Colleagues —
The conversation around postsecondary value continues to evolve. For years, much of the national debate centered on a broad question: Is college worth it? But improving college value is more complex than a simple yes-or-no debate. Increasingly, policymakers, researchers, institutions, and students are asking more complicated — and more important — questions, such as: Worth it for whom, under what conditions, and measured how?
That’s part of what makes the recent conversations around proposed federal earnings premium tests so important. New accountability frameworks focused on earnings outcomes are helping sharpen attention on whether students are actually better off after pursuing a credential. That’s a worthwhile goal. Students deserve clear pathways to economic mobility, and institutions should be accountable for delivering value.
But as the field moves toward more outcomes-based approaches, especially beyond minimum standards, the details matter.
How value is calculated, what data is used, what time horizon is measured, how geography is accounted for, and more, can produce very different outcomes for institutions and students. We also need to acknowledge an uncomfortable reality: our data systems are still imperfect. Some states, like Texas, have strong education-to-workforce data systems. In many places, the available data remains incomplete or inconsistent. Federal datasets have improved transparency significantly, but there are still important gaps. That shouldn’t stop us from measuring value, but it should encourage humility and care in how we build accountability systems.
What’s encouraging is that the field is increasingly engaging these questions thoughtfully and with urgency. Researchers, institutions, policymakers, and philanthropy are all wrestling with how to build stronger and more comprehensive approaches to measuring value. A few examples worth exploring that highlight the nuances regarding how value is calculated:
- Time horizon matters. A program can look low-value in the first few years after completion but show a positive return over a longer window, especially in fields where earnings build more gradually. Texas’ credentials of value work, led in part by David Troutman, uses a 10-year threshold to ask whether typical students earn enough to cover their costs and exceed high school earnings; shorter windows can tell a very different story.
- Data timeliness matters, too. As Phil Hill has noted, some proposed federal accountability measures rely on outdated earnings snapshots that may no longer reflect current labor market conditions or institutional realities — raising concerns about making high-stakes policy decisions based on stale data. That means colleges can be judged on outcomes tied to students they can no longer support — and before institutions have access to timely, actionable data that reflects current programs, labor market conditions, or recent reforms.
- Geography changes the answer. A program may pass an ROI test when measured against local earnings but fail when compared to a statewide benchmark, or vice versa. Nick Hillman and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, show this clearly in their research exploring the differences between state vs. local earnings: Diné College, for example, looks below the state minimum return benchmark but above its local benchmark, underscoring why place matters in value calculations. This is especially important in states with multiple distinct labor markets, where wages, industries, and economic opportunities can vary dramatically across regions and may look very different from a single statewide median.
- The formula matters. Different approaches to measuring value answer different questions. Third Way’s Price-to-Earnings Premium asks how long it takes students to recoup what they paid, while Preston Cooper from AEI’s work on ROI estimates lifetime earnings gains after accounting for tuition, time out of the workforce, and completion risk. The Postsecondary Value Commission argues value should not only measure whether students earn more than a high school graduate, but also whether they earn enough to justify the cost of attendance, achieve economic mobility, and experience outcomes equitably across race and income — while also acknowledging the broader civic and societal benefits higher education can provide. Those methodological choices shape how institutions, programs, and even the purpose of higher education itself are evaluated.
- The data source matters. The Postsecondary Commission’s Texas study shows the promise of strong longitudinal data systems that can follow students across public colleges and universities over time. Those systems make more rigorous value analyses possible, but they also highlight how methodological decisions can shape results, including which students are included, what comparison benchmarks are used, and how earnings are measured across regions or state lines. As more states strengthen their linked education and workforce data systems, policymakers will have greater capacity to build nuanced and actionable approaches to measuring postsecondary value.
At the foundation, we’ve also seen growing alignment among funders and partners around the importance of stronger metrics and measures. Many organizations across the field are directionally aligned on the need to improve how value is defined and communicated — and there’s growing momentum to accelerate that work collaboratively.
Economic outcomes matter deeply. But they are not the only measure of value. Higher education also contributes to civic participation, community leadership, health outcomes, and opportunity in ways that are harder to quantify. The work ahead is not about finding a perfect formula or singular value metric. It’s about building better tools, better data, and better alignment so students and families can make more informed decisions — and so institutions are supported and held accountable in equitable ways.
Regards,
Patrick Methvin,
Director, Postsecondary Success
Quick takes
The true cost of college remains confusing
A new Hechinger Report story highlights how difficult it remains to be for students and families to compare the actual cost of attending college. While tuition prices are often front-and-center, non-tuition expenses like housing, transportation, food, and childcare can vary dramatically across institutions — and cost-of-attendance calculations are often inconsistent and difficult to navigate. As conversations around postsecondary value continue, transparency around the full cost of college remains critical.
Stabilizing state higher ed funding
A new report from the Center for American Progress examines how states can strengthen public higher education funding amid growing fiscal uncertainty and potential federal funding shifts. The report argues states should avoid across-the-board cuts that disproportionately affect institutions serving low-income students and instead prioritize funding models that support affordability, student success, and long-term economic mobility.
What comes after the completion movement?
A recent Inside Higher Ed opinion piece from Josh Wyner of The Aspen Institute, explores what the next phase of postsecondary reform should look like after years of focus on college completion. While increasing completion rates remains important, Josh thoughtfully argues the conversation must increasingly center on whether credentials lead to equitable economic outcomes and long-term value for students. The piece reflects the broader shift toward connecting completion, mobility, and postsecondary value.