This Cost of International Education dataset compiles detailed financial information for students pursuing higher education abroad. It covers multiple countries, cities, and universities around the world, capturing the full tuition and living expenses spectrum alongside key ancillary costs. With standardized fields such as tuition in USD, living-cost indices, rent, visa fees, insurance, and up-to-date exchange rates, it enables comparative analysis across programs, degree levels, and geographies. Whether you’re a prospective international student mapping out budgets, an educational consultant advising on affordability, or a researcher studying global education economics, this dataset offers a comprehensive foundation for data-driven insights.

Description

Potential Uses

• Budget Planning Prospective students can filter by country, program level, or university to forecast total expenses and compare across destinations.
• Policy Analysis Educational policymakers and NGOs can assess the affordability of international education and design support programs.
• Economic Research Economists can correlate living-cost indices and tuition levels with enrollment rates or student demographics.
• University Benchmarking Institutions can benchmark their fees and ancillary costs against peer universities worldwide.

Notes on Data Collection & Quality

• Currency Conversions All monetary values are unified to USD using contemporaneous exchange rates to facilitate direct comparison.
• Living Cost Index Derived from reputable city-index publications (e.g., Numbeo, Mercer) to standardize disparate cost-of-living metrics.
• Data Currency Exchange rates and fee schedules should be periodically updated to reflect market fluctuations and policy changes.

Feel free to explore, visualize, and extend this dataset for deeper insights into the true cost of studying abroad!

Graph and download economic data for Unemployment Rate - College Graduates - Doctoral Degree, 25 years and over (CGDD25O) from Jan 2000 to May 2025 about doctoral degree, 25 years +, tertiary schooling, education, unemployment, rate, and USA.

The data, collected for the 2005-2006 academic year from more than 5,000 doctoral programs at 212 universities, covers 62 fields of study. Included for each program are such characteristics as faculty publications, grants, and awards; student GRE scores, financial support, and employment outcomes; and program size, time to complete degree, and faculty composition. Measures of faculty and student diversity are also included.

School enrollment data are used to assess the socioeconomic condition of school-age children. Government agencies also require these data for funding allocations and program planning and implementation.

Data on school enrollment and grade or level attending were derived from answers to Question 10 in the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS). People were classified as enrolled in school if they were attending a public or private school or college at any time during the 3 months prior to the time of interview. The question included instructions to “include only nursery or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, home school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma, or a college degree.” Respondents who did not answer the enrollment question were assigned the enrollment status and type of school of a person with the same age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino origin whose residence was in the same or nearby area.

School enrollment is only recorded if the schooling advances a person toward an elementary school certificate, a high school diploma, or a college, university, or professional school (such as law or medicine) degree. Tutoring or correspondence schools are included if credit can be obtained from a public or private school or college. People enrolled in “vocational, technical, or business school” such as post secondary vocational, trade, hospital school, and on job training were not reported as enrolled in school. Field interviewers were instructed to classify individuals who were home schooled as enrolled in private school. The guide sent out with the mail questionnaire includes instructions for how to classify home schoolers.

Enrolled in Public and Private School – Includes people who attended school in the reference period and indicated they were enrolled by marking one of the questionnaire categories for “public school, public college,” or “private school, private college, home school.” The instruction guide defines a public school as “any school or college controlled and supported primarily by a local, county, state, or federal government.” Private schools are defined as schools supported and controlled primarily by religious organizations or other private groups. Home schools are defined as “parental-guided education outside of public or private school for grades 1-12.” Respondents who marked both the “public” and “private” boxes are edited to the first entry, “public.”

Grade in Which Enrolled – From 1999-2007, in the ACS, people reported to be enrolled in “public school, public college” or “private school, private college” were classified by grade or level according to responses to Question 10b, “What grade or level was this person attending?” Seven levels were identified: “nursery school, preschool;” “kindergarten;” elementary “grade 1 to grade 4” or “grade 5 to grade 8;” high school “grade 9 to grade 12;” “college undergraduate years (freshman to senior);” and “graduate or professional school (for example: medical, dental, or law school).”

In 2008, the school enrollment questions had several changes. “Home school” was explicitly included in the “private school, private college” category. For question 10b the categories changed to the following “Nursery school, preschool,” “Kindergarten,” “Grade 1 through grade 12,” “College undergraduate years (freshman to senior),” “Graduate or professional school beyond a bachelor’s degree (for example: MA or PhD program, or medical or law school).” The survey question allowed a write-in for the grades enrolled from 1-12.

Question/Concept History – Since 1999, the ACS enrollment status question (Question 10a) refers to “regular school or college,” while the 1996-1998 ACS did not restrict reporting to “regular” school, and contained an additional category for the “vocational, technical or business school.” The 1996-1998 ACS used the educational attainment question to estimate level of enrollment for those reported to be enrolled in school, and had a single year write-in for the attainment of grades 1 through 11. Grade levels estimated using the attainment question were not consistent with other estimates, so a new question specifically asking grade or level of enrollment was added starting with the 1999 ACS questionnaire.

Limitation of the Data – Beginning in 2006, the population universe in the ACS includes people living in group quarters. Data users may see slight differences in levels of school enrollment in any given geographic area due to the inclusion of this population. The extent of this difference, if any, depends on the type of group quarters present and whether the group quarters population makes up a large proportion of the total population. For example, in areas that are home to several colleges and universities, the percent of individuals 18 to 24 who were enrolled in college or graduate school would increase, as people living in college dormitories are now included in the universe.

Overall educational attainment measures the highest level of education attained by a given individual: for example, an individual counted in the percentage of the measured population with a master’s or professional degree can be assumed to also have a bachelor’s degree and a high school diploma, but they are not counted in the population percentages for those two categories. Overall educational attainment is the broadest education indicator available, providing information about the measured county population as a whole.

Only members of the population aged 25 and older are included in these educational attainment estimates, sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS).

Champaign County has high educational attainment: over 48 percent of the county's population aged 25 or older has a bachelor's degree or graduate or professional degree as their highest level of education. In comparison, the percentage of the population aged 25 or older in the United States and Illinois with a bachelor's degree in 2023 was 21.8% (+/-0.1) and 22.8% (+/-0.2), respectively. The population aged 25 or older in the U.S. and Illinois with a graduate or professional degree in 2022, respectively, was 14.3% (+/-0.1) and 15.5% (+/-0.2).

Educational attainment data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Over.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (29 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (6 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (4 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (4 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018). U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

This dataset provides population 25 years and over estimates by sex and educational attainment for State of Iowa, individual Iowa counties, Iowa places and census tracts within Iowa. Data is from the American Community Survey, Five Year Estimates, Table B15002.

Sex includes Male, Female and Both.

Educational Attainment includes the following: No School; PK to 4th Grade; 5th to 6th Grade; 7th to 8th Grade; 9th Grade; 10th Grade; 11th Grade; 12th Grade, No Diploma; High School Diploma or Equivalent; Some College, Less than Year; Some College, One Year or More; Associates Degree; Bachelors Degree; Masters Degree; Professional Degree; and Doctorate Degree.

Each have been placed in the following educational categories: Less than High School, High School Graduate; Some College or Associates Degree; and Bachelors Degree or Higher.

OVERVIEW

This data file, compiled from multiple online sources, presents 2013–2017 publication counts—articles, articles in high-impact journals, books, and books from high-impact publishers—for 2,132 professors and associate professors in 426 U.S. departments of sociology. It also includes information on institutional characteristics (e.g., institution type, highest sociology degree offered, department size) and individual characteristics (e.g., academic rank, gender, PhD year, PhD institution).

The data may be useful for investigations of scholarly productivity, the correlates of scholarly productivity, and the contributions of particular individuals and institutions. Complete population data are presented for the top 26 doctoral programs, doctoral institutions other than R1 universities, the top liberal arts colleges, and other bachelor's institutions. Sample data are presented for Carnegie R1 universities (other than the top 26) and master's institutions.

USER NOTES

Please see our paper in Scholarly Assessment Reports, freely available at https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.36 , for full information about the data set and the methods used in its compilation. The section numbers used here refer to the Appendix of that paper. See the References, below, for other papers that have made use of these data.

The data file is a single Excel file with five worksheets: Sampling, Articles, Books, Individuals, and Departments. Each worksheet has a simple rectangular format, and the cells include just text and values—no formulas or links. A few general notes apply to all five worksheets.

• The yellow column headings represent institutional (departmental) data. The blue column headings represent data for individual faculty.

• iType is institution type, as described in section A.2—TopR (top research universities), R1 (other R1 universities), OD (other doctoral universities), M (master's institutions), TopLA (top liberal arts colleges), or B (other bachelor's institutions). nType provides the same information, but as a single-digit code that is more useful for sorting the rows; 1=TopR, 2=R1, 3=OD, 4=M, 5=TopLA, and 6=B.

• Inst is a four-digit institution code. The first digit corresponds to nType, and the last three digits allow for alphabetical sorting by institution name. Indiv is a one- or two-digit code that can be used to sort the individuals by name within each department. The Inst, nType, and Indiv codes are consistent across the five worksheets.

• For binary variables such as Full professor and Female, 1 indicates yes (full professor or female) and 0 indicates no (associate professor or male).

The five worksheets represent five distinct stages in the data compilation process. First, the Sampling worksheet lists the 1,530 base-population institutions (see section A.3) and presents the characteristics of the faculty included in the data file. Each row with an entry in the Individual column represents a faculty member at one of the 426 institutions included in the data set. Each row without an entry in the Individual column represents an institution that either (a) did not meet the criteria for inclusion (section A.1) or (b) was not needed to attain the desired sample size for the R1 or M groups (section A.3).

The Articles worksheet includes the data compiled from SocINDEX, as described in section A.6. Each row with an entry in the Journal column represents an article written by one of the 2,132 faculty included in the data. Each row without an entry in the Journal column represents a faculty member without any article listings in SocINDEX for the 2013–2017 period. (Note that SocINDEX items other than peer-reviewed articles—editorials, letters, etc.—may be listed in the Journal column but assigned a value of 1 in the Excluded column and a value of 0 in the Article credit and HI article credit columns. We assigned no credit for items such as editorial and letters, but other researchers may wish to include them.) The N and i columns represent, for each article, the number of authors (N) and the faculty member's place in the byline (i), as described in section A.8. The CiteScore and Highest percentile columns were used to identify high-impact journals, as indicated in the HI journal column. The Article credit and HI article credit columns are article counts, adjusted for co-authorship.

The Books worksheet includes data compiled from Amazon and other sources, as described in section A.7. Each row with an entry in the Book column represents a book written by one of the 2,132 faculty. Each row without an entry in the Book column represents a faculty member without any book listings in Amazon during the 2013–2017 period. The publication counts in the Books worksheet—Book credit and HI book credit—follow the same format as those in the Articles worksheet.

The Individuals worksheet consolidates information from the Articles and Books worksheets so that each of the 2,132 individuals is represented by a single row. The worksheet also includes several categorical variables calculated or otherwise derived from the raw data—Years since PhD, for instance, and the three corresponding binary variables. We suspect that many data users will be most interested in the Individuals worksheet.

The Departments worksheet collapses the individual data so that each of the 426 institutions (departments) is represented by a single row. Individual characteristics such as Female and Years since PhD are presented as percentages or averages—% Female and Avg years since PhD, for instance. Each of the four productivity measures is represented by a departmental total, an average (the total divided by the number of full and associate professors), a departmental standard deviation, and a departmental median.

The white paper ‘Advancing Research Data Management in Universities of Science and Technology’ shares insights on the state-of-the-art in research data management, and recommendations for advancement. Acore part of the paper are the results of a survey, which was distributed to our member institutions in 2019 and addressed the following aspects of research data management (RDM): (i) the establishment of a RDM policy at the university; (ii) the provision of suitable RDM infrastructure and tools; and (iii) the establishment of RDM support services and trainings tailored to the requirements of science and technology disciplines. The paper reveals that while substantial progress has been made, there is still a long way to go when it comes to establishing “advanced-degree programmes at our major universities for the emerging field of data scientist”, as recommended in the seminal 2010 report ‘Riding the Wave’, and our white paper offers concrete recommendations and best practices for university leaders, researchers, operational staff, and policy makers. The topic of RDM has become a focal point in many scientific disciplines, in Europe and globally. The management and full utilisation of research data are now also at the top of the European agenda, as exemplified by Ursula von der Leyen addressat this year’s World Economic Forum.However, the implementation of RDM remains divergent across Europe. The white paper was written by a diverse team of RDM specialists, including data scientists and data stewards, with the work led by the RDM subgroup of our Task Force Open Science. The writing team included Angelina Kraft (Head of Lab Research Data Services at TIB, Leibniz University Hannover) who said: “The launch of RDM courses and teaching materials at universities of science and technology is a first important step to motivate people to manage their data. Furthermore, professors and PIs of all disciplines should actively support data management and motivate PhD students to publish their data in recognised digital repositories.” Another part of the writing team was Barbara Sanchez (Head of Centre for Research Data Management, TU Wien) and Malgorzata Goraczek (International Research Support / Data Management Support, TU Wien) who added:“A reliable research data infrastructure is a central component of any RDM service. In addition to the infrastructure, proper RDM is all about communication and cooperation. This includes bringing tools, infrastructures, staff and units together.” Alastair Dunning (Head of 4TU.ResearchData, Delft University of Technology), also one of the writers, added: “There is a popular misconception that better research data management only means faster and more efficient computers. In this white paper, we emphasise the role that training and a culture of good research data management must play.” In the spirit of collaboration, and with the knowledge that community efforts will help take us all further, we hereby extend an open invitation for stakeholders who are interested in engaging in this area to contact us. For more information about this position, please contact our Advisor for Research and Innovation Mattias Björnmalm.

There were 1,057,188 international students studying in the United States in the 2022/23 academic year. This is an increase from the previous year, when 948,519 international students were studying in the United States.

Arctic Vegetation Archive - Alaska: Oumalik Vegetation Plots. The vegetation in the vicinity of Oumalik Oil Well Number 1 was described and mapped by J. Ebersole for his doctoral thesis at the University of Colorado, Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology (Ebersole 1985). Funding for the research came primarily from the Cold Climate Research Laboratory based on support from the U. S. Geological Survey program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and the U. S. Department of Energy. Additional funding came from a National Science Foundation (NSF) Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, a University of Colorado (CU) Graduate Student Foundation Fund Award, a NSF Graduate Fellowship, a Danforth Foundation Graduate Fellowship, and a CU Tuition Fellowship. The study was initiated in 1979 with additional fieldwork completed in 1980 and 1981. A total of one hundred forty-nine plots were subjectively located for uniformity in floristic composition and environmental conditions. Sixty-two plots included only vascular plant data and are not included in this dataset. Of the eighty-seven remaining plots, fifty-four were located in natural habitats and thirty-three in anthropogenically disturbed habitats. The fifty-four natural plots occurred in fourteen habitat types including: a) zoogenic communities (2 plots), b) naturally eroding lake or river bluffs dominated by graminoids and forbs (4 plots), c) naturally eroding lake or river bluffs dominated by shrubs (2 plots), d) willow shrub vegetation of riparian areas and warm habitats (1 plot), e) bog vegetation, acidic mires, including tussock tundra (22 plots), f) moist to wet acidic tussock and nontussock tundra (3 plots), g) moist to wet acidic low-shrub heaths (1 plot), h) moderately drained deep snowbeds (1 plot), i) moist and dry acidic dwarf-shrub heaths (8 plots), j) dry and mesic dwarf-shrub and graminoid vegetation on non-acidic substrate (1 plot), k) dry nonacidic tundra (1 plot), l) shallow nonacidic snowbeds (2 plots), m) moist nonacidic tundra (3 plots), and n) frost boil vegetation in nonacidic tundra (3 plots). Plots were permanently marked with a stake and on an aerial photograph, and the size of each sample area was estimated after a complete species list and cover were obtained. Environmental data (including soil physical variables, subjective site assessments, and active layer depths) were collected in the field and soil samples were brought back to the lab for chemical assessments. DCA ordinations were used to analyze vegetation-environment relationships. These data were subsequently used in several publications listed below. References Ebersole, J. J. 1985. Vegetation Disturbance and Recovery at the Oumalik Oil Well, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Ebersole, J. J. 1987. Short-term recovery at an Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plain site. Arctic and Alpine Research 19:442-450. Ebersole, J. J. 1989. Role of the seed bank in providing colonizers on a tundra disturbance in Alaska. Canadian Journal of Botany 67:466-471. Forbes, B. C., J. J. Ebersole, and B. Strandberg. 2001. Anthropogenic disturbance and patch dynamics in circumpolar arctic ecosystems. Conservation Biology 15:954-969.