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.

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.

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.

In 2022, Canada had the highest share of adults with a university degree, at over 60 percent of those between the ages of 25 and 64. India had the smallest share of people with a university degree, at 13 percent of the adult population. University around the world Deciding which university to attend can be a difficult decision for some and in today’s world, people are not left wanting for choice. There are thousands of universities around the world, with the highest number found in India and Indonesia. When picking which school to attend, some look to university rankings, where Harvard University in the United States consistently comes in on top. Moving on up One of the major perks of attending university is that it enables people to move up in the world. Getting a good education is generally seen as a giant step along the path to success and opens up doors for future employment. Future earnings potential can be determined by which university one attends, whether by the prestige of the university or the connections that have been made there. For instance, graduates from the Stanford Graduate School of Business can expect to earn around 250,000 U.S. dollars annually.

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.

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

In 2022, the median starting salary for MBA graduates of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, a leading business school in the United States, was 175,000 U.S. dollars. This figure was the same for MBA graduates of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and Stanford's Graduate School of Business, which were also ranked within the top three U.S. business schools in that year.

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.

The top-ranked university in the United States in 2024 according to Forbes was Princeton University in New Jersey. Students at Princeton graduate with an average debt of 7,559 U.S. dollars, but have a median 10-year salary of 189,400 U.S. dollars. The Forbes rankings are based on several categories, including alumni salary, student debt, graduation rate, return on investment, retention rate, and academic success.

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.

Data on the top universities for Computer Science in 2025.

Introduction: Publications arguing against the null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) procedure and in favor of good statistical practices have increased. The most frequently mentioned alternatives to NHST are effect size statistics (ES), confidence intervals (CIs), and meta-analyses. A recent survey conducted in Spain found that academic psychologists have poor knowledge about effect size statistics, confidence intervals, and graphic displays for meta-analyses, which might lead to a misinterpretation of the results. In addition, it also found that, although the use of ES is becoming generalized, the same thing is not true for CIs. Finally, academics with greater knowledge about ES statistics presented a profile closer to good statistical practice and research design. Our main purpose was to analyze the extension of these results to a different geographical area through a replication study.Methods: For this purpose, we elaborated an on-line survey that included the same items as the original research, and we asked academic psychologists to indicate their level of knowledge about ES, their CIs, and meta-analyses, and how they use them. The sample consisted of 159 Italian academic psychologists (54.09% women, mean age of 47.65 years). The mean number of years in the position of professor was 12.90 (SD = 10.21).Results: As in the original research, the results showed that, although the use of effect size estimates is becoming generalized, an under-reporting of CIs for ES persists. The most frequent ES statistics mentioned were Cohen's d and R2/η2, which can have outliers or show non-normality or violate statistical assumptions. In addition, academics showed poor knowledge about meta-analytic displays (e.g., forest plot and funnel plot) and quality checklists for studies. Finally, academics with higher-level knowledge about ES statistics seem to have a profile closer to good statistical practices.Conclusions: Changing statistical practice is not easy.This change requires statistical training programs for academics, both graduate and undergraduate.

Homework, midterm and final exam assignments for a series of lectures from a 10-week, 2-credit graduate-level course in research data management.The course description is: "Careful examination of all aspects of research data management best practices. Designed to prepare students to exceed funder mandates for performance in data planning, documentation, preservation and sharing in an increasingly complex digital research environment. Open to students of all disciplines." Major course content includes: Overview of research data management, definitions and best practices; Types, formats and stages of research data; Metadata (data documentation); Data storage, backup and security; Legal and ethical considerations of research data; Data sharing and reuse; Archiving and preservation. The course was offered for the first time during the Winter 2014 term (January - March). See the associated syllabus, lesson plans and lectures.

The interview data was gathered for a project that investigated the practices of instructors who use quantitative data to teach undergraduate courses within the Social Sciences. The study was undertaken by employees of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Library, who participated in this research project with 19 other colleges and universities across the U.S. under the direction of Ithaka S+R. Ithaka S+R is a New York-based research organization, which, among other goals, seeks to develop strategies, services, and products to meet evolving academic trends to support faculty and students.

The field of Social Sciences has been notoriously known for valuing the contextual component of data and increasingly entertaining more quantitative and computational approaches to research in response to the prevalence of data literacy skills needed to navigate both personal and professional contexts. Thus, this study becomes particularly timely to identify current instructors’ practi..., The project followed a qualitative and exploratory approach to understand current practices of faculty teaching with data. The study was IRB approved and was exempt by the UCSB’s Office of Research in July 2020 (Protocol 1-20-0491).Â

The identification and recruitment of potential participants took into account the selection criteria pre-established by Ithaka S+R: a) instructors of courses within the Social Sciences, considering the field as broadly defined, and making the best judgment in cases the discipline intersects with other fields; b) instructors who teach undergraduate courses or courses where most of the students are at the undergraduate level; c) instructors of any rank, including adjuncts and graduate students; as long as they were listed as instructors of record of the selected courses; d) instructors who teach courses were students engage with quantitative/computational data.Â

The sampling process followed a combination of strategies to more easily identify instructo..., The data folder contains 10Â pdf files with de-identified transcriptions of the interviews and the pdf files with the recruitment email and the interview guide.Â

The Project Information Literacy (PIL) lifelong learning survey dataset was produced as part of a two-year federally funded study on relatively recent US college graduates and their information-seeking behavior for continued learning. The goal of the survey was to collect quantitative data about the information-seeking behavior of a sample of recent graduates—the strategies, techniques, information support systems, and best practices—used to support lifelong learning in post-college life. The dataset contains responses from 1,651 respondents to a 21-item questionnaire administered between October 9, 2014 and December 15, 2014. The voluntary sample of respondents consisted of relatively recent graduates, who had completed their degrees between 2007 and 2012, from one of 10 US colleges and universities in the institutional sample. Quantitative data are included in the dataset about the learning needs of relatively recent graduates as well as the information sources they used in three arenas of their post-college lives (i.e., personal life, workplace, and the communities in which they resided). Demographic information—including age, gender, major, GPA, employment status, graduate school attendance, and geographic proximity of current residence to their alma mater—is also included in the dataset for the respondents. "Staying Smart: How Today's Graduates Continue to Learn Once They Complete College," Alison J. Head, Project Information Literacy Research Report, Seattle: University of Washington Information School (January 5, 2016), 112 pages, 6.9 MB.

Subscribers can find out export and import data of 23 countries by HS code or product’s name. This demo is helpful for market analysis.

Introduction: In an age of increasingly face-to-face, blended, and online Health Professions Education, students have more selections of where they will receive a degree. For an applicant, oftentimes, the first step is to learn more about a program through its website. Websites allow programs to convey their unique voice and to share their mission and values with others, such as applicants, researchers, and academics. Additionally, as the number of Health Professions Education programs rapidly grows, websites can share the priorities of these programs. Methods: In this study, we conducted a website review of 158 Health Professions Education websites to explore their geographical distributions, missions, educational concentrations, and various programmatic components. Results: We compiled this information and synthesized pertinent aspects, such as program similarities and differences, or highlighted the omission of critical data. Conclusion: Given that websites are often the first point of contact for prospective applicants, curious collaborators, and potential faculty, the digital image of HPE programs matters. We believe our findings demonstrate opportunities for growth within institutions and assist the field in identifying the priorities of HPE programs. As programs begin to shape their websites with more intentionality, they can reflect their relative divergence/convergence compared to other programs as they see fit and, therefore, attract individuals to best match this identity. Periodic reviews of the breadth of programs, such as those undergone here, are necessary to capture diversifying goals, and serve to help advance the field of Health Professions Education as a whole. Methods Our team deduced that most HPE programs would have a website, and that this would serve as a representation of how individuals within the program choose to view themselves and hope to be viewed by others. Further, our team determined that these websites would be an efficient means of collecting programmatic information for the purposes of learning more about program growth, diversity, and values. We conducted the website review from August 2021 to April 2022 using a list of worldwide Health Professions Education programs, which was acquired from the Foundation of Advancement of International Medical Education and Research’s (FAIMER’s) website. FAIMER was chosen as the origin source of programs studied due to its use in another published study evaluating HPE programs. Each master's degree in HPE offered by a university was counted separately, allowing us to note the differences in course and time requirements across all programs. Only HPE master's programs were selected for this study. Certificate and Ph.D. programs were excluded. Next, we developed a data extraction tool. Categories were jointly identified for data collection by three of our authors (JS, SW, and HM). JS, SW, and HW worked independently through a set of three HPE programs, obtaining the data for our selected categories. Afterward, we cross-checked each other's work for verification purposes. For example, if JS obtained the information, SW or HM, who were blinded to JS’s findings, would independently find the answers to the same questions/ topics. This was performed until an agreement between pre and post-review information was above 95%. There was no discovered information that was not agreed upon after discussion. Once 100% agreement was reached with this method, the total number of HPE programs analyzed was split between JS and SW, and the raw data was obtained for the same categories. This data then underwent a review by the other two researchers to ensure high accuracy. This review consisted of information verification on individual program websites where it was originally obtained. For example, if JS found the information about a program, SW and HM (now not blinded) would both have to independently find the same information. Any identified discrepancies were rectified through discussion, and three-way agreement was mandatory for the team to move on to the next program.

This dataset provides the grade point distribution in the best six subjects related to admission to local undergraduate degree programmes for day school candidates - Core subjects at 3322 or better, with two elective subjects at level 3+. Male and female statistics are also provided. Please refer to the Examination Statistics for more information

This dataset provides the grade point distribution in the best five subjects for eligibility to sub-degree programmes / relevant civil service appointments for each of the two categories of candidates. Male and female statistics are also provided. Please refer to the Examination Statistics for more information

The Region 2 schools GIS layer contains unique records with basic identification information and best available locational information, for Region 2 schools found in the EPA Facility Registry System, which has imported records for schools in the National Center for Education Statistics database. Fields included in the layer include FRS_Name, FRS_Address, Facility Registry System ID), and locational information (latitude, longitude, and locational metadata). The locational data source for this and all R2 Regulated FACILITY and R2 Regulated PERMIT GIS Layers is the Locational Reference Tables (LRT) database, of Envirofacts augmented by R2 Locational Data Improvement records that may not yet have been cycled into the LRT. The Facility Registry System (FRS) is a centrally managed database developed by EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI). It provides Internet access to a single source of comprehensive information about facilities subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. The FRS contains accurate and authoritative facility identification records which are subjected to rigorous verification and data management quality assurance procedures. FRS records are continuously reviewed and enhanced by a Regional Data Steward network and active State partners. The facility records are based on information from EPA's national program systems and State master facility records and enhanced by other Web information sources.