Executive Summary

Median earnings are the workhorse metric for postsecondary accountability, but the median tells only part of the story. Across all three levels of this report – national, state, and institutional – pairing the median with distributional metrics reveals patterns that the median alone would not. 

• We present a framework to look beyond the median. Using Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes (PSEO) data, we examine three distributional metrics for undergraduate credentials: the earnings floor (25th percentile, one year after completion), earnings growth (change in 25th percentile from year one to five), and earnings dispersion (75th minus 25th percentile, one year after completion). Together, these capture downside risk, upward trajectory, and the gap between a program's most and least successful graduates.
• Nationally, earnings growth never closes the initial gap for low earners. Across every state and every undergraduate credential level examined, the bottom quartile of graduates does not catch up within five years to where the top quartile of their cohort started. This finding holds in all 13 states with strong PSEO coverage and is invisible in median-based comparisons. Minnesota stands out as the only state landing in the high floor, high-growth sweet spot at all three credential levels; Texas leads on bachelor's-level floors and growth but shows persistently wide dispersion across every credential level.
• Program choice can matter more than state of residence. In Texas, two-digit CIP analysis reveals top-to-bottom program ranges of roughly $23,000 at the certificate level, $28,000 at the associate level, and $35,000 at the bachelor's level – far wider than any cross-state gap. STEM programs frequently post both high floors and growth, while health professions exhibit a distinctive front-loaded pattern of strong entry wages followed by slower growth.
• Methodological decisions in accountability frameworks carry substantive weight. Under Texas's current Credentials of Value framework, a $30,000 self-sufficient wage threshold is largely non-binding: 24 of 28 well-populated associate programs clear it at the bottom quartile of graduates. Under a population-weighted threshold closer to $36,000, only 12 of 28 clear it, with academic and transfer-oriented programs – including the largest program, academic associate degrees – failing the test. Percentile choice, aggregation rule, and other assumptions together determine which credentials are deemed fundable.
• Distributional metrics surface insights institutional program review may otherwise miss. At Dallas College, healthcare programs are the only field cluster delivering high floors, strong growth, and tight dispersion at both the certificate and associate levels. IT and computing programs show stark divergence between certificate-level underperformance and associate-level strength, raising portfolio-design questions about how short-term tech credentials are positioned. A handful of certificate programs show negative wage growth at the bottom quartile, flagging cases where institutional engagement, pathway redesign, or finer program-level analysis is warranted.
• A distributional lens does not replace the median, it contextualizes it. Median earnings remain a useful, statistically rigorous indicator, but reading them alongside floor, growth, and dispersion surfaces equity questions that headline numbers obscure: whether the bottom quartile of graduates is being left behind, whether wage trajectories match the promise of entry wages, and whether program medians conceal materially different distributional outcomes. Differences between the median and the bottom quartile can spur institutional conversations to understand how to improve outcomes for all students. 

The bottom-quartile graduate is not a statistical curiosity. They are a real student whose post college trajectory is shaped by the program they chose, the institution they attended, the labor market they entered, and the policies that determined which credentials were available to them. Reading postsecondary outcomes as distributions whose shape matters as much as their center – rather than as single numbers attached to programs and institutions – is the next step toward accountability frameworks, institutional practices, and student-facing information systems that fully deliver on the promise of postsecondary outcomes data.

Visit the Dashboard to Explore More

A companion dashboard accompanying this report allows readers to explore even more findings, including PSEO data for other states and institutions not covered within this report. 

Accessibility

Dallas College is committed to ensuring accessibility of its digital technology and electronic documents. Should you experience any difficulty in accessing information on this webpage, please contact Navi Dhaliwal at ResearchInstitute@DallasCollege.edu.