Don’t Concentrate on the Money

The New York Times has given your most annoying uncle a chart.

Two weeks ago, the Times published an interactive tool comparing median earnings four years after graduation. Harvard fares well: Statistics ranks first atop peer programs, while Computer Science and Economics are in the top 10 and top five of their respective fields. Even English — Harvard’s concentration reported to have the lowest earnings — sits comfortably above the median national high school graduate income used as the baseline for the analysis.

We’re afraid the report gives the wrong impression to students. Treat these numbers as one limited source of information, rather than a verdict on the worth of your education.

For starters, the tables offer a snapshot through a keyhole. The data only includes concentrations with at least 15 students receiving federal financial aid graduating between 2017 and 2019. Factor in the exclusion of alumni still in graduate school, and it’s no wonder that only about 450 Harvard graduates appear.

Breaking that small group down by field produces some worryingly thin samples. Federal aid recipients may also differ systematically from their classmates in the careers they pursue, potentially influencing the results further. And by excluding graduates still enrolled in school, the data misses many aspiring lawyers, doctors, and academics whose undergraduate study may pay off farther in the future.

Our six-figure Statistics classmates can tell you the figures aren’t causal evidence, either. Students do not select their fields at random, so concentration choice may not be the cause of graduates’ earnings. Their prior preparation, career ambitions, and preferences may explain what they study and later earn.

Methodology aside, the labor market these graduates entered is already receding into history. Generative AI is reshaping entry-level work in ways no 2017 cohort could have anticipated. Even the darlings of the earnings charts, such as Computer Science, now face distinct hiring challenges.

In short, you’d suffer for treating this snapshot like a syllabus.

Nevertheless, earnings matter. College is expensive, debt constrains people’s choices, and money can be used for many good things. But asking which majors “pay off” risks framing one measure of an education’s value as its sole definition.

It would be easy to read these tables as a guide to what and where students should study — indeed, the Times suggests prospective college students can use its handy comparison tool to do just that. Yet, doing so uncritically would misconstrue both the value of a college education and the meaning of success.

Higher education is valuable for learning how to think and navigate the world. One can’t faithfully assign a dollar value to that — even in the form of a future paycheck.

A good university should prepare students to decide for themselves what is valuable. Success might entail scholarship, teaching, public service, artistic creation, social impact, or some combination thereof. None of these pursuits are reducible to what they earn.

Washington thus ought to resist that reduction, too. The reported data are being used to implement a new law that would cut off federal student loans to programs whose graduates do not out-earn the median high school graduate. Only about two percent of programs are at risk of failing, and Harvard clears the bar in every reported concentration.

But the law’s framing is flawed. When deciding how to fund higher education, the federal government must consider more than just projected income. Teachers, social workers, and public servants contribute enormously to society, often at lower salaries. A rule that treats this as a sign of failure ignores the value of their work.

So, to prospective liberal arts students: Study what interests you. Your choice will not lock you into a career, and the average outcome might not be yours.

By all means, read the numbers. Just remember that a median is not a mandate.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.