In an impressive increase from years past, 39 percent of women in the United States had completed four years or more of college in 2022. This figure is up from 3.8 percent of women in 1940. A significant increase can also be seen in males, with 36.2 percent of the U.S. male population having completed four years or more of college in 2022, up from 5.5 percent in 1940.

4- and 2-year colleges

In the United States, college students are able to choose between attending a 2-year postsecondary program and a 4-year postsecondary program. Generally, attending a 2-year program results in an Associate’s Degree, and 4-year programs result in a Bachelor’s Degree.

Many 2-year programs are designed so that attendees can transfer to a college or university offering a 4-year program upon completing their Associate’s. Completion of a 4-year program is the generally accepted standard for entry-level positions when looking for a job.

Earnings after college

Factors such as gender, degree achieved, and the level of postsecondary education can have an impact on employment and earnings later in life. Some Bachelor’s degrees continue to attract more male students than female, particularly in STEM fields, while liberal arts degrees such as education, languages and literatures, and communication tend to see higher female attendance.

All of these factors have an impact on earnings after college, and despite nearly the same rate of attendance within the American population between males and females, men with a Bachelor’s Degree continue to have higher weekly earnings on average than their female counterparts.

In 2022, about 37.7 percent of the U.S. population who were aged 25 and above had graduated from college or another higher education institution, a slight decline from 37.9 the previous year. However, this is a significant increase from 1960, when only 7.7 percent of the U.S. population had graduated from college. Demographics Educational attainment varies by gender, location, race, and age throughout the United States. Asian-American and Pacific Islanders had the highest level of education, on average, while Massachusetts and the District of Colombia are areas home to the highest rates of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher. However, education levels are correlated with wealth. While public education is free up until the 12th grade, the cost of university is out of reach for many Americans, making social mobility increasingly difficult. Earnings White Americans with a professional degree earned the most money on average, compared to other educational levels and races. However, regardless of educational attainment, males typically earned far more on average compared to females. Despite the decreasing wage gap over the years in the country, it remains an issue to this day. Not only is there a large wage gap between males and females, but there is also a large income gap linked to race as well.

In the academic year of 2020/21, about 860,760 male and 1.2 million female students earned a Bachelor's degree in the United States. By the academic year of 2031/32, the number of male Bachelor's degree recipients is expected to reach 975,020.

Bachelor’s degrees in the United States

American students typically earn a Bachelor’s degree for an undergraduate course of study and it is normally completed in four years. Depending on the major, students receive a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Business Administration, Bachelor of Fine Arts, or another type of certificate.

In 2021, about 1.17 million white students earned a Bachelor's degree, followed by 324,848 Hispanic students.

Bachelor's degrees and earnings

When looking at the mean income of Bachelor’s degree holders in 2021, there are marked differences between the female and male Bachelor’s degree holders. Men with a Bachelor’s degree earned about 107,315 U.S. dollars per year, compared to women, who earned 77,099 U.S. dollars per year. In addition, salaries tended to increase the more educated a person was.

In 2021, about ** percent of the United States population aged 25 to 34 years had attained a bachelor's degree or higher. In comparison, only ** percent of the U.S. population aged 65 years or older had a bachelor's degree.

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.

In 2024, 32 percent of people in Italy aged between 25 and 34 had a higher education degree. Similarly, 28 percent of Italians aged 35 to 44 years obtained a tertiary education title. Figures have steadily increased since 2000, when only around 10 percent of the population between 25 and 50 years successfully completed university studies. Despite this remarkable improvement, Italy ranks among the worst European countries in terms of tertiary educational attainment. In 2024, more than 40 percent of Europeans aged from 25 to 34 held a degree, more than ten percentage points higher than in Italy. Overall, only 20 percent of Italians held a tertiary education, compared to 32 percent of the EU population.

Abstract

The Higher Education Graduates Survey (HEGS) covers a random sample of university graduates aged 25-40 years from selected disciplines; namely: accounting, administration, and computer sciences who graduated during the fifteen years preceding the survey.

The survey instruments collects information on graduates' socio-economic background, household characteristics, education experience, job experience and employment history and mobility.

It also provides data on students' feedback and monitoring in both private and public institutions, labor market outcomes for graduates of these institutions and retrospective data on graduates' learning experience.

This survey, through studying the institutional framework of the higher education system, aims at reaching a tool for improving the quality of higher education.

Analysis unit

• Individual (Higher education graduate aged 25-40 in selected disciplines)

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample frame for this survey is 1,924 individuals aged between 25 and 40 years and holding a bachelor degree in one of the disciplines of accounting, management or computer science. The sample is extracted from two earlier surveys conducted by the Jordanian Department of Statistics (DOS).

The first was the Job Creation Survey, which was fielded in the first half of 2012; the survey traced 1,300 individuals. It is worth noting that DOS conducts the Job Creation Survey biannually. The survey covers about 40,000 households per round, from all the governorates of the Kingdom, through a stratified cluster sample on two phases, representatives at the levels of the Kingdom, regions, provinces and urban and rural areas.

The second source for the sample frame of graduates was the Household Expenditure and Income Survey of 2010, providing information on the 624 individuals who were contacted as part of this study. DOS conducts the Household Expenditure and Income Survey (HEIS) every two years. The survey covers about 14,000 families from all governorates of the Kingdom. Similar to the sample of the Job Creation survey, the sample of the HEIS is extracted based on a two-stage stratified cluster sampling technique to allow for national, province and urban/rural representation.

The final sample of this graduate tracer study was extracted from the above two survey samples, after the exclusion of districts that had less than 20 eligible individuals to facilitate data collection.

The total sample size actually collected is 1,873 observations. Out of which 1,539 questionnaires were fully completed and eligible for data analysis.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

One questionnaire form, in both Arabic and English, consisting of 6 Parts was designed to collect the survey data.

Educational attainment refers to the highest degree of education an individual has completed, and this chart shows the number of residents for each level of education.

Participation rate in education, population aged 18 to 34, by age group and type of institution attended, Canada, provinces and territories. This table is included in Section E: Transitions and outcomes: Transitions to postsecondary education of the Pan Canadian Education Indicators Program (PCEIP). PCEIP draws from a wide variety of data sources to provide information on the school-age population, elementary, secondary and postsecondary education, transitions, and labour market outcomes. The program presents indicators for all of Canada, the provinces, the territories, as well as selected international comparisons and comparisons over time. PCEIP is an ongoing initiative of the Canadian Education Statistics Council, a partnership between Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada that provides a set of statistical measures on education systems in Canada.

Statistics on postsecondary graduates, including the number of graduates, the percentage of female graduates and age at graduation, are presented by the province of study and the level of study. Estimates are available at five-year intervals.

There were approximately 18.58 million college students in the U.S. in 2022, with around 13.49 million enrolled in public colleges and a further 5.09 million students enrolled in private colleges. The figures are projected to remain relatively constant over the next few years.

What is the most expensive college in the U.S.? The overall number of higher education institutions in the U.S. totals around 4,000, and California is the state with the most. One important factor that students – and their parents – must consider before choosing a college is cost. With annual expenses totaling almost 78,000 U.S. dollars, Harvey Mudd College in California was the most expensive college for the 2021-2022 academic year. There are three major costs of college: tuition, room, and board. The difference in on-campus and off-campus accommodation costs is often negligible, but they can change greatly depending on the college town.

The differences between public and private colleges Public colleges, also called state colleges, are mostly funded by state governments. Private colleges, on the other hand, are not funded by the government but by private donors and endowments. Typically, private institutions are  much more expensive. Public colleges tend to offer different tuition fees for students based on whether they live in-state or out-of-state, while private colleges have the same tuition cost for every student.

ABSTRACT Purpose: to compare and analyze social attitudes of students and professors of a higher education institution about the inclusion of people with disabilities according to variables gender, age and areas of knowledge of participants. Methods: the quantitative study was conducted on 601 academics, 583 being students and 18 university professors from a private university, who have contact with individuals with disabilities in the classroom. A questionnaire was applied to identify the social attitudes related to the variables correlated above. Results: the sample included 97% of students, 417 being females and 184 males. Nearly 43% were younger than 20 years and 6% older than 40 years. The female professors and students had higher agreement with the questionnaire, while male professors and students reported lower satisfaction. Concerning age, the younger individuals were the most dissatisfied ones. In relation to the field of knowledge, the Exact, Human and Health Sciences, in this order, presented increased agreement with the research instrument. Conclusion: the study investigated the social attitudes of professors and students about the inclusion of people with disabilities, analyzing the results according to gender, age and area of knowledge, comparing and correlating with the agreement about the questionnaire. The results revealed the need to deepen the studies about variables that may influence the social attitudes related to the inclusion and permanence of these individuals in higher education institutions.

we utilized data from two main sources: the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI).American Community Survey (ACS):Conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States.The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions.It offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households.The ACS data is essential for policymakers, researchers, and communities to make informed decisions and address the evolving needs of the population.CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):Created by ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP) and utilized by the CDC, the SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events.

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.

A list of all independent schools and special post-16 institutions for children with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) approved under section 41 of the Children and Families Act 2014 in England and Wales.

You can filter the list by local authority or by type of setting.

Our guide for independent special schools and special post-16 institutions explains how to apply for approval under section 41.

Voluntary removal

Contact hns.sos@education.gov.uk to request removal from the approved list, stating your reason. We will remove your institution in the next update and notify local authorities. The published list includes all removed institutions.

Once removed, you cannot re-apply for one full academic year.

Other special schools

Details of all special schools in England are available on the https://www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Search" class="govuk-link">Department for Education’s Get Information about Schools system. This includes:

• maintained schools
• academies
• independent schools
• non-maintained schools

The SEND guide for parents and carers explains how parents can ask for one of these schools or special post-16 institutions to be named in their child’s education, health and care plan.

we utilized data from two main sources: the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). American Community Survey (ACS):

Conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States. The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions. It offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households. The ACS data is essential for policymakers, researchers, and communities to make informed decisions and address the evolving needs of the population.

CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):

Created by ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP) and utilized by the CDC, the SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events. SVI ranks U.S. Census tracts based on 15 social factors, including unemployment, minority status, and disability, and groups them into four related themes Each tract receives rankings for each Census variable and for each theme, as well as an overall ranking, indicating its relative vulnerability. SVI data provides insights into the social vulnerability of communities at both the tract and county levels, helping public health officials and emergency response planners allocate resources effectively.

In our utilization of these sources, we likely integrated data from both the ACS and the SVI to analyze and understand various socio-economic and demographic indicators at the state, county, and possibly tract levels. This integrated data would have been valuable for research, policymaking, and community planning purposes, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of social and economic dynamics across different geographical areas in the United States

Note: Due to limitations in the ArcGIS Pro environment, the data variable names may be truncated. Refer to the provided table for a clear understanding of the variables.CSV Variable NameShapefile Variable NameDescriptionStateNameStateNameName of the stateStateFipsStateFipsState-level FIPS codeState nameStateNameName of the stateCountyNameCountyNameName of the countyCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeState abbreviationStateFipsState abbreviationCountyFipsCountyFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCounty nameCountyNameName of the countyAREA_SQMIAREA_SQMITract area in square milesE_TOTPOPE_TOTPOPPopulation estimates, 2015-2019 ACSEP_POVEP_POVPercentage of persons below poverty estimateEP_UNEMPEP_UNEMPUnemployment Rate estimateEP_HBURDEP_HBURDHousing cost burdened occupied housing units with annual income less than $75,000EP_UNINSUREP_UNINSURUninsured in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_PCIEP_PCIPer capita income estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_DISABLEP_DISABLPercentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_SNGPNTEP_SNGPNTPercentage of single parent households with children under 18 estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_MINRTYEP_MINRTYPercentage minority (all persons except white, non-Hispanic) estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_LIMENGEP_LIMENGPercentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate, 2015-2019 ACSEP_MUNITEP_MUNITPercentage of housing in structures with 10 or more units estimateEP_MOBILEEP_MOBILEPercentage of mobile homes estimateEP_CROWDEP_CROWDPercentage of occupied housing units with more people than rooms estimateEP_NOVEHEP_NOVEHPercentage of households with no vehicle available estimateEP_GROUPQEP_GROUPQPercentage of persons in group quarters estimate, 2014-2018 ACSBelow_5_yrBelow_5_yrUnder 5 years: Percentage of Total populationBelow_18_yrBelow_18_yrUnder 18 years: Percentage of Total population18-39_yr18_39_yr18-39 years: Percentage of Total population40-64_yr40_64_yr40-64 years: Percentage of Total populationAbove_65_yrAbove_65_yrAbove 65 years: Percentage of Total populationPop_malePop_malePercentage of total population malePop_femalePop_femalePercentage of total population femaleWhitewhitePercentage population of white aloneBlackblackPercentage population of black or African American aloneAmerican_indianamerican_iPercentage population of American Indian and Alaska native aloneAsianasianPercentage population of Asian aloneHawaiian_pacific_islanderhawaiian_pPercentage population of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander aloneSome_othersome_otherPercentage population of some other race aloneMedian_tot_householdsmedian_totMedian household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) by household size – total householdsLess_than_high_schoolLess_than_Percentage of Educational attainment for the population less than 9th grades and 9th to 12th grade, no diploma estimateHigh_schoolHigh_schooPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of High school graduate (includes equivalency)Some_collegeSome_collePercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Some college, no degreeAssociates_degreeAssociatesPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of associate degreeBachelor’s_degreeBachelor_sPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Bachelor’s degreeMaster’s_degreeMaster_s_dPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Graduate or professional degreecomp_devicescomp_devicPercentage of Household having one or more types of computing devicesInternetInternetPercentage of Household with an Internet subscriptionBroadbandBroadbandPercentage of Household having Broadband of any typeSatelite_internetSatelite_iPercentage of Household having Satellite Internet serviceNo_internetNo_internePercentage of Household having No Internet accessNo_computerNo_computePercentage of Household having No computer

Since the beginning of the 1960s, Statistics Sweden, in collaboration with various research institutions, has carried out follow-up surveys in the school system. These surveys have taken place within the framework of the IS project (Individual Statistics Project) at the University of Gothenburg and the UGU project (Evaluation through follow-up of students) at the University of Teacher Education in Stockholm, which since 1990 have been merged into a research project called 'Evaluation through Follow-up'. The follow-up surveys are part of the central evaluation of the school and are based on large nationally representative samples from different cohorts of students.

Evaluation through follow-up (UGU) is one of the country's largest research databases in the field of education. UGU is part of the central evaluation of the school and is based on large nationally representative samples from different cohorts of students. The longitudinal database contains information on nationally representative samples of school pupils from ten cohorts, born between 1948 and 2004. The sampling process was based on the student's birthday for the first two and on the school class for the other cohorts.

For each cohort, data of mainly two types are collected. School administrative data is collected annually by Statistics Sweden during the time that pupils are in the general school system (primary and secondary school), for most cohorts starting in compulsory school year 3. This information is provided by the school offices and, among other things, includes characteristics of school, class, special support, study choices and grades. Information obtained has varied somewhat, e.g. due to changes in curricula. A more detailed description of this data collection can be found in reports published by Statistics Sweden and linked to datasets for each cohort.

Survey data from the pupils is collected for the first time in compulsory school year 6 (for most cohorts). Questionnaire in survey in year 6 includes questions related to self-perception and interest in learning, attitudes to school, hobbies, school motivation and future plans. For some cohorts, questionnaire data are also collected in year 3 and year 9 in compulsory school and in upper secondary school.

Furthermore, results from various intelligence tests and standartized knowledge tests are included in the data collection year 6. The intelligence tests have been identical for all cohorts (except cohort born in 1987 from which questionnaire data were first collected in year 9). The intelligence test consists of a verbal, a spatial and an inductive test, each containing 40 tasks and specially designed for the UGU project. The verbal test is a vocabulary test of the opposite type. The spatial test is a so-called ‘sheet metal folding test’ and the inductive test are made up of series of numbers. The reliability of the test, intercorrelations and connection with school grades are reported by Svensson (1971).

For the first three cohorts (1948, 1953 and 1967), the standartized knowledge tests in year 6 consist of the standard tests in Swedish, mathematics and English that up to and including the beginning of the 1980s were offered to all pupils in compulsory school year 6. For the cohort 1972, specially prepared tests in reading and mathematics were used. The test in reading consists of 27 tasks and aimed to identify students with reading difficulties. The mathematics test, which was also offered for the fifth cohort, (1977) includes 19 assignments. After a changed version of the test, caused by the previously used test being judged to be somewhat too simple, has been used for the cohort born in 1982. Results on the mathematics test are not available for the 1987 cohort. The mathematics test was not offered to the students in the cohort in 1992, as the test did not seem to fully correspond with current curriculum intentions in mathematics. For further information, see the description of the dataset for each cohort.

For several of the samples, questionnaires were also collected from the students 'parents and teachers in year 6. The teacher questionnaire contains questions about the teacher, class size and composition, the teacher's assessments of the class' knowledge level, etc., school resources, working methods and parental involvement and questions about the existence of evaluations. The questionnaire for the guardians includes questions about the child's upbringing conditions, ambitions and wishes regarding the child's education, views on the school's objectives and the parents' own educational and professional situation.

The students are followed up even after they have left primary school. Among other things, data collection is done during the time they are in high school. Then school administrative data such as e.g. choice of upper secondary school line / program and grades after completing studies. For some of the cohorts, in addition to school administrative data, questionnaire data were also collected from the students.

New sample design compared to previous cohorts. The selection was carried out in two steps. In the first, municipalities were chosen and in the second, school classes with pupils in year 6. A stratified sample was selected from 29 municipalities, after which the school classes were chosen with the help of the class registers in the municipalities in question. In the small municipalities all classes were included, while a random sample was made from the larger ones. The final sample consisted of approximately 9601 students divided into 437 classes in year 6 spring term 1980, and mainly born in 1967. This was at the end 9114 due to the refusal in various forms.

The information obtained in 1980 for rides was:

1. School administrative data (school form, class type, year and grades). This information was collected by Statistics Sweden for all in the sample. Tasks 2-5 were collected by the Department of Education at the Stockholm University of Education.

2. Information about the parents' profession and education, housing, guardians, values ​​of school and education, etc. This information was collected mainly through a questionnaire to guardians, which was new compared to the two previous cohorts. Information is available for about 70%.

3. Answers to questions that shed light on students' school attitudes, self-assessments and values, leisure activities and study and vocational plans, including motives for choosing alternative courses.

4. Results on three aptitude tests, one verbal, one spatial and one inductive.

The aptitude tests were completely identical, while the questionnaires were partially reworked compared to the two previous cohorts. This information is available to just over 90 percent of the students.

1. Standard test results in reading, writing, mathematics and English, in the cases where they occurred in the municipality in question at the time of the examination. Standard test results are available for fewer individuals (approx. 5,600) mainly due to the fact that grading and the use of standard tests only occurred in approximately half of the municipalities included in the sample.

Statistics on student debt, including the average debt at graduation, the percentage of graduates who owed large debt at graduation and the percentage of graduates with debt who had paid it off at the time of the interview, are presented by the province of study and the level of study. Estimates are available at five-year intervals.

Opioid Data Description

Land Area of County: factfinder.census.gov 2010 Census Summary 1890 counties are taken under consideration

Year: 2011- 2017

Population: https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html#par_textimage_70769902 Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018

Death by Opioid Type: https://wonder.cdc.gov/ The mortality data are based on information from all death certificates filed in the fifty states all sub-national data representing zero to nine (0-9) deaths are suppressed.

601 counties had the minimum mortality rate to be represented for analysis and were pulled from the WONDER database. These were the recommended codes to use when relating to Opioid deaths provided by the CDC.

Type of death: T40.0 (Opium) – No county reached the number of deaths above 9 per year to not be suppressed when finding specific cause T40.1 (Heroin) T40.2 (Other opioids) T40.3 (Methadone) T40.4 (Other synthetic narcotics) From the CDC Wonder Database. Type of death by county will not add up to total mortality due to the fact that low death rate of a county was withheld from data to protect privacy of individuals.

Non-US Born: factfinder.census.gov American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates The total number of Non-Us born citizens that reside in each county

Education: factfinder.census.gov American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Categories Consist of: Less Than High School Degree Some College or Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or Professional Degree

Income by Household: factfinder.census.gov American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Incomes given by the mean household income in that county

Transportation: Percentage of County that uses these means of transportation to get to work. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Categories Consist of: Commute Alone to work by driving Carpool Walk Public Transit Bike

Unemployment Rate by county collected from: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset?tags=unemployment-rate

GDP by county in regards to funds spent on healthcare, education, and social assistance as well as overall GDP collected from: https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-county-metro-and-other-areas

Context

More international students are flocking to China than ever before. According to a report, over 540,000 foreigners studied in China in 2018 – marking a 40 percent increase from 2012. China attracts more international students than any other Asian power and ranks third globally, behind the United States and the United Kingdom.

Content

In 2018 there were a total of 492,185 international students from 196 countries/areas pursuing their studies in 1,004 higher education institutions in China’s 31 provinces/autonomous regions/provincial-level municipalities, marking an increase of 3,013 students or 0.62% compared to 2017. International students in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are not included in the datasets. The datasets contain three CSV files (Continent, Country, Province) with different data about international students in China.

Columns Description

@Continent (Number/percent of international students by continent) Continent- The name of continent Number - The number of total international students Deaths- The percentage of total international students

@Country (Number of international students by country of origin) Rank- The rank of the country based on total students in China Country- The name of the country Number- The number of total international students

@Province (The top provinces/cities with the largest number of international students) Province- The name of the city/province Number- The number of total international students

Acknowledgements

This data collected from moe.gov.cn.

Inspiration

Currently, I'm studying at a Chinese university. Every year many international students come to China for their higher study, and the ratio of international students is growing steadily. This data will help us to understand the ratio of international students in China.