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 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.

The dataset is related to student data, from an educational research study focusing on student demographics, academic performance, and related factors. Here’s a general description of what each column likely represents:

Sex: The gender of the student (e.g., Male, Female). Age: The age of the student. Name: The name of the student. State: The state where the student resides or where the educational institution is located. Address: Indicates whether the student lives in an urban or rural area. Famsize: Family size category (e.g., LE3 for families with less than or equal to 3 members, GT3 for more than 3). Pstatus: Parental cohabitation status (e.g., 'T' for living together, 'A' for living apart). Medu: Mother's education level (e.g., Graduate, College). Fedu: Father's education level (similar categories to Medu). Mjob: Mother's job type. Fjob: Father's job type. Guardian: The primary guardian of the student. Math_Score: Score obtained by the student in Mathematics. Reading_Score: Score obtained by the student in Reading. Writing_Score: Score obtained by the student in Writing. Attendance_Rate: The percentage rate of the student’s attendance. Suspensions: Number of times the student has been suspended. Expulsions: Number of times the student has been expelled. Teacher_Support: Level of support the student receives from teachers (e.g., Low, Medium, High). Counseling: Indicates whether the student receives counseling services (Yes or No). Social_Worker_Visits: Number of times a social worker has visited the student. Parental_Involvement: The level of parental involvement in the student's academic life (e.g., Low, Medium, High). GPA: The student’s Grade Point Average, a standard measure of academic achievement in schools.

This dataset provides a comprehensive look at various factors that might influence a student's educational outcomes, including demographic factors, academic performance metrics, and support structures both at home and within the educational system. It can be used for statistical analysis to understand and improve student success rates, or for targeted interventions based on specific identified needs.

This dataset consists of a selection of variables extracted from the U.S. Department of Education's College Scorecard 2015/2016. For the original, raw data visit the College Scorecard webpage. This dataset includes variables about institution types, proportion of degree types awarded, student enrollments and demographics, and a number of price and revenue variables. For 2005-2006 data, see here.Note: Data is not uniformly available for all schools on all variables. Variables for which there is no data (NULL), or where data is suppressed for reasons of privacy, are indicated by 999999999.

ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE

ID2 1

UNITIDUnit ID for institution 100654

OPEID 8-digit OPE ID for institution 100200

OPEID6 6-digit OPE ID for institution 1002

State FIPS

1

State

AL

Zip

35762

City

Normal

Institution Name

Alabama A & M University

Institution Type 1 Public 2 Private nonprofit 3 Private for-profit 1

Institution Level 1 4-year 2 2-year 3 Less-than-2-year 1

In Operation 1 true 0 false 1

Main Campus 1 true 0 false 1

Branches Count of the number of branches 1

Popular Degree 1 Predominantly certificate-degree granting 2 Predominantly associate's-degree granting 3 Predominantly bachelor's-degree granting 4 Entirely graduate-degree granting 3

Highest Degree 0 Non-degree-granting 1 Certificate degree 2 Associate degree 3 Bachelor's degree 4 Graduate degree 4

PCIP01 Percentage of degrees awarded in Agriculture, Agriculture Operations, And Related Sciences. 0.0446

PCIP03 Percentage of degrees awarded in Natural Resources And Conservation. 0.0023

PCIP04 Percentage of degrees awarded in Architecture And Related Services. 0.0094

PCIP05 Percentage of degrees awarded in Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, And Group Studies. 0

PCIP09 Percentage of degrees awarded in Communication, Journalism, And Related Programs. 0

PCIP10 Percentage of degrees awarded in Communications Technologies/Technicians And Support Services. 0.0164

PCIP11 Percentage of degrees awarded in Computer And Information Sciences And Support Services. 0.0634

PCIP12 Percentage of degrees awarded in Personal And Culinary Services. 0

PCIP13 Percentage of degrees awarded in Education. 0.1268

PCIP14 Percentage of degrees awarded in Engineering. 0.1432

PCIP15 Percentage of degrees awarded in Engineering Technologies And Engineering-Related Fields. 0.0587

PCIP16 Percentage of degrees awarded in Foreign Languages, Literatures, And Linguistics. 0

PCIP19 Percentage of degrees awarded in Family And Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences. 0.0188

PCIP22 Percentage of degrees awarded in Legal Professions And Studies. 0

PCIP23 Percentage of degrees awarded in English Language And Literature/Letters. 0.0235

PCIP24 Percentage of degrees awarded in Liberal Arts And Sciences, General Studies And Humanities. 0.0423

PCIP25 Percentage of degrees awarded in Library Science. 0

PCIP26 Percentage of degrees awarded in Biological And Biomedical Sciences. 0.1009

PCIP27 Percentage of degrees awarded in Mathematics And Statistics. 0.0094

PCIP29 Percentage of degrees awarded in Military Technologies And Applied Sciences. 0

PCIP30 Percentage of degrees awarded in Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies. 0

PCIP31 Percentage of degrees awarded in Parks, Recreation, Leisure, And Fitness Studies. 0

PCIP38 Percentage of degrees awarded in Philosophy And Religious Studies. 0

PCIP39 Percentage of degrees awarded in Theology And Religious Vocations. 0

PCIP40 Percentage of degrees awarded in Physical Sciences. 0.0188

PCIP41 Percentage of degrees awarded in Science Technologies/Technicians. 0

PCIP42 Percentage of degrees awarded in Psychology. 0.0282

PCIP43 Percentage of degrees awarded in Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, Firefighting And Related Protective Services. 0.0282

PCIP44 Percentage of degrees awarded in Public Administration And Social Service Professions. 0.0516

PCIP45 Percentage of degrees awarded in Social Sciences. 0.0399

PCIP46 Percentage of degrees awarded in Construction Trades. 0

PCIP47 Percentage of degrees awarded in Mechanic And Repair Technologies/Technicians. 0

PCIP48 Percentage of degrees awarded in Precision Production. 0

PCIP49 Percentage of degrees awarded in Transportation And Materials Moving. 0

PCIP50 Percentage of degrees awarded in Visual And Performing Arts. 0.0258

PCIP51 Percentage of degrees awarded in Health Professions And Related Programs. 0

PCIP52 Percentage of degrees awarded in Business, Management, Marketing, And Related Support Services. 0.1479

PCIP54 Percentage of degrees awarded in History. 0

Admission Rate

0.6538

Average RetentionRate of retention averaged between full-time and part-time students. 0.4428

Retention, Full-Time Students

0.5779

Retention, Part-Time Students

0.3077

Completion Rate

0.1104

Enrollment Number of enrolled students 4505

Male Students Percentage of the student body that is male. 0.4617

Female Students Percentage of the student body that is female. 0.5383

White Percentage of the student body that identifies as white. 0.034

Black Percentage of the student body that identifies as African American. 0.9216

Hispanic Percentage of the student body that identifies as Hispanic or Latino. 0.0058

Asian Percentage of the student body that identifies as Asian. 0.0018

American Indian and Alaskan Native Percentage of the student body that identifies as American Indian or Alaskan Native. 0.0022

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Percentage of the student body that identifies as Native Hawaiian or Pacific islander. 0.0018

Two or More Races Percentage of the student body that identifies as two or more races. 0

Non-Resident Aliens Percentage of the student body that are non-resident aliens. 0.0062

Race Unknown Percentage of the student body for whom racial identity is unknown. 0.0266

Percent Parents no HS Diploma Percentage of parents of students whose highest level of education is less than high school. 0.019298937

Percent Parents HS Diploma Percentage of parents of students whose highest level of education is high school 0.369436786

Percent Parents Post-Secondary Ed. Percentage of parents of students whose highest level of education is college or above. 0.611264277

Title IV Students Percentage of student body identified as Title IV 743

HCM2 Cash Monitoring Schools identified by the Department of Ed for Higher Cash Monitoring Level 2 0

Net Price

13435

Cost of Attendance

20809

In-State Tuition and Fees

9366

Out-of-State Tuition and Fees

17136

Tuition and Fees (Program) Tuition and fees for program-year schools NULL

Tution Revenue per Full-Time Student

9657

Expenditures per Full-Time Student

7941

Average Faculty Salary

7017

Percent of Students with Federal Loan

0.8159

Share of Students with Federal Loan

0.896382157

Share of Students with Pell Grant

0.860906217

Median Loan Principal Amount upon Entering Repayment

14600

Median Debt for Completed Students Median debt for student who completed a course of study 35000

Median Debt for Incompleted Students Median debt for student who did not complete a course of study 9500

Median Debt for Family Income $0K-$30K Median debt for students of families with less thank $30,000 income 14457

Median Debt for Family Income $30K-$75K Median debt for students of families with $30,000-$75,000 income 15000

Median Debt for Family Income over $75K Median debt for students of families with over $75,000 income 14250

Median Debt Female Students

16000

Median Debt Male Students

13750

Median Debt 1st Gen. Students Median debt for first generation college student 14307.5

Median Debt Not 1st Gen. Students Median debt for not first generation college students 14953

Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 90% of Students (90th Percentile)

48750

Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 75% of Students (75th Percentile)

32704

Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 25% of Students (25th Percentile)

5500

Cumulative Loan Debt Greater than 10% of Students (10th Percentile)

3935.5

Accrediting Agency

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges

Website

www.aamu.edu/

Price Calculator

www2.aamu.edu/scripts/netpricecalc/npcalc.htm

Latitude

34.783368

Longitude

-86.568502

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.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Yogesh Singla

Contents

This study was designed to collect college student victimization data to satisfy four primary objectives: (1) to determine the prevalence and nature of campus crime, (2) to help the campus community more fully assess crime, perceived risk, fear of victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies and crime prevention measures, and (4) to make a contribution to the theoretical study of campus crime and security. Data for Part 1, Student-Level Data, and Part 2, Incident-Level Data, were collected from a random sample of college students in the United States using a structured telephone interview modeled after the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Using stratified random sampling, over 3,000 college students from 12 schools were interviewed. Researchers collected detailed information about the incident and the victimization, and demographic characteristics of victims and nonvictims, as well as data on self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers surveyed campus officials at the sampled schools and gathered official data to supplement institution-level crime prevention information obtained from the students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools, addressing various aspects of campus security, crime prevention programs, and crime prevention services available on the campuses. Additionally, mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus planning, facilities management, or related offices at the same 12 schools to obtain information on the extent and type of planning and design actions taken by the campus for crime prevention. Part 3 also contains data on the characteristics of the 12 schools obtained from PETERSON'S GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994). Part 4, Census Data, is comprised of 1990 Census data describing the census tracts in which the 12 schools were located and all tracts adjacent to the schools. Demographic variables in Part 1 include year of birth, sex, race, marital status, current enrollment status, employment status, residency status, and parents' education. Victimization variables include whether the student had ever been a victim of theft, burglary, robbery, motor vehicle theft, assault, sexual assault, vandalism, or harassment. Students who had been victimized were also asked the number of times victimization incidents occurred, how often the police were called, and if they knew the perpetrator. All students were asked about measures of self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 2, questions were asked about the location of each incident, whether the offender had a weapon, a description of the offense and the victim's response, injuries incurred, characteristics of the offender, and whether the incident was reported to the police. For Part 3, respondents were asked about how general campus security needs were met, the nature and extent of crime prevention programs and services available at the school (including when the program or service was first implemented), and recent crime prevention activities. Campus planners were asked if specific types of campus security features (e.g., emergency telephone, territorial markers, perimeter barriers, key-card access, surveillance cameras, crime safety audits, design review for safety features, trimming shrubs and underbrush to reduce hiding places, etc.) were present during the 1993-1994 academic year and if yes, how many or how often. Additionally, data were collected on total full-time enrollment, type of institution, percent of undergraduate female students enrolled, percent of African-American students enrolled, acreage, total fraternities, total sororities, crime rate of city/county where the school was located, and the school's Carnegie classification. For Part 4, Census data were compiled on percent unemployed, percent having a high school degree or higher, percent of all persons below the poverty level, and percent of the population that was Black.

We know that students at elite universities tend to be from high-income families, and that graduates are more likely to end up in high-status or high-income jobs. But very little public data has been available on university admissions practices. This dataset, collected by Opportunity Insights, gives extensive detail on college application and admission rates for 139 colleges and universities across the United States, including data on the incomes of students. How do admissions practices vary by institution, and are wealthy students overrepresented?

Motivation

Education equality is one of the most contested topics in society today. It can be defined and explored in many ways, from accessible education to disabled/low-income/rural students to the cross-generational influence of doctorate degrees and tenure track positions. One aspect of equality is the institutions students attend. Consider the “Ivy Plus” universities, which are all eight Ivy League schools plus MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Chicago. Although less than half of one percent of Americans attend Ivy-Plus colleges, they account for more than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, a quarter of U.S. Senators, half of all Rhodes scholars, and three-fourths of Supreme Court justices appointed in the last half-century.

A 2023 study (Chetty et al, 2023) tried to understand how these elite institutions affect educational equality:

Do highly selective private colleges amplify the persistence of privilege across generations by taking students from high-income families and helping them obtain high-status, high-paying leadership positions? Conversely, to what extent could such colleges diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of society’s leaders by changing their admissions policies?

To answer these questions, they assembled a dataset documenting the admission and attendance rate for 13 different income bins for 139 selective universities around the country. They were able to access and link not only student SAT/ACT scores and high school grades, but also parents’ income through their tax records, students’ post-college graduate school enrollment or employment (including earnings, employers, and occupations), and also for some selected colleges, their internal admission ratings for each student. This dataset covers students in the entering classes of 2010–2015, or roughly 2.4 million domestic students.

They found that children from families in the top 1% (by income) are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores, and two-thirds of this gap can be attributed to higher admission rates with similar scores, with the remaining third due to the differences in rates of application and matriculation (enrollment conditional on admission). This is not a shocking conclusion, but we can further explore elite college admissions by socioeconomic status to understand the differences between elite private colleges and public flagships admission practices, and to reflect on the privilege we have here and to envision what a fairer higher education system could look like.

Data

The data has been aggregated by university and by parental income level, grouped into 13 income brackets. The income brackets are grouped by percentile relative to the US national income distribution, so for instance the 75.0 bin represents parents whose incomes are between the 70th and 80th percentile. The top two bins overlap: the 99.4 bin represents parents between the 99 and 99.9th percentiles, while the 99.5 bin represents parents in the top 1%.

Each row represents students’ admission and matriculation outcomes from one income bracket at a given university. There are 139 colleges covered in this dataset.

The variables include an array of different college-level-income-binned estimates for things including attendance rate (both raw and reweighted by SAT/ACT scores), application rate, and relative attendance rate conditional on application, also with respect to specific test score bands for each college and in/out-of state. Colleges are categorized into six tiers: Ivy Plus, other elite schools (public and private), highly selective public/private, and selective public/private, with selectivity generally in descending order. It also notes whether a college is public and/or flagship, where “flagship” means public flagship universities. Furthermore, they also report the relative application rate for each income bin within specific test bands, which are 50-point bands that had the most attendees in each school tier/category.

Several values are reported in “test-score-reweighted” form. These values control for SAT score: they are calculated separately for each SAT score value, then averaged with weights based on the distribution of SAT scores at the institution.

Note that since private schools typically don’t differentiate between in-...

This dataset is imported from the US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and its "Data Explorer" site. The underlying data comes from the US Census

1. dataset: Specifies the month and year of the survey as a string, in "Mon YYYY" format. The CPS is a monthly survey, and NTIA periodically sponsors Supplements to that survey.

2. variable: Contains the standardized name of the variable being measured. NTIA identified the availability of similar data across Supplements, and assigned variable names to ease time-series comparisons.

3. description: Provides a concise description of the variable.

4. universe: Specifies the variable representing the universe of persons or households included in the variable's statistics. The specified variable is always included in the file. The only variables lacking universes are isPerson and isHouseholder, as they are themselves the broadest universes measured in the CPS.

5. A large number of *Prop, *PropSE, *Count, and *CountSE columns comprise the remainder of the columns. For each demographic being measured (see below), four statistics are produced, including the estimated proportion of the group for which the variable is true (*Prop), the standard error of that proportion (*PropSE), the estimated number of persons or households in that group for which the variable is true (*Count), and the standard error of that count (*CountSE).

DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES

1. us: The usProp, usPropSE, usCount, and usCountSE columns contain statistics about all persons and households in the universe (which represents the population of the fifty states and the District and Columbia). For example, to see how the prevelance of Internet use by Americans has changed over time, look at the usProp column for each survey's internetUser variable.

2. age: The age category is divided into five ranges: ages 3-14, 15-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65+. The CPS only includes data on Americans ages 3 and older. Also note that household reference persons must be at least 15 years old, so the age314* columns are blank for household-based variables. Those columns are also blank for person-based variables where the universe is "isAdult" (or a sub-universe of "isAdult"), as the CPS defines adults as persons ages 15 or older. Finally, note that some variables where children are technically in the univese will show zero values for the age314* columns. This occurs in cases where a variable simply cannot be true of a child (e.g. the workInternetUser variable, as the CPS presumes children under 15 are not eligible to work), but the topic of interest is relevant to children (e.g. locations of Internet use).

3. work: Employment status is divided into "Employed," "Unemployed," and "NILF" (Not in the Labor Force). These three categories reflect the official BLS definitions used in official labor force statistics. Note that employment status is only recorded in the CPS for individuals ages 15 and older. As a result, children are excluded from the universe when calculating statistics by work status, even if they are otherwise considered part of the universe for the variable of interest.

4. income: The income category represents annual family income, rather than just an individual person's income. It is divided into five ranges: below $25K, $25K-49,999, $50K-74,999, $75K-99,999, and $100K or more. Statistics by income group are only available in this file for Supplements beginning in 2010; prior to 2010, family income range is available in public use datasets, but is not directly comparable to newer datasets due to the 2010 introduction of the practice of allocating "don't know," "refused," and other responses that result in missing data. Prior to 2010, family income is unkown for approximately 20 percent of persons, while in 2010 the Census Bureau began imputing likely income ranges to replace missing data.

5. education: Educational attainment is divided into "No Diploma," "High School Grad," "Some College," and "College Grad." High school graduates are considered to include GED completers, and those with some college include community college attendees (and graduates) and those who have attended certain postsecondary vocational or technical schools--in other words, it signifies additional education beyond high school, but short of attaining a bachelor's degree or equivilent. Note that educational attainment is only recorded in the CPS for individuals ages 15 and older. As a result, children are excluded from the universe when calculating statistics by education, even if they are otherwise considered part of the universe for the variable of interest.

6. sex: "Male" and "Female" are the two groups in this category. The CPS does not currently provide response options for intersex individuals.

7. race: This category includes "White," "Black," "Hispanic," "Asian," "Am Indian," and "Other" groups. The CPS asks about Hispanic origin separately from racial identification; as a result, all persons identifying as Hispanic are in the Hispanic group, regardless of how else they identify. Furthermore, all non-Hispanic persons identifying with two or more races are tallied in the "Other" group (along with other less-prevelant responses). The Am Indian group includes both American Indians and Alaska Natives.

8. disability: Disability status is divided into "No" and "Yes" groups, indicating whether the person was identified as having a disability. Disabilities screened for in the CPS include hearing impairment, vision impairment (not sufficiently correctable by glasses), cognitive difficulties arising from physical, mental, or emotional conditions, serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, difficulty dressing or bathing, and difficulties performing errands due to physical, mental, or emotional conditions. The Census Bureau began collecting data on disability status in June 2008; accordingly, this category is unavailable in Supplements prior to that date. Note that disability status is only recorded in the CPS for individuals ages 15 and older. As a result, children are excluded from the universe when calculating statistics by disability status, even if they are otherwise considered part of the universe for the variable of interest.

9. metro: Metropolitan status is divided into "No," "Yes," and "Unkown," reflecting information in the dataset about the household's location. A household located within a metropolitan statistical area is assigned to the Yes group, and those outside such areas are assigned to No. However, due to the risk of de-anonymization, the metropolitan area status of certain households is unidentified in public use datasets. In those cases, the Census Bureau has determined that revealing this geographic information poses a disclosure risk. Such households are tallied in the Unknown group.

10. scChldHome:

This dataset explores residence and migration of all freshmen students in 4-year degree-granting institutions who graduated from high school in the previous 12 months, by state for Fall 2004 NOTE: Includes all first-time postsecondary students enrolled at reporting institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2005. (This table was prepared September 2005.) http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_209.asp Accessed on 11 November 2007

This dataset shows the percentage of students who graduated from Massachusetts public schools with a regular high school diploma within 4 or 5 years. It is a long file that contains multiple rows for each school and district, with rows for different years and different student groups.

Note: Data is currently available at the school level only, as well as the state overall. For district-level graduation rates, please see the High School Graduation Rates dataset, or the High School Graduation Rates report on our DESE Profiles site.

Economically Disadvantaged was used 2015-2021. Low Income was used prior to 2015, and a different version of Low Income has been used since 2022. Please see the DESE Researcher's Guide for more information. 

For more data about student experiences and outcomes in high school and beyond, please see the main DART: Success After High School dataset and dashboard.

In the early 2000s some were concerned that few soil science graduate students were receiving their bachelor’s degrees in soil science. However, no studies were conducted to investigate this or how it may have changed over time. Information available on university webpages for faculty in the USA was used to determine the faculty’s bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree disciplines. Faculty rank was used to determine if a change had occurred in the percent of faculty who received their bachelor’s degrees in soil science over time. Only 16% of faculty teaching in programs that prepare graduates to work as soil scientists received their bachelor’s degrees in soil science. This percentage increased to 56% and 67% who received their master’s and doctoral degrees, respectively, in soil science, but about 26% of faculty who teach in soil science preparatory programs did not have any degrees that could be identified as a “soil science” degree. The degrees that faculty received their training...

This layer shows computer ownership and internet access by education. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. This layer is symbolized to show the percent of the population age 25+ who are high school graduates (includes equivalency) and have some college or associate's degree in households that have no computer. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B28006 Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases, specifically, the National Sub-State Geography Database (named tlgdb_(year)_a_us_substategeo.gdb). Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract level boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2023 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters).The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

This data collection relates to project 3.4 of the Centre for Global Higher Education: The transformative potential of MOOCs and contrasting online pedagogies. The response of higher education systems to the possibilities of digital technologies has been sporadic and localised. System-level initiatives relate more to administration and research than to education, while institution-level responses focus mainly on installing virtual learning environments. One area where digital innovation in HE has been rapid and large-scale is the phenomenon of the spread of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). The top universities in the US, a few in the UK, the EU, the Far East, Australia, and now also in parts of the Global South, have experimented with this form of HE. The transformative potential of MOOCs, while widely forecast, is still uncertain, for several reasons: MOOCs have done little to transform undergraduate education, as some 80 per cent of participants are highly qualified professionals. MOOC affordances and the large-scale participation rates are incompatible with the personal nurturing and scaffolding that supports high quality student learning. Universities and platform developers are still developing the business models they need to make MOOCs sustainable, and financially viable. In order to explore what features of MOOCs have most potential to transform Higher Education, in depth interviews with MOOC participants were conducted online.The last two generations have seen a remarkable world-wide transformation of higher education (HE) into a core social sector with continually expanding local and global reach. Most nations are moving towards, or have already become, 'high participation' HE systems in which the majority of people will be educated to tertiary level. In the UK HE is at the same time a pillar of science and the innovation system, a primary driver of productivity at work, a major employer and a mainstay of cities and regions, and a national export industry where 300,000 non-EU students generated over £7 billion in export-related earnings for the UK in 2012-13. In 2012, 60 per cent of UK school leavers were expected to graduate from tertiary education over the lifetime, 45 per cent at bachelor degree level, compared to OECD means of 53/39 per cent. Higher education and the scientific research associated with universities have never been more important to UK society and government. HE is large and inclusive with a key role in mediating the future. Yet it is poorly understood. Practice has moved ahead of social science. There has been no integrated research centre dedicated to this important part of the UK. The Centre for Engaged Global Higher Education (CEGHE), which has been funded initially for five years by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), now fills that gap. On behalf of the ESRC CEGHE conducts and disseminates research on all aspects of higher education (HE), in order to enhance student learning and the contributions of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to their communities; develop the economic, social and global engagement of and impacts of UK HE; and provide data resources and advice for government and stakeholder organisations in HE in the four nations of the UK and worldwide. CEGHE is organised in three closely integrated research programmes that are focused respectively on global, national-system and local aspects of HE. CEGHE's team of researchers work on problems and issues with broad application to the improvement of HE; develop new theories about and ways of researching HE and its social and economic contributions; and respond also to new issues as they arise, within the framework of its research programmes. An important part of CEGHE's work is the preparation and provision of data, briefings and advice to national and international policy makers, for HEIs themselves, and for UK organisations committed to fostering HE and its engagement with UK communities and stakeholders. CEGHE's seminars and conferences are open to the public and it is dedicated to disseminating its research findings on a broad basis through published papers, media articles and its website and social media platform. CEGHE is led by Professor Simon Marginson, one of the world's leading researchers on higher education matters with a special expertise in global and international aspects of the sector. It works with partner research universities in Sheffield, Lancaster, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, Netherlands, China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan and USA. Among the issues currently the subject of CEGHE research projects are inquiries into ways and means of measuring and enhancing HE's contribution to the public good, university-industry collaboration in research, the design of an optimal system of tuition loans, a survey of the effects of tuition debt on the life choices of graduates such as investment in housing and family formation, the effects of widening participation on social opportunities in HE especially for under-represented social groups, trends and developments in HE in Europe and East Asia and the implications for UK HE, the emergence of new HE providers in the private and FE sectors, the future academic workforce in the UK and the skills that will be needed, student learning and knowledge in science and engineering, and developments in online HE

U.S. citizens with a professional degree had the highest median household income in 2023, at 172,100 U.S. dollars. In comparison, those with less than a 9th grade education made significantly less money, at 35,690 U.S. dollars. Household income The median household income in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, but rose to around 70,000 U.S. dollars in 2021. Maryland had the highest median household income in the United States in 2021. Maryland’s high levels of wealth is due to several reasons, and includes the state's proximity to the nation's capital. Household income and ethnicity The median income of white non-Hispanic households in the United States had been on the rise since 1990, but declining since 2019. While income has also been on the rise, the median income of Hispanic households was much lower than those of white, non-Hispanic private households. However, the median income of Black households is even lower than Hispanic households. Income inequality is a problem without an easy solution in the United States, especially since ethnicity is a contributing factor. Systemic racism contributes to the non-White population suffering from income inequality, which causes the opportunity for growth to stagnate.