Latest news with #CEW
West Australian
23-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Chief Executive Women boss Lisa Annese warns against giving Donald Trump's diversity war too much air time
The freshly-minted boss of Chief Executive Women has cautioned against giving too much air time to Donald Trump's war on diversity and inclusion policies. Lisa Annese took the CEO role at one of nation's most powerful female lobby groups in January, two months after Mr Trump won the presidential election in a political resurrection that sent shockwaves though the US and around the world. On his first day back at the White House, Mr Trump scrapped Federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs to prevent discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. 'It's important not to talk it into existence (in Australia) just because it's a conversation in the US,' Ms Annese told The West Australian ahead of CEW's annual dinner in Perth this week. 'After the election of Trump . . . he was very public about rolling back on what they call diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the US and so people were reacting to that thinking, 'Oh well if that's being discussed, maybe we should preemptively roll back or preemptively re-examine what our approach is'. 'We've got buckets of evidence around why diversity and inclusion is good for business. Let's not panic and let's not just assume because some one person, or a few people, think that this is all about political correctness that that's actually true, because it's not.' Walmart, McDonald's and Facebook owner Meta are among the major US companies that have proactively scaled back their DEI initiatives to comply with Mr Trump's crackdown. Ms Annese notes that 'we never really did DEI in Australia, it's a very American thing'. 'What diversity and inclusion has meant in Australia is around how do we make sure that our processes, the way we develop talent and the way we support people into leadership draws on 100 per cent of the talent pool, not just 50 per cent of the talent pool,' she said. 'Whilst I've always supported organisations having targets to achieve these things, we don't have a lot of the affirmative action of the US and so it's a different thing here.' She reckons Australian businesses remain committed to the equality fight. 'I actually don't believe anyone has changed their position,' Ms Annese said. 'Whilst there's always resistance whenever you try and create change . . . I just haven't seen enough evidence in Australia that en masse, organisations are rolling back on (diversity and inclusion).' Ms Annese started the CEW role on January 6. Most recently, she was the CEO of Diversity Council of Australia, where was responsible for growing its membership to 1400 organisations. Prior to that, Ms Annese worked as a diversity practitioner at law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth and at the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. 'I feel really confident in being able to defend the work of the gender equality movement because I know it's good for business and it's good for people,' Ms Annese said. Meanwhile, outgoing CEW president Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz reflected on her two-and-a-half-year stint as 'an absolute honour and privilege, although not always easy'. 'CEW has made some really important contributions toward advocacy around gender equality in Australia with the lens that gender equality isn't a seesaw about about men versus women,' she said. 'It's genuinely something that is good for everybody and indeed the single biggest economic lever that we have. 'In shaping the narrative around the why of gender equality, it's because we need to create high performance teams from 100 per cent of the population.' CEW is in its final stages of selecting Ms Lloyd-Hurwitz's successor.
Forbes
21-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Top 10 U.S. Colleges With The Highest ROI—Backed By Data
Many U.S. colleges provide exceptional lifetime ROI, showing that strong financial returns come from ... More more than just famous names. While parents and students often fixate on prestigious university brand names, the data tells a different story. The U.S. colleges offering the highest return on investment aren't necessarily those with the most recognizable reputations. As college costs continue to soar, financially savvy families are shifting their focus from acceptance rates and campus amenities to long-term ROI. This analysis identifies an elite group of 10 U.S. colleges delivering seven-figure lifetime returns, examines why many frequently fly under the radar, and reveals how employers increasingly value skills-based education. The leading authority for measuring college ROI comes from Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW), which analyzes data from the U.S. Department of Education's College Scorecard. Their methodology calculates Net Present Value (NPV) over a 40-year career timespan, providing a comprehensive view of lifetime earnings potential. This approach accounts for critical variables like financial aid, graduation rates, and typical time-to-degree. It's worth noting that the CEW's calculations do not factor in the long-term impact of student loan debt. When evaluating ROI, prospective students should consider how loan repayment obligations might reduce their net financial gain. This specialized institution focuses exclusively on pharmaceutical sciences and healthcare, with graduates typically entering high-demand roles in pharmaceutical research, clinical practice, and healthcare administration. Despite its relatively low national profile, UHSP delivers returns that outpace even the most elite universities. As a member of the Claremont Colleges consortium in California, this small but mighty STEM powerhouse produces graduates who excel in engineering, computer science, and quantitative fields. With less than 1,000 students, Harvey Mudd maintains an intimate learning environment while delivering substantial returns. MIT's global reputation for excellence in science, engineering, and technology translates directly into exceptional graduate outcomes. The institution's deep connections to innovation ecosystems in Cambridge and beyond create pathways for graduates into high-growth sectors. Like UHSP, this specialized institution focuses on pharmaceutical sciences and healthcare professions, with graduates benefiting from the growing demand for healthcare expertise. The college's strategic location provides access to major healthcare employers across the Northeast. Formerly Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, with Boston, Worcester, and Manchester campuses, MCPHS offers specialized training in pharmacy, nursing, and allied health fields that consistently command premium salaries. This innovative engineering school in Massachusetts was founded in 1997 with a substantial endowment and a mission to reimagine engineering education. Its project-based curriculum and entrepreneurial focus produce graduates who excel in technical and leadership roles. As the highest-ranked Ivy League institution, Princeton combines elite academic credentials with generous financial aid, resulting in lower net costs for many students and consequently higher lifetime ROI. Penn's Wharton School of Business contributes significantly to this strong showing, with business and finance graduates commanding premium starting salaries and experiencing steep earnings trajectories. Caltech's intimate size and intense focus on scientific research and engineering create exceptional outcomes for graduates, particularly those entering technology and research sectors. Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, Stanford's graduates benefit from unparalleled access to technology companies, venture capital, and innovation networks that drive premium earnings. Despite their exceptional financial returns, many of these high-ROI institutions remain under the radar for several reasons: • Prestige Bias: Families choose brand-name universities instead of looking at actual results. The status that comes with attending a well-known college continues to influence their choices, even when data clearly shows they'd be better off financially at another institution. • Limited Marketing Reach: Specialized institutions like pharmacy colleges typically operate with smaller promotional budgets than state universities or elite private colleges. Their recruitment efforts often focus regionally rather than nationally, limiting their visibility among potential applicants from other parts of the country. • Acceptance Rate Misconceptions: While many applicants focus on ultra-selective universities, several top-ROI schools accept over half of qualified applicants. This accessibility goes unnoticed when families automatically equate selectivity with quality. • Geographic Limitations: Many colleges and universities primarily draw students from their immediate regions, despite offering returns that would justify national consideration. This lack of national visibility means qualified students outside these geographic areas often remain unaware of these high-return institutions. The data reveals that what you study matters more than where you study. Engineering, computer science, and pharmacy programs deliver superior returns regardless of institutional prestige, while business or humanities degrees vary based on brand name. Even at Stanford and MIT, STEM graduates significantly out-earn humanities majors. Georgetown's analysis shows that technical and quantitative fields provide more consistent returns across colleges and universities. Students maximizing financial returns should prioritize their field of study over the institutional brand. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers' (NACE) Job Outlook 2025 survey, nearly two-thirds of employers use skills-based hiring to identify promising candidates. This trend benefits graduates from high-ROI colleges and universities, as these schools typically emphasize practical training that develops real-world skills rather than just theoretical knowledge. However, the shift toward skills-based hiring means that even graduates from these high-return institutions can't rely solely on their alma mater's reputation. Employers increasingly use behavior-based job interviews, competency-based job descriptions, and resume screening for specific skills. These practices require all candidates to demonstrate their capabilities regardless of college pedigree. Given the availability of ROI metrics, students should approach college and university selection like any other significant investment by analyzing costs, risks, and expected returns. This approach positions students for long-term financial success regardless of shifting economic conditions. The colleges highlighted here demonstrate that prestige and financial payoff don't always align. Many less prominent schools deliver far superior financial returns than their more famous counterparts. Students can maximize their ROI by running careful calculations, choosing majors strategically and focusing on developing marketable skills throughout their college experience. In today's competitive environment, this data-driven approach to selecting a college is essential to securing a strong financial future.
Forbes
04-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Calculating The Return On Investment From College
In the great debate over the return on investment (ROI) from college, no organization looms as large as Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW). CEW got into the ROI business in 2011 report with its report on The College Payoff, which calculated a $1M 'college premium' based on the fact that college graduates have lifetime earnings of $2.3M while high school graduates earn $1M less. CEW updated the report in 2021 and, employing the same methodology, declared the college premium had swelled to $1.2M. But the methodology was deeply flawed. First, it didn't account for the cost of attending college or the opportunity cost of not working full time. Second, it made no attempt to correct or control for self-selection: characteristics that contribute to college matriculation and degree completion (i.e., talent, persistence, stability, health, family support, wealth) are correlated with higher income, degree or no degree. So even if CEW's numbers were correct, the $1M+ premium is at least partially (and perhaps entirely) explained by the fact that degree earners are the kind of people who were going to make more anyway. Promoting college ROI since 2011. getty In February, CEW made a big deal about an updated online tool that takes income data from the Department of Education's College Scorecard and ostensibly calculates the return on investment (ROI) for 4,600 colleges and universities. But CEW's tool is equally flawed. First, it's likely that the new calculations are less accurate because, in evaluating future income, CEW 'decided that the concept of net present value added an unnecessary source of confusion.' So according to CEW, a dollar earned 10 years from now is equal to a dollar earned today despite the fact that current income could be saved, invested, and worth a lot more down the line. The effect decreases the cost of college in the ROI calculation. But the bigger problem is how the new tool calculates ROI. According to the methodology: The ROI is the cumulative sum of earnings minus the total out-of-pocket costs based on the average net price. For example, we calculate the 10-year ROI for a predominantly bachelor's degree-granting institution as follows: 10-year ROI = year 6 earnings + year 7 earnings + year 8 earnings + year 9 earnings + year 10 earnings – average net price x 5. In other words, CEW assumes it takes a student five years to complete a degree and then adds up total income over the next five years (presumably the first five years of work) while subtracting the cost of college. On one hand, this is an improvement over The College Payoff which ignored cost. But on the other, CEW isn't calculating a return on investment. Return on investment could be determined by estimating incremental income earned as a result of (or at least subsequent to) a degree. But CEW's ROI calculation puts total income in the numerator. The implication is that the non-college population makes nothing, an assumption that dramatically exaggerates the college payoff. I don't know what CEW's new tool is calculating, but it's not ROI. That's bad enough. Worse, even exaggerated calculations – lower cost of college, total income instead of incremental – with the new College Scorecard data yield surprising results for CEW. Among public and nonprofit bachelor's degree-granting institutions, 260 have negative ROI at 10 years; the problem isn't limited to for-profit schools. And 'ROI' at the 10-year mark, and in most cases at 20 years, is lower for bachelor's degree-granting colleges than for schools offering certificate programs and associate degrees. CEW's response is to extend the timeframe. By going out 30 or even 40 years, the return is almost always positive. So in the email announcing the updated tool, after acknowledging 10- and 20-year challenges, CEW brightens up: However, over 40 years, the value of bachelor's degrees becomes more obvious, as the earnings of students who attend institutions that primarily offer bachelor's degrees outpace, in almost all cases, those of institutions that predominantly offer associate's degrees and certificates. Here's two things about 40 years. First, it's a long time. Try telling recent high school grads to go to college and take on student loan debt because it'll work out financially by the time they're 60. Second, introducing a 40-year timeline opens the door to what's transpired over the past 40 years. Those who graduated high school in 1985 and went onto college probably did just fine. That's because the cost of college was much lower and grads launched into a very different job market. Although CEW isn't using data beyond 10 years (it's extrapolating with 10-year income data from College Scorecard), any tool purporting to help high school graduates and their families make the right enrollment decision has to consider employment outcomes, digital transformation of the economy, the resulting skills gap, and the growing experience gap that AI is in the process of widening into a chasm which will be the downfall of millions of well-intentioned students unless we stop telling them that the only pathway to career launch and economic mobility is to enroll in college and earn a bachelor's degree. It seems as though CEW is out of the loop on employment outcomes: It's likely that data from a decade ago – data CEW used to update its ballyhooed tool – are irrelevant and misleading for making such a consequential investment decision. Other researchers have looked at the ROI question and come up with different answers. Douglas Webber, an economist at the Federal Reserve, calculates that if the total cost of college is $50,000 per year or more, the odds of coming out ahead today are no better than a coin flip. Last year Preston Cooper completed a comprehensive program-by-program ROI analysis with a sound methodology: considering net present value (albeit at a low discount rate), then estimating 'the increase in lifetime earnings that a student can expect when they enroll in a certain degree program, minus the costs of tuition and fees, books and supplies, and lost earnings while enrolled.' Unlike CEW, Cooper constructed counterfactual earnings i.e., what individuals would have made sans degrees. And his conclusions were a lot more nuanced than CEW's college cheerleading: College is worth it more often than not, but there are key exceptions. ROI for the median bachelor's degree is $160,000, but that median belies a wide range of outcomes for individual programs. Bachelor's degrees in engineering, computer science, nursing, and economics tend to have a payoff of $500,000 or more. Other majors, including fine arts, education, English, and psychology, usually have a smaller payoff — or none at all. I asked Cooper about the impact of digital transformation and AI, and he responded as I thought he would: It's true in both the stock market and higher education: past performance is no guarantee of future results. Students can use measures of college ROI as a starting point to help them decide on the path they want to take after high school. But they should also think about how the changing economy and labor market might affect their preferred future career--and adjust their decision-making accordingly. Based on the aforementioned trends, employment outcomes haven't gotten better over the past decade and are likely to deteriorate further. Although College Scorecard data exist for each degree program, CEW's updated tool reports college-level ROI. Per Cooper's analysis, 23% of bachelor's degrees have a negative lifetime ROI. But in averaging institutional ROI – like emphasizing a 40-year timeframe – CEW is masking the scope of the problem. Which leads to the conclusion that the purpose of Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce is to convince the public – and most important families paying tuition and taking on debt – that college is still the sure bet it was 40 years ago. I asked CEW about these shortcomings, and the email response was that they hope to do better next time: We are working on other projects that address some of the nuances you raise in terms of total vs incremental earnings, time horizons, and underemployment that incorporate other data sources. But CEW isn't acknowledging these limitations in its promotion of the updated tool. In announcing the new tool, CEW complained that 'the American public is inundated with mixed messages regarding the value of postsecondary education.' Well, there's a good reason for this: results are decidedly mixed. College is worth it for many, but not for all, or – when you add the growing legions of underemployed to stop-outs and drop-outs – even most. As currently constructed, college is an increasingly risky proposition and none of CEW's bad assumptions or blanket assertions will change that.
