliates of Domestic Enterprises; (16) Employment in Foreign Controlled Enterprises; (17) Employment rate of non-EU nationals, age group 20-64; (18) Intra-mural Business Enterprise R&D Expenditures in Foreign Controlled Enterprises; (19) Job vacancy rate by NACE Rev. 2 activity - annual data (from 2001 onwards); (20) Job vacancy statistics by NACE Rev. 2 activity, occupation and NUTS 2 regions - quarterly data; (21) Job vacancy statistics by NACE Rev. 2 activity - quarterly data (from 2001 onwards); (22) Value Added in Foreign Controlled Enterprises; (23) Graduates at doctoral level by sex and age groups - per 1000 of population aged 25-34; (24) Graduates at doctoral level, in science, math., computing, engineering, manufacturing, construction, by sex - per 1000 of population aged 25-34; (25) Level of the best-known foreign language (self-reported) by degree of urbanisation; (26) Level of the best-known foreign language (self-reported) by educational attainment level; (27) Level of the best-known foreign language (self-reported) by labour status; (28) Level of the best-known foreign language (self-reported) by occupation; (29) Number of foreign languages known (self-reported) by educational attainment level; (30) Number of foreign languages known (self-reported) by degree of urbanisation; (31) Number of foreign languages known (self-reported) by labour status; (32) Number of foreign languages known (self-reported) by occupation; (33) Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and country of birth (%); (34) Co-patenting at the EPO according to applicants’/inventors’ country of residence - % in the total of each EU Member State patents; (35) Co-patenting at the EPO: crossing inventors and applicants; (36) Co-patenting at the EPO according to applicants’/inventors’ country of residence - number; (37) EU co-patenting at the EPO according to applicants’/ inventors’ country of residence by international patent classification (IPC) sections - number; (38) EU co-patenting at the EPO according to applicants’/inventors’ country of residence by international patent classification (IPC) sections - % in the total of all EU patents; (39) Domestic ownership of foreign inventions in patent applications to the EPO by priority year; (40) Foreign ownership of domestic inventions in patent applications to the EPO by priority year; and (41) Patent applications to the EPO with foreign co-inventors, by priority year.

Objective: Describe the current situation of the area Medicine III of CAPES and detect challenges for the next four years of evaluation. Methods: The area's documents and reports of meetings were read from 2004 to 2013 Medicine III Capes as well as reports and evaluation form of each Postgraduate Program (PPG) of the area and the sub-page of the area from the Capes website. The data relating to the evaluation process, the assessment form and faculty, student and scientific production data of all of Post-Graduate Programs of Medicine III were computed and analyzed. From these data were detected the challenges of the area for the next four years (2013-2016). Results: Among the 3,806 PPG, Medicine III had 41 PPG during last triennial evaluation and progressed from 18% to 43% of PPG very good or more concept (triennium 2001-2003 and 2010-2012). Most PPG were located in the South-East region (32), three in the South and two in the North-East. There was no PPG in North or Central-West regions. In 2013 and 2014 there were four approved Professional Master Degree Programs and one Master (M) and Doctorate (PhD). The average of permanent professors was 558 teachers with about three students/professor. The number of PhD graduates has increased as well as the reason PhD/MD. The proportion of in high impact periodicals (A1, A2, B1 and B2) jumped from 30% to 50% demonstrating positive community response to the policy area. The challenges identified were: decrease regional asymmetry, increase the number of masters and doctors of excellence, reassessment of Brazilian journals, stimulate and set internationalization indicators, including post-doctors and definition of its indicators, the PPG nucleation analysis, PPG 3x3, include primary and secondary education, professional master and indicators of technological scientific production and solidarity. Conclusion: Medicine III has been scientifically consolidated and their scientific researchers demonstrated maturity reaching a high level and matched to areas of greatest tradition and history. For the maintenance and advancement of the area some challenges and goals were established to be developed in the period from 2013 to 2016.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Great Council Of Minnesota Degree Of Pocahontas

The purpose of this project is to improve the accuracy of statistical software by providing reference datasets with certified computational results that enable the objective evaluation of statistical software. Currently datasets and certified values are provided for assessing the accuracy of software for univariate statistics, linear regression, nonlinear regression, and analysis of variance. The collection includes both generated and 'real-world' data of varying levels of difficulty. Generated datasets are designed to challenge specific computations. These include the classic Wampler datasets for testing linear regression algorithms and the Simon & Lesage datasets for testing analysis of variance algorithms. Real-world data include challenging datasets such as the Longley data for linear regression, and more benign datasets such as the Daniel & Wood data for nonlinear regression. Certified values are 'best-available' solutions. The certification procedure is described in the web pages for each statistical method. Datasets are ordered by level of difficulty (lower, average, and higher). Strictly speaking the level of difficulty of a dataset depends on the algorithm. These levels are merely provided as rough guidance for the user. Producing correct results on all datasets of higher difficulty does not imply that your software will pass all datasets of average or even lower difficulty. Similarly, producing correct results for all datasets in this collection does not imply that your software will do the same for your particular dataset. It will, however, provide some degree of assurance, in the sense that your package provides correct results for datasets known to yield incorrect results for some software. The Statistical Reference Datasets is also supported by the Standard Reference Data Program.

This paper investigates the dynamics of discrimination in Political Science PhD programs with a survey of current political science graduate students in the top 50 departments. We focus on mentorship, funding, sexual harassment, racism, homophobia, and labor exploitation: 20% of respondents report labor exploitation, 19% experienced racial discrimination, 9% report sexual harassment and 6% experienced homophobia. Discrimination is uneven across individuals: Some groups of graduate students experience widespread discrimination, especially racial discrimination, while other groups are largely unaware of these issues. We ran a survey experiment to gauge the impact of misconduct on formal reporting mechanisms and find that hearing about racial discrimination has a chilling effect on reporting. Importantly, we find that experiencing discrimination harms how satisfied students are in their programs. We find that factors linked to student vulnerability, like international status and funding, are significantly associated with harassment, and that reporting discrimination predicts more discrimination.

A great advantage of our rigorous doctoral training is that as PhD economists we speak a common language that allows for efficient vetting and quick dissemination of ideas and insights. But what good is sophisticated grammar and a powerful vocabulary if the contents of our narratives are lacking? Our top three criteria for admissions to PhD programs are prior coursework in math, the quantitative GRE score, and prior coursework in economics. To attract top talent and prevent becoming a stagnant discipline that loses the influence we have in society and academia, students' creativity, originality, and drive should receive more weight.

Data on the top universities for Physical Sciences in 2025, including disciplines such as Chemistry, Geology, and Physics & Astronomy.