The Return to a Sub-Baccalaureate Education: 

The Effects of Schooling, Credentials and 

Program of Study on Economic Outcomes 

Thomas Bailey* 

Gregory Kienzl* 

Dave E. Marcotte** 

*Institute on Education and the Economy and the Community College Research Center, 

Teachers College, Columbia University 

**University of Maryland, Baltimore County 

August 2004 

Prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education, 

U.S. Department of Education
2

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-00-

CO-0023. Elizabeth Warner served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views 

expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of 

Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should 

be inferred. 
3

Contents 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 4 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 5 

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 13 

II. Literature Review..................................................................................................................... 20 

Postsecondary Education Options............................................................................................. 20 

Returns to a Sub-Baccalaureate Education ............................................................................... 23 

III. Data......................................................................................................................................... 28 

National Education Longitudinal Study.................................................................................... 28 

High School and Beyond........................................................................................................... 32 

Beginning Postsecondary Students ........................................................................................... 33 

IV. Student Sample Demographics............................................................................................... 34 

National Education Longitudinal Study.................................................................................... 34 

High School and Beyond........................................................................................................... 35 

Beginning Postsecondary Students ........................................................................................... 37 

V. Economic Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 38 

Earnings by Level of Postsecondary Education........................................................................ 38 

Returns to Sub-Baccalaureate Enrollment and Degrees............................................................ 40 

Effect of High School Vocational Track................................................................................... 50 

Nontraditional and Special Populations .................................................................................... 51 

VI. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 58

 Summary of Findings......................................................................................58 

Policy Implications.................................................................................................................... 63 

References..................................................................................................................................... 65 

Tables .........................................................................................................69 
4

List of Tables 

Table 1: Student Sample Demographics...........................................................70 

Table 2: Economic Outcomes by Enrollment and Degree.......................................71 

Table 3: Economic Outcomes by Gender and Sub-Baccalaureate Program of Student and 

Degree.......................................................................................72 

Table 4: Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Women............................................73 

Table 5: Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Men................................................74 

Table 6: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: 

Women.......................................................................................75 

Table 7: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: 

Men..........................................................................................76 

Table 8: Estimates From Full Model: 

Women.......................................................................................77 

Table 9: Estimates From Full Model: 

Men...........................................................................................78 

Table 10: Immediate Returns to Degree and Enrollment by Age (Under 24 and 24 and 

Over).........................................................................................79 

Table 11: Immediate Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Women..............................80 

Table 12: Immediate Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Men..................................81 

Table 13: Returns to Degree and Enrollment by Disadvantaged Status: Women.............82 

Table 14: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: 

Women.......................................................................................83 

Table 15: Returns to Degree and Enrollment by Disadvantaged Status: Men..................84 

Table 16: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: 

Men..........................................................................................85 
5

Executive Summary 

Over the last 20 years, technological changes in the workplace have placed considerable 

pressure on the U.S. educational system to adequately prepare students for occupations that 

increasingly require specific skills. As evidenced by the growing wage gap between high school 

and college graduates, employers reward new hires for having the skills or credentials needed for 

their jobs, thus underscoring the importance of having either the requisite “tools in your toolbox” 

or at least some basic academic preparation to continue on into postsecondary education. 

However, certain educators and policy-makers have raised the question of whether vocational 

education at the high school level, with its focus on immediately entering the workforce after 

high school, adequately prepares students for college. At the postsecondary level, the debate has 

centered on whether vocational education restricts access to a four-year college, which may 

hamper future earnings because students who begin in occupational programs are less likely to 

obtain a bachelor’s degree. A small number of studies have examined the economic payoff for 

students who enroll in postsecondary occupational programs compared with high school 

graduates, but few have investigated whether the earnings of occupational students are 

statistically different than those of students in other types of postsecondary programs. Some of 

the criticism about vocational education could be allayed if the economic benefits are equal to or 

greater than those of other types of education. 

This report, therefore, estimates the returns to a sub-baccalaureate education. The 

analyses emphasize the effect of a student’s program of study (occupational or academic), the 

amount of schooling accumulated with and without attaining a degree, and the type of credential 
6

earned. We test whether the earnings of degree attainers are significantly larger than those of 

similar students with the same amount of postsecondary education but no credential. This 

difference is commonly referred to as the sheepskin effect. We also examine whether economic 

gains from occupational education are realized not only for students who concentrated on 

vocational education in high school but also for special subpopulations such as older students, 

racial-ethnic minorities, and academically or economically disadvantaged students. 

The findings in this report are based on three nationally representative samples of young 

adults in each of the last two decades, namely, the Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS89), High School and Beyond (HS&B), and the National Education 

Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS). BPS89 allows us to examine the immediate economic 

outcomes of sub-baccalaureate students approximately one to two years after college, while 

HS&B and NELS extend that period to roughly five to seven years. We measure the benefits to 

postsecondary education and degrees using the annual income (in log form) of all individuals 

from the last observable year of each study: 1993 in BPS89;1

 1991 in HS&B; and 1999 in NELS. 

For BPS89 and HS&B, postsecondary enrollment is based on student self-reported monthly 

enrollment, which we converted to a full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment measure. However, 

enrollment information with this level of detail was not available in the last six years of NELS 

(from 1994 to 2000). Instead, students were asked to report their highest degree. Those who had 

not completed a degree were asked to estimate the total FTE years of postsecondary education 

 

1

 We caution the reader when examining the economic returns analysis using BPS89. To allow for at least one year 

of work experience after leaving college, we restricted the BPS89 sample to those who completed or left college 

after six semesters. Although this period is sufficient time for most sub-baccalaureate students to earn a credential, it 

is two semesters fewer than what is typically needed for a bachelor’s degree. Thus, our economic outcome results 

for baccalaureate students in BPS89 are weak. 
7

completed, but this figure is capped at three years. Nevertheless, our NELS estimates are robust 

and consistent with previous studies. 

The findings from our analysis of economic outcomes are summarized as follows.

(1) Higher levels of education are associated with more stable and economically sustaining 

employment outcomes. The pattern is unmistakable: Employment outcomes improve as 

individuals complete more years of education. For example, sub-baccalaureate students 

are more likely to be employed, work full-time, and have higher pay rates than high 

school graduates. However, at similar levels of education, men enjoy a clear advantage 

over women. At the sub-baccalaureate level, nearly 97 percent of men are currently 

employed whereas 85 percent of women are. In terms of pay rate, sub-baccalaureate men 

earn $3 more per hour than women. Nevertheless, the difference in employment 

outcomes between men and women diminishes as education increases. 

(2) Completing a certificate increases women’s earnings, but it provides no statistically 

significant economic benefit for men. In the 1990s, women who complete a certificate 

earn between 15 and 16 percent more than the average female high school graduate, but 

the economic gains are not statistically greater than those of similar women who 

complete a year of postsecondary education but do not attain a degree. In other words, 

there is no certificate sheepskin effect for women. In comparison, men who attain a 

certificate do not earn significantly more than high school graduates. 
8

(3) Attaining an associate degree is highly beneficial for both women and men, and this 

benefit is higher for occupational students than it is for academic students. Women who 

enroll in occupational programs and earn an associate degree enjoy a substantial premium 

(39 percent), compared with women who have no postsecondary education. Evidence 

also indicates a significantly positive sheepskin effect associated with an associate degree 

for female occupational students. The overall return to an associate degree for men during 

the same time period was 16 percent. Men in occupational programs who attained an 

associate degree earned more than those with no postsecondary education. However, the 

difference in earnings between men with an associate degree and those with two years of 

postsecondary education and no degree are not significant, indicating little evidence of 

the existence of a sheepskin effect for men. 

(4) Substantial returns to a bachelor’s degree for both genders. Our analysis shows that the 

economic benefit to bachelor’s degrees in the 1990s is quite substantial, between 66 and 

67 percent higher for women than similar high school graduates and 37 percent greater 

for men, ceteris paribus. For both men and women, the returns to a bachelor’s degree is 

more than four times the return to a year of postsecondary education for a baccalaureate 

student without a degree. However, despite the high returns to the bachelor’s degree, the 

data do not support the presence of a sheepskin effect. 

(5) Students who took postsecondary course work without earning a credential experienced 

some economic benefit from their education. Women who are in baccalaureate programs 

but who do not attain a degree still earn 14 to 15 percent more than women without any 
9

postsecondary education in the 1990s. Women in sub-baccalaureate programs who do not 

attain a credential have lower returns to a year of course work than similar baccalaureate 

women, but their economic outcomes are still 10 percent higher than of those without any 

postsecondary education. Men who do not earn a credential in postsecondary education 

also experience economic benefit, but the returns are not as large as they are for women. 

Specifically, the economic value of a year of baccalaureate postsecondary education for 

men is 10 percent whereas the return to a year of sub-baccalaureate education for a 

similar population is 6 percent. 

(6) Among sub-baccalaureate occupational students who do not earn a credential, women 

experience little economic benefit from their postsecondary course work while men have 

modest benefits. Women who are in occupational sub-baccalaureate programs but who do 

not earn a degree or credential have significantly lower returns to a year of course work 

than do similar academic women (5 percent compared with 15 percent). In contrast, men 

who are in occupational programs but who do not attain a degree or credential earn 8 

percent more than men without any postsecondary education and 4 percent more than 

those in academic programs. 

(7) Occupational sub-baccalaureate students who had a vocational curriculum in high 

school earn no more than those without high school vocational preparation. The one 

exception to this finding is for women who earn associate degrees. Women who had 

vocational high school curricula who complete any associate degree experienced 
10

significantly higher earnings than those without high school vocational curricula. 

However, small cell sizes raise some doubt as to the robustness of this finding. 

(8) Younger students (under 24 years old) generally experience economic benefits to 

postsecondary education while those for older students are negligible.

2

 The economic 

outcomes of older men and women with postsecondary education were no different (and, 

in some cases, worse) than those of similar-aged individuals with no college. Moreover, 

some evidence indicates that attaining a certificate lowers earnings for older students. In 

contrast, the returns for younger students who earn a credential are generally positive. 

Young occupational women who earn an associate degree get 37 percent higher 

economic returns than those without postsecondary education. The return coefficients are 

positive for young men with certificate and associate degrees, but they are not statistically 

different from the returns of high school graduates. 

(9) Black men earn less than white men with similar levels of education, but the difference is 

insignificant for black (and Hispanic) women when compared with white women. Black 

men earn on average 38 percent less than white men irrespective of level of education.3

However, for women, immediate economic outcomes were not statistically different 

along lines of race and ethnicity. 

 

2

 Small sample sizes for older students in BPS89 may make the accuracy of these findings problematic. 

3

 The sample sizes in the BPS89 and NELS datasets do not allow us to distinguish between occupational and 

academic students among different racial-ethnic groups. 
11

(10) For students who are academically challenged, sub-baccalaureate occupational 

education can lead to positive earnings outcomes.

4

 The average economic returns for 

academically challenged women who attain an associate degree are large and significant, 

roughly 44 percent greater than those without any postsecondary education. However, 

women who are academically challenged and who fail to earn any postsecondary 

credential earn no more (or less) than high school graduates. Academically challenged 

men experience economic gains from both earning an associate degree and occupational 

course work not leading to a credential. This finding suggests an incentive for 

academically challenged women in occupational programs to persist and attain a subbaccalaureate degree whereas, for academically challenged men, no such incentive exists 

because economic benefits accrue for them with just postsecondary course work. 

(11) Economically disadvantaged students gain economic benefit from sub-baccalaureate 

occupational education, though the effects are different by gender.

5

 There is a positive 

and significant effect on earnings for economically disadvantaged, occupational females 

who attain an associate degree, yet they get no significant benefit from occupational 

course work without a credential. Conversely, men in this category experience sizeable 

returns to occupational course work without a credential, but those who attain an 

associate degree realize no significant additional gains. As with academically challenged 

students, women who are in occupational programs and who are economically 

 

4

 For the purposes of this study, we define “academically challenged” as any postsecondary student ranked in the 

lower two quartiles of those taking the standardized reading and math tests administered in 12th grade as part of the 

NELS survey. 

5

 For the purposes of this study, we define “economically disadvantaged” as any postsecondary student whose total 

family income in the year before starting postsecondary education was less than $20,000. 
12

disadvantaged have incentive to earn a degree whereas men in this category do not have a 

similar economic motivation toward completion. 

In summary, our findings generally support the conclusion that students benefit from subbaccalaureate education compared with those achieving only a high school diploma. We also 

find that among sub-baccalaureate students, those in occupational programs do economically at 

least as well as, and in some cases significantly better than, students in academic programs. 

Moreover, those who attain certificate and associate degrees generally have significantly higher 

returns to education than those with similar years of postsecondary education but no credential 

(the sheepskin effect), but the difference is often not statistically significant. However, noticeable 

differences are evident in the returns to postsecondary education and degrees by gender, with 

women generally experiencing greater economic benefit from schooling and credentials than 

men. 
13

I. Introduction 

 During the past two decades, the importance of education beyond high school in 

determining economic well-being has grown substantially. By the early 1990s, economists 

understood that, for decades, changing skill demands in the labor market have favored workers 

with more education.6

 Although the large influx of college-educated workers (created by the 

entrance of the Baby Boom generation into the workforce in the 1970s) temporarily suppressed 

the wage advantage associated with postsecondary education, by the early 1980s, the large 

supply shift abated, and the relative wages of workers with a college education began a dramatic 

and persistent increase.7

Though the technological and economic changes affecting the shift in labor demand are 

signs of a vibrant economy, they raise concerns about the economic reality faced by workers 

without any postsecondary education whose real wages have stagnated for the past 30 years. In 

response to these shifts, most policy-makers and analysts have focused on efforts to encourage 

high school students (and perhaps those already in the workforce) to enroll in postsecondary 

education. Unfortunately, policy and research on postsecondary education have tended to focus 

on education within four-year postsecondary institutions. Both in the arena of higher education 

policy and in the general perception of what postsecondary education means, two-year or sub-

 

6

 See Levy and Murnane (1992) for an early review. 

7

 Murphy and Welch (1989, 2002) have written extensively on wage inequality, but this strand of research is beyond 

the scope of this study. 
14

baccalaureate education receives little attention, and even less attention has been paid to 

occupationally oriented education.8

At the bachelor’s degree level over the last two decades, the number of college students 

majoring in liberal arts or academic subjects such as English, sociology or chemistry has 

declined both in absolute numbers and relatively while applied fields such as health, business, 

and education have increased. In fact, occupational fields now account for a majority of subbaccalaureate enrollments (Bailey, Leinbach et al. forthcoming; National Center for Education 

Statistics 2002). What are the implications of this trend? Do occupational fields at the subbaccalaureate level offer students good opportunities or do they lead them into educational 

pathways and occupations that limit their options and provide more restricted earnings potential? 

 Because this report is part of the National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE), 

we have a particular interest in the economic returns to occupational education. Occupational 

programs prepare students more or less directly for work while academic programs presumably 

provide a broader education. Many employers want to be able to hire workers who can start work 

without initial extensive training. Thus, one hypothesis might be that sub-baccalaureate students 

who pursue a more academic program might be more easily trained whereas those in an 

occupational program would need less training to be immediately productive. In evaluating 

occupational education, we would like to know what employers pay for workers with these 

different types of education. If employers value the specific preparation of an occupational 

program, are they, at least in the relative short run, willing to pay extra? An academic education 

 

8

 Community colleges are two-year postsecondary institutions that primarily award associate degrees. This category 

includes junior colleges but not vocational-technical institutes and many proprietary schools. 
15

at the sub-baccalaureate level may be useful but only as preparation for completing a bachelor’s 

degree. A wage premium for an occupational education would suggest that it would make sense 

for students to pursue an occupational course of study if they were not going to go beyond an 

associate degree. 

 Data are available to address many of these questions, yet higher education researchers 

and labor economists who analyze the returns to various levels of education have paid little 

attention to a sub-baccalaureate education in general and even less to an occupational subbaccalaureate education. Many studies of the earnings effect of education simply use an 

“undifferentiated years of schooling” variable or categorize any person without a bachelor’s 

degree but with education beyond high school as having “some college.” Only a handful of 

studies have sought to estimate the economic effect of a two-year or sub-baccalaureate 

education, with or without a certificate or degree, and even fewer have attempted to estimate the 

returns for occupational students. Moreover, those few analysts who have addressed these 

questions have used data from the 1970s and 1980s. The higher education system, the 

community college role within that system, the demographics of the student population and labor 

force, the nature of the labor market, and the technological characteristics of jobs have all 

changed in the last 30 years, casting doubt on the conclusions implied by these studies. 

 This report presents an analysis of the economic returns to postsecondary education. It 

adds to the current knowledge in this area both by focusing on the returns to occupational subbaccalaureate education and by using a newly released dataset, the National Education 

Longitudinal Survey of 1988 (NELS). NELS comprises a nationally represented sample of 
16

eighth grade students in 1988. To get some understanding of trends, we also conducted a similar 

analysis of the High School and Beyond (HS&B) dataset that is composed of students who were 

high school sophomores in 1980. HS&B follows this cohort of young adults until 1992, when 

most were in their late 20s. Both of these datasets provide detailed information with respect to 

investments in postsecondary education and economic outcomes from a representative sample of 

more than 7,000 men and women who finished high school in the early 1980s and 1990s. Our 

analysis is based on data on annual earnings collected eight years (NELS) and 10 years (HS&B) 

after scheduled high school graduation. 

We also used the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Survey (BPS89) 

dataset, which tracks a cohort of first-time beginning students in the 1989–90 academic year for 

four years. With BPS89, short-term (one to two years after college) returns to education are 

estimated, but there are several caveats that will be explained in the following discussion. Unlike 

NELS and HS&B, a major advantage of this dataset is that education and work experiences of 

older students can be observed (27 percent of the sample are age 24 and older). However, to 

allow for at least one year of work experience after leaving college, we had to restrict the sample 

to those who completed or left college after six semesters, which is two semesters fewer than 

what is typically needed for a bachelor’s degree. We recognize that the estimates from the 

restricted sample do not necessarily represent those of all first-time beginners in BPS89. 

Therefore, caution must be taken when reading the returns from this analysis. 

In this report, we present findings from our analyses of economic benefits using the 

HS&B and NELS data and briefly discuss our analysis of immediate economic outcomes of 
17

special populations using BPS89. Our analyses have been designed to answer the following 

questions: 

(1) What are the average earnings benefits associated with sub-baccalaureate degrees? 

(2) How do the earnings of sub-baccalaureate students (those who complete degrees and 

those who do not) compare with the earnings of individuals who have no more than a 

high school diploma? 

(3) Do occupational students who earn degrees earn more than those who complete an 

equivalent amount of education but do not earn degrees (referred to as the sheepskin, or 

program, effect)? 

(4) Is the sheepskin effect stronger or weaker for occupational students than it is for 

academic students? 

(5) What is the effect of enrollment in a high school vocational track on the subsequent 

earnings of sub-baccalaureate students, and does the high school track have a different 

effect on the earnings of academic and occupational sub-baccalaureate students? 

(6) Is occupational education beneficial for subpopulation groups such as students who are 

older, students who belong to a racial-ethnic minority, or students who are academically 

or economically disadvantaged? 
18

 This report is structured as follows. First, we provide a brief review of the literature, with 

a specific focus on the returns to different aspects of occupational education. Second, we 

describe the datasets and the samples studied here, highlighting both educational experiences and 

economic outcomes. Next, we describe average earnings and employment differences among 

students in the NELS, HS&B and BPS89 samples who engaged in various forms of 

postsecondary study. Finally, we present results from a variety of multivariate models estimated 

to identify returns to enrollment and credentials from sub-baccalaureate programs and to answer 

the questions posed above. 

 To maintain terminological coherence with the other reports we have done on this 

subject,9 sub-baccalaureate refers to those students who began at a two-year college or those 

who had a less-than-bachelor’s degree goal at their initial postsecondary institution. In all 

analyses, a college student can be either a baccalaureate (attending a four-year college) or a subbaccalaureate. Sub-baccalaureate students are further divided into occupational and academic, 

based on their initial program of study.10 Students who did not declare a major at their first 

postsecondary institution are retained in the sample and identified as such. Throughout this 

report, when we refer to a high school graduate, we mean a student who graduated from high 

school but who has no postsecondary education. In most of our analyses, high school graduates 

are the reference category; therefore, the coefficients on educational variables can be interpreted 

 

9 Bailey, T., M. Alfonso, M. Scott, D. T. Leinbach, G. Kienzl, B. Kennedy, and D. Marcotte (Forthcoming); 

Bailey, T., D. T. Leinbach, M. Scott, M. Alfonso, G. Kienzl, B. Kennedy, and D. Marcotte (Forthcoming). 10 Our classification of majors is based on Choy and Horn (1992) and further discussed in Bailey, T., D. T. 

Leinbach, M. Scott, M. Alfonso, G. Kienzl, B. Kennedy, and D. Marcotte (Forthcoming). 
19

as the earnings difference between whatever group the variable represents (say, those who 

completed an associate degree) and high school graduates with no postsecondary education. 
20

II. Literature Review 

 Research on the impact on students of enrolling in sub-baccalaureate educational 

programs has principally focused on two issues. First, researchers have examined the role 

of sub-baccalaureate programs on educational attainment. Evidence and debate have 

centered around whether sub-baccalaureate programs have (or should) facilitate transfer 

to four year institutions and degrees. Particularly important here has been the distinction 

between vocational and academic sub-baccalaureate programs. A second major focus of 

research has been on identifying the ultimate employment and wage outcomes of subbaccalaureate education. An important issue here has been identifying causal effects from 

non-experimental data. We turn to each of these major research foci, in turn. 

Postsecondary Education Options 

 Over the last 20 years, certain educators and policy-makers have challenged the wisdom 

of high school vocational education, arguing that high school studies should be focused on basic 

academic skills that provide the foundation for subsequent education.11 This argument is based 

on the notion, reinforced by the evidence on the growing wage gap between high school and 

college graduates, that some education beyond high school is now necessary to gain access to the 

types of jobs that generate enough income to support a family. Thus, high school vocational 

 

11 See Eaton (1993) and Dougherty (1994) for comprehensive reviews. 
21

programs that prepare students for work immediately after high school rather than prepare them 

for college restrict the potential earnings of students who enroll in them. 

 The same critique has been leveled against sub-baccalaureate education and, in particular, 

occupational programs at the postsecondary level. Some critics have challenged the economic 

value of an associate degree, arguing that these degrees confer little benefit beyond the value of a 

high school education (Brint and Karabel 1989; Dougherty 1994). According to this perspective, 

community colleges are most effective when they lead to transfer to a four-year program and, 

eventually, to a bachelor’s degree. This view would suggest that community college students 

would be best served by enrolling in a program oriented toward transfer. Thus, although 

occupational programs in community colleges can lead to a transfer, academic programs are 

explicitly designed to prepare students for upper division studies in a bachelor’s program, so 

students should be encouraged to pursue academic rather than occupational studies in community 

colleges. 

 In contrast, community college advocates suggest that this perspective is a distorted view 

of the role of community colleges. Although the transfer function is one important role of the 

community colleges, many students can benefit from a sub-baccalaureate education that does not 

lead to a bachelor’s degree. According to this view, associate degrees prepare students for a 

growing number of technical and technician-level jobs that play key roles in the economy. While 

in these jobs, workers do not earn as much on average as bachelor’s degree holders, but they do 

earn more than high school graduates, and the education also takes less time and money. Many 

community college faculty and administrators will even argue that students can benefit from 
22

education that does not result in an associate degree. Many students enroll in certificate programs 

that take one year or less and others simply enroll in courses with the objective of learning some 

specific targeted skills. For students with these types of well-defined goals, completing all of the 

requirements for a degree may not be efficient, leading them to spend time and money on extra 

courses that do not serve their needs. 

 The resolutions of these controversies have profound implications for the design of our 

educational system. In another of our reports (see Bailey, Leinbach et al. forthcoming), we show 

that millions of students enroll in community colleges every year and, of those, most are enrolled 

in occupational programs. However, a majority of these students neither transfer nor graduate 

with associate degrees. We have also shown that some evidence indicates that, among subbaccalaureates, occupational students are less likely than academic students either to earn an 

associate degree or to transfer, although that difference is stronger with respect to transfer than to 

degree completion (Bailey, Alfonso et al. forthcoming). 

 Are these observations an indication of a massive misallocation of resources? Should 

community colleges focus on academic transfer-oriented programs and redouble their efforts to 

retain students? Or are these varied outcomes an indication of an efficient allocation of resources 

that provides many different levels of education corresponding to the varied needs of students 

and the economy? Although students might earn more by completing their programs of study or 

by seeking ever-higher degrees, they would also need to spend more time and resources to 

achieve those higher levels of education. This perspective would also view sub-baccalaureate 

occupational education in a much more favorable light. Focused occupational programs would 
23

seem to be better suited for students expecting to work (rather than transfer) after achieving an 

associate degree or for those who seek specific skills through either some collection of courses or 

short-term certificate programs. Indeed, the large majority of certificate students are in 

occupational areas. 

Returns to a Sub-Baccalaureate Education 

 A great deal of empirical research has been conducted over the years to determine the 

causal effect of postsecondary education on earnings. The evidence supports the view that 

college is a profitable investment: More schooling leads to higher earnings.12 Young people have 

responded to those incentives, enrolling in college after high school in increasing numbers.13 But 

most of the research on the economic returns to college has focused on the four-year level, even 

though more than half of the students who attend college soon after high school enroll in a 

community college (National Center for Education Statistics 2002). Moreover, a majority of 

students at community colleges enroll in occupational program of study, but little empirical 

research has been conducted to determine whether students benefit economically from these 

kinds of programs. 

 Kane and Rouse (1995) wrote one of the most influential articles on the returns to a subbaccalaureate education and, subsequently, wrote a similar piece for a broader audience (Kane 

and Rouse 1999). According to their research, students who attain a baccalaureate degree 

 

12 Schultz (1961), Becker (1964) and Mincer (1974) are considered to be the forefathers of the early empirical work. 

For a more recent review of the literature, see Card (1999) and Grubb (2002). Grubb (2002) offers a thorough 

review of recent studies conducted on the return to a sub-baccalaureate education. 
24

experience a 10 to 20 percent increase in earnings compared with an associate degree holder. In 

addition, the economic returns to a sub-baccalaureate degree are roughly 15 to 25 percent higher 

than a high school diploma. The authors also argue that the return to a year of course work at a 

community college is the same as the return to a year at a four-year college: approximately 5 to 8 

percent.14 Although some variation exists in the estimated return to postsecondary education, one 

commonality is the existence of a wage premium for those who complete a degree (otherwise 

known as the sheepskin effect) compared with those who have completed similar years of 

postsecondary schooling but who have not gotten the credential.15 In fact, some have even 

suggested that attaining a postsecondary credential appears to matter more than acquiring workrelated skills while in college.16 

 Grubb (2002) provides a comprehensive review of the research on not only the returns to 

sub-baccalaureate credentials but also course work without degrees. He reports that most 

analyses find that individuals who complete associate degrees earn about 20 to 30 percent more 

than high school graduates, with estimates for men at the lower end of that range (and sometimes 

below the range) and those for women at the higher end of the range (and sometimes above it). 

He also concludes that a single year of course work (without completing a degree) at either a 

two- or a four-year school increases earnings by about 5 to 10 percent. Returns to certificates are 

varied and often not measurable, but this occurrence may be because of small sample sizes and 

 13 In 1972, about half (49 percent) of all high school completers between the ages 16 to 24 enrolled in a two- or fouryear college immediately after high school. A generation later, the proportion of young adults in college increased to 

63 percent (U.S. Department of Commerce 2001). 

14 Of course, the quality of two- and four-year institutions may lead to measurable differences in earnings, but this 

point is beyond the scope of this report. 

15 Kane and Rouse (1995) do find a positive sheepskin effect but argue that there are still benefits to accumulating 

credits without a degree. Heineman and Sussna (1977); Blair, Finn and Stevenson (1981); and Jaeger and Page 

(1996) also find sheepskin effects. 

16 See Card (1999) for a discussion. 
25

the small amount of education that the certificate represents. Grubb’s (2002) work is unusual in 

that it focuses on different fields of study at the sub-baccalaureate level. In general, he finds 

varied returns to different occupational fields but concludes that academic associate degrees have 

little value. Although he does not present estimates that differentiate between the aggregated 

academic and occupational fields, the implication is that the positive benefits that are found for 

associate degrees are the result of positive returns to occupational degrees. Thus, if the overall 

estimates of the returns to associate degree are in the 20 to 30 percent range, then the returns to 

occupational degrees could be even higher. 

 Another purpose of this study is to examine whether the effect of education differs for 

certain subpopulations such as students who are older, who belong to a racial-ethnic minority, or 

who are economically or educationally disadvantaged. As shown by Bailey, Leinbach et al. 

(forthcoming), a disproportionate number of these students attend community colleges, and they 

are also overrepresented in occupational programs. These groups are largely forgotten in the 

literature on returns to education, but in the past few years, three noteworthy studies have been 

published,17 and their findings are summarized in the following discussion. 

Leigh and Gill (1997) estimate the returns for a cohort of older students—those between 

the ages 28 and 35. On the one hand, they found that older female students who earned subbaccalaureate degrees did not earn significantly more than those without a credential. On the 

other hand, the value of a bachelor’s degree to older students over a high school diploma ranged 

from 46 percent to 73 percent increases in earnings, which is quite substantial. Finally, they 

reported the value of attending a community college without receiving a credential was higher 
26

for older men than for younger men, which Leigh and Gill (1997) suggest is because older men 

are more likely to enroll for specific, employment-related purposes. Our findings differ slightly 

from Leigh and Gill (1997), which may be contributed to the different samples or may signal a 

temporal shift in the returns to education for older students. 

 Education is widely viewed as a means to reduce the inequality in earnings between 

racial-ethnic minorities and whites. Given that black and Hispanic students make up a 

disproportionately larger share of community college enrollment, pressure is mounting on subbaccalaureate and occupational education to erase the existing disparity. However, although 

Averett and D’Allesandro (2001) indicate few statistically significant differences in the returns to 

education between black and white students (which they attribute to small sample sizes), they 

identified a consistent pattern in the data: The returns to an associate degree for blacks are 

generally higher than returns for whites. The authors point out that the slightly higher returns for 

blacks are offset by lower completion rates, which is a finding supported by Bailey, Leinbach et 

al. (forthcoming) using different data. 

 On final subgroup of interest consists of those who are academically or economically 

disadvantaged. With respect to economically disadvantaged students, Jacobson, LaLonde and 

Sullivan (1997) estimated the effects of community college programs in their study of displaced 

(and hence, unemployed) workers in Pittsburgh in the early 1980s and in Washington State in the 

early 1990s. Most had completed 26 to 30 credits, but slight gains in earnings resulted. Yet these 

overall effects masked substantial differences among fields of study, with sizeable positive 

 17 See Leigh and Gill (1997); Averett and D’Allesandro (2001); Jacobson, LaLonde and Sullivan (1997). 
27

returns to health-related credits and negative effects to basic or remediation education as well as 

to the humanities. 

 Thus, our project extends the research on the returns to sub-baccalaureate education in 

three important ways. First, we build on the work of Grubb and others by focusing on subbaccalaureate and, specifically, on occupational education. Second, we examine the differences 

in the returns to education for nontraditional, or special, populations. Finally, although most of 

the research so far has been based on data from the 1980s or earlier, this report makes use of the 

latest national data, which report information on education in the mid- and late-1990s. 
28

III. Data 

To study the employment and earnings impacts of sub-baccalaureate education in the 

United States, we examine data from three nationally representative samples of young adults in 

each of the last two decades. We make use of data from the National Education Longitudinal 

Study of 1988 (NELS) High School and Beyond (HS&B), and the Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS89). The BPS89 allows us to examine the immediate economic 

outcomes of sub-baccalaureate students approximately one to two years after college, while 

HS&B and NELS extend that period to roughly five to seven years. Each of these data sets has 

its own strengths. Collectively they can enable us to develop a richer, more informed assessment 

of the economic impacts of sub-baccalaureate education on the lives of students. We describe 

each of these datasets, and how they were used in our analyses below. 

National Education Longitudinal Study 

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS) presents data that track a 

nationally representative sample of eighth grade students in 1988 for 12 years. The National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted follow-up interviews in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 

2000. The information on postsecondary education and labor market experiences was collected 

in the spring of 2000, and annual earnings data for 1999 were used in the NCES analysis. Our 

analysis of this dataset represents a compromise between using the most recent data on 

postsecondary schooling and being able to track students’ employment for a reasonable number 
29

of years. We wanted to observe earnings many years after graduation because it may take young 

people some time to settle into their long-term careers that would, thus, best reflect their earnings 

potential. But as the time series lengthens, the data on the students’ educational experiences 

become out of date. Thus, most of the recent analysis of the outcomes of postsecondary 

education has been based on education that took place during the 1980s or earlier. In the case of 

NELS, we have data on education during the mid-1990s, and we have earnings data up to eight 

years after scheduled high school graduation and six years after scheduled graduation from a 

two-year program. 

 The NELS data are particularly useful in assessing early outcomes from schooling 

because NELS provides detailed information about (a) student educational tracks, including the 

highest degree earned, whether or not the student began at a community college, the type of track 

(vocational or academic) chosen in high school and the type of college enrollment and (b) 

whether the student attended full time, worked or transferred. This level of detail in a dataset 

permits extensive analysis of the returns to a wide variety of schooling experiences. 

 Although the NELS data do provide rich information on economic behavior and early 

educational investments, the data have an important limitation. The survey did collect 

information on degrees received, types of educational institutions where respondents enrolled 

and FTE credit hours. However, the information collected after 1994 is not as extensive as what 

was collected between 1992 and 1994. 
30

 Between 1992 and 1994 (the period during which most sample students had just finished 

high school and either had begun working or had enrolled in postsecondary education), much 

more extensive information about the type, intensity and persistence of college enrollment was 

collected. We made use of this information to construct variables characterizing the educational 

experiences of the sample. The variables include measures of whether the student’s first 

enrollment was at the sub-baccalaureate level and whether the program was occupational or 

academic. The survey did not ask students to report in detail on their enrollments after August 

1994. Rather, in 2000, they were asked to report on their highest degree. Those students who had 

not completed a degree were asked to estimate the total FTE years of postsecondary enrollment 

completed, which was capped at three years. In other words, all students in NELS who had spent 

more than three FTE years in college without earning a degree were recorded as having spent the 

same amount of time in college. 

 An additional limitation of the NELS data is that respondents were not asked about their 

total work experience in the years after high school. Work experience is known to affect 

observed labor market outcomes. Because students with no postsecondary education are likely to 

have more work experience in the early years after high school graduation, we anticipated that 

the failure to control for work experience would result in underestimates of the true returns to 

postsecondary schooling. 

To limit this problem, we made use of other information collected in the NELS survey. 

We divided the years between 1992 and 2000 into two distinct periods: time in school and time 

out of school. For the period when a student was not in school, we assumed he or she worked the 
31

same number of hours that was reported during 1999, the most recent year for which detailed 

employment information is available. To estimate the work experience of a student during the 

years enrolled in school, we made use of the detailed employment information collected at the 

third follow-up interview in 1994. At the third follow-up, information on the monthly 

employment status of each respondent between the 1992 and 1994 interviews was collected. For 

those enrolled, we observed the number of months worked while enrolled. We then assumed that 

the average annual months worked during this period while enrolled was the same as the average 

annual months during any enrollment period after the 1994 interview. We then added the total 

work experience during all enrolled periods with the work experience in periods not enrolled to 

obtain an estimate, in months, of each sample member’s total work experience. We used this 

measure of work experience, in quadratic form, in all earnings analyses. 

Each individual in NELS was given a variety of tests to measure their aptitude in 

mathematics, reading, science and history. For our analyses, we used the normalized scores on 

the math and reading tests, expressed in quartiles, with the lowest quartile test score serving as 

the reference category. Other family background variables used included family income and 

highest parental education. Family income was measured in 13 categories of various ranges, and 

the midpoint value of the range was used. For parental education, we created two binary 

variables. The first indicates whether at least one parent had enrolled in college or completed an 

associate degree and the second indicates whether a parent had attained a bachelor’s degree or 

higher.
32

High School and Beyond 

To develop a sense of the trends in earnings, we also conducted similar analyses using 

High School and Beyond (HS&B). HS&B follows a nationally representative panel of 1980 

sophomores for 12 years, or approximately 10 years after their expected high school graduation. 

The study design provided for a highly stratified national probability sample of more than 1,100 

secondary schools as the first-stage units of selection. In the second sampling stage, 36 seniors 

and 36 sophomores were selected from each school; overall, more than 30,000 sophomores 

participated in the base year (1980) survey. In high schools with fewer than 36 students in either 

of these groups, all eligible students were included. Longitudinal information was collected for 

less than half of the 1980 sophomore cohort, and no data were collected for 1980 seniors after 

the base year. Follow-up surveys were conducted in 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1992. 

To control for social and educational backgrounds, math and reading test scores and 

family income were used. Highest level of parental education was also used, and the variable 

was coded in a way similar to NELS. Self-reported enrollment and work experience information 

was collected in HS&B, so the problems associated with these data in NELS are not an issue. 

Students provided starting and ending months for each continuous period of work with a single 

employer and for each continuous (excluding summers) period of enrollment. We do not have 

information on the intensity of the work, but we have enrollment intensity from fall 1980 to the 

end of the survey. Part-time enrollment was coded as one-half the intensity of full-time 

enrollment, and less-than-part-time enrollment was coded as one-quarter the intensity. These 
33

weighted enrollment values were then aggregated to produce a FTE enrollment value, which is 

used throughout the analysis.

Beginning Postsecondary Students 

To estimate the returns to education for older students, we used the Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Survey (BPS89), which consists of individuals who were 

first-time college beginners at any time between July 1, 1989, and June 30, 1990. On average, 

students in the sample have been out of school two-and-a-half to three years, which is judged to 

be sufficiently long enough to estimate the short-term returns to a sub-baccalaureate education. 

In addition to the limitations mentioned earlier, we had to modify the dataset to permit a 

conventional interpretation of the estimates. Because BPS89 does not contain a proper 

comparison group—students with a high school diploma but no postsecondary education—one 

was constructed for the analysis. It includes students who achieved less than three FTE months 

of college experience and did not obtain a formal award. All of the estimates in the full sample 

are in reference to this “artificial” high school graduate group. The full sample includes 

individuals either who attained a certificate, associate or bachelor’s degree by December 1992 or 

who did not obtain a formal award and were no longer enrolled by the same period. 
34

IV. Student Sample Demographics 

 Before considering analyses of economic outcomes from sub-baccalaureate 

education, it is important first to develop a sense of the characteristics of the students in 

each of the samples studied here. This is especially important here, because these data 

were collected in different decades, and reflect changes in the demographics of students 

enrolled in sub-baccalaureate programs. We present and discuss descriptive statistics of 

each sample, in turn. 

National Education Longitudinal Study 

 

We restricted our analysis of the NELS data to respondents who, at the time of the 2000 

interview, were not enrolled in a postsecondary institution. We also eliminated students who 

reported earning a graduate or professional degree and those whose only postsecondary 

enrollment occurred after 1994. This limiting was necessary because NELS provides very little 

information on the nature of enrollments for those who started their postsecondary education 

after August 1994, and thus, we were not able to determine whether these students were enrolled 

in occupational or academic programs. Finally, we also dropped all individuals who were still 

enrolled in 1999. We dropped this group for the same reason that we dropped students from 

HS&B who were still enrolled in 1991. 

 These restrictions left us with a sample of 7,021 students. As Table 1 shows, 34 percent 

of the sample enrolled in a sub-baccalaureate program after high school. This percentage is 
35

comparable with the 33 percent that enrolled in a baccalaureate program. Of those in subbaccalaureate programs, most were in occupational programs (18 percent of the total). 

 Although enrollment in sub-baccalaureate programs is fairly high, relatively few 

respondents reported their highest degree as being an associate degree or a certificate by the year 

2000. Only 6 percent of the sample reported that their highest degree was an associate degree, 

and 6.7 percent reported a certificate as the highest degree. By 2000, 30 percent of the sample 

reported earning a bachelor’s degree. Of those reporting a bachelor’s degree as their highest 

degree, 21 percent of them started as students in sub-baccalaureate institutions. 

High School and Beyond 

 Of the 14,825 sophomores in the HS&B dataset, 7,799 students met the criteria for 

selection into the sample. The criteria were that the students (a) did not attain more than a 

bachelor’s degree, (b) started college by 1984 and (c) were no longer enrolled in college by 

December 1990. The first criterion is self-explanatory. The second, excluding students who 

delayed their college enrollment more than two years, was needed to make the sample 

comparable to NELS.18 Finally, students still enrolled in 1991 were also dropped because our 

earnings data are from 1991. A student enrolled in school during 1991 might have lower earnings 

because he or she was still enrolled. Moreover, a student in this sample still enrolled in 1991 

probably had more years of education than average. Therefore, including these students would 

cause a negative bias in our estimate of the returns to a year of schooling. Table 1 presents 

 

18 We made an equivalent exclusion in NELS because, for students who enrolled initially after 1994, the survey did 

not provide enough information for us to categorize students as academic or occupational. 
36

descriptive statistics of the basic educational and demographic characteristics of the sample. The 

sample is evenly split by gender. 

 Overall, high school dropouts (9 percent of the sample) were retained, along with GED 

recipients (7.1 percent). Of the students in the HS&B sample, 38 percent began at a two-year 

college or had a less-than-baccalaureate degree goal at a four-year institution, which qualified 

them as sub-baccalaureate under the definition applied in this study. Sub-baccalaureate students 

were then divided into two categories based on their initial program of study, academic or 

occupational. Nearly 70 percent of sub-baccalaureate students reported an occupational program 

of study at their first institution while 22 percent reported an academic major. The remainder of 

students did not report a program of study. 

 Although no significant difference in race-ethnicity composition and citizenship status 

appears to be evident in the male and female subsamples, discernible variations exist along the 

schooling and employment dimensions. Males and females report similar years of schooling 

(males, slightly less than two FTE years, and females, slightly more), but female subbaccalaureate students were more likely to choose an occupational program of study. Degree 

attainment rates, however, appear to vary by gender, with males more likely to earn a bachelor’s 

degree and females more likely to attain an associate degree or certificate. Because females are 

overrepresented at the sub-baccalaureate level compared with males, it is not surprising that they 

attain sub-baccalaureate credentials at higher rates. 
37

Beginning Postsecondary Students 

In some respects, the sample of first-time beginners in BPS89 closely mirrors that of 

HS&B and NELS. As shown in table 1, the gender and racial-ethnic compositions and, to a 

lesser extent, the highest parental education levels are quite similar across the three datasets. 

However, the enrollment and degree information is strikingly distinct. Slightly more associate 

degree recipients are present in BPS89 (8.9 percent) compared with the other two datasets (5 and 

8 percent in NELS and HS&B, respectively), but the most noticeable distinctions are the rates of 

certificate and bachelor’ s degree attainment, which is to be expected given the short time frame 

of the BPS survey. There were three times more certificate holders and one-sixth fewer 

bachelor’s degree attainers in BPS89 than in HS&B or NELS. Although far fewer students in the 

BPS89 dataset received a bachelor’ s degree, when expressed as a proportion, sub-baccalaureate 

students made up a similar share of bachelor’s degree attainers in BPS as they did in NELS. 

Another difference lies in students’ initial enrollment. Of the 1,302 observations, nearly 

70 percent of the students in BPS89 enrolled in a sub-baccalaureate program of study, which is 

twice a large as the sample in NELS, yet BPS89 showed proportionately fewer occupational 

majors than were found in HS&B and NELS. Overall, however, BPS89 indicated nearly twice as 

many occupational students as were identified in the other two datasets. 
38

V. Economic Outcomes 

 Our examination of the economic impact of sub-baccalaureate education begins 

with an examination of employment and earnings differences between individuals who 

complete different levels of post-secondary education. This analysis illustrates the basic 

patterns of the economic value of post-secondary learning. We then turn to a more focused 

analysis of the economic returns to sub-baccalaureate study. We examine benefits of 

enrollment in sub-baccalaureate programs as well as credentials earned in such programs. 

We examine whether and how these benefits vary by students characteristics, and among 

populations of special interest. 

Earnings by Level of Postsecondary Education 

 As a first attempt to understand the economic consequences of sub-baccalaureate 

education, we present mean wage and employment outcomes for the NELS sample as a whole as 

well as by postsecondary enrollment and degree. We discuss only the NELS figures because they 

more closely represent current economic outcomes. As shown in table 2, these figures indicate 

that economic outcomes improved with education in expected ways. The average wage and 

salary income in 1999 for the sample as a whole was $26,028. Among high school dropouts, 

mean wage and salary income was $20,295. Individuals who enrolled in a sub-baccalaureate 

course of study reported earnings of $25,600, and those in a baccalaureate course of study earned 

$32,804, on average. Among sub-baccalaureate students, those in occupational programs 

reported slightly higher earnings. 
39

 Individuals who enrolled in postsecondary education were also much more likely to be 

employed. Ninety-one percent of initial sub-baccalaureate students and 95 percent of initial 

baccalaureate students were employed in 2000 whereas only 80 percent of high school dropouts 

were employed. Those with a postsecondary education were also more likely to be employed 

full-time. 

 Economic outcomes are similarly higher for students with higher degrees. Individuals 

with a general equivalency diploma (GED) reported mean earnings in 1999 of $20,280 whereas 

those with no more than a high school diploma reported mean earnings of $23,297. Respondents 

who received associate degrees earned $27,225 on average. The exception is the relatively low 

earnings reported by those members in the sample who received certificates. Among this group, 

mean earnings were $22,426. 

 Table 3 compares separately, by gender, economic outcomes among sub-baccalaureate 

students with outcomes among students who have no postsecondary education. On average, men 

without any postsecondary enrollment earned $26,712 in 1999. Men who enrolled in subbaccalaureate education earned $30,897; those in occupational programs earned $32,599. More 

than 97 percent of men in occupational programs were employed. For women, those with no 

postsecondary enrollment earned $12,508 on average, and only 67 percent were employed. 

Women who enrolled in sub-baccalaureate education earned $20,367 on average, and 85 percent 

were employed. Unlike men, however, women in occupational programs did not fare 

significantly better that those in other sub-baccalaureate programs. 
40

Returns to Sub-Baccalaureate Enrollment and Degrees 

To develop a more complete understanding of the economic effects of sub-baccalaureate 

education, we estimated a series of models to identify the returns to years of FTE postsecondary 

education, highest degree received, program of study and other features of students’ 

postsecondary education. The most common model used to derive rates of return estimates is the 

Mincerian method using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). As shown in equation 1, the specific 

econometric framework for individual, i, is 

log(Wi) = XiBX + SiBS + EiBE + E^2

iBE^2 + ui (1) 

where log(Wi) is the log of observed earnings of individuals, i, who reported earnings and at 

least one month of work; Xi is a vector of personal and parental background characteristics; Ei 

represents total years of work experience; E^2

i represents total years of work experience 

squared;19 and ui is an error term, which is assumed to be orthogonal to the observed covariates. 

The coefficient BS is commonly referred to as the rate of return to education—the percentage of 

increase in earnings associated with a change in years of FTE postsecondary schooling, Si.

20

 

19 The standard Mincerian wage equation typically includes a quadratic term for work experience to pick up declines 

in productivity (or hours worked) later in the life cycle. 

20 It is common to interpret coefficients from log-linear models as percentage change. We adopted this convention 

here because almost all of the research on the returns to sub-baccalaureate education does so (see Grubb 2002 and 

Kane and Rouse 1999). It facilitates a comparison between our results and those in the literature. This comparison is 

only an approximation, however. More precisely, one must exponentiate coefficients and subtract one (e

b

 -1) to 

obtain the effect of a one unit change in an independent variable as a percentage change in a dependent variable. 

This approximation is accurate for coefficients of .2 and below. Thus, a coefficient of 0.2 actually represents a return 

of 22 percent. But the distortion is greater for larger coefficients. For example, a coefficient of 0.5 represents a 

return of 65 percent. Thus, this distortion will be greatest for estimates of the returns to bachelor’s, but our focus is 

on the returns to sub-baccalaureate education and degrees, so the problem will be less serious for those issues that 

are of most concern to us. 
41

 We ran separate regressions for men and women because of the different influences that 

shape their schooling and work decisions. In all of our analyses, we also controlled for a 

student’s race, ethnicity, nativity as well as high school preparation and diploma type. Black and 

Hispanic students tend to enroll in occupational programs at higher than average rates; therefore, 

if race or ethnicity has an effect on earnings, for example, through discrimination, then failing to 

control for these variables would distort the estimates of the effects of occupational education. 

Our controls for work experience were described earlier. 

 For the primary focus of our analysis, we extended this model to distinguish between 

students who chose occupational programs from those who chose academic majors during their 

enrollment in sub-baccalaureate programs. In doing so, we examined the earnings effects of two 

separate features of postsecondary education. We were interested in the returns to individual 

years of schooling taken by baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students and, within the subbaccalaureate group, years of schooling taken by academic and occupational students. In 

addition, we measured the effects of completing a certificate, an associate and a bachelor’s 

degree. Within the associate degree group, we also measured the returns to degrees earned by 

students enrolled in academic and occupational programs. 

 We further tested whether a statistically significant difference exists between the returns 

to a year of postsecondary schooling earned by an occupational and an academic subbaccalaureate student and between the returns to an associate degree earned by these two types 

of students. Finally, we tested the independent value of earning a degree over and above the 
42

value of completing the years of schooling required to earn the degree (the sheepskin effect) to 

determine whether a sheepskin effect exists for certificates, associate degrees and bachelor’s 

degrees as well as for occupational and academic students. 

Thus, our full specification is shown in equation (2): 

log(Wi) = XiBx + Sbac

iBS + Ssub-aciBS + Ssub-ociBS + DctiBD + Daa-aciBD+ Daa-ociBD+ Dbai BD

+ EiBE + E^2

iBE^2 + ui (2) 

The baseline model was extended to include four dummy variables for highest degree 

completion: a certificate (Dct

i), an associate degree for an academic student (Daa-aci ), an associate 

degree for an occupational student (Daa-oci), and a bachelor’s degree (Dba

i). The coefficients on 

these variables estimated the overall economic returns to completing these degrees. For some 

specifications, we estimate the returns to an associate degree without differentiating between 

academic and occupational students. 

 We also extended the baseline model by changing the years-of-education variable in two 

ways. First, we set this variable equal to zero for every student who earned a degree. For students 

who did not earn a degree, we set this variable equal to the FTE years of schooling reported by 

the student. The coefficient on this variable is a measure of the returns to one FTE of 

postsecondary education for students who did not complete a degree. We could then compare 

this coefficient with the returns to earning a degree to determine whether a student would get a 

benefit from completing the degree in addition to the value of the years of schooling required to 
43

earn the degree (the sheepskin effect). Note that by setting the FTE years of schooling equal to 

zero for degree completers, we are potentially losing some information. Some students may have 

completed additional years of schooling after completing their degree, and we are not taking 

account of this possibility. The effect of doing so inflated the value of the degrees, and, thus, the 

sheepskin effect since the value of any postdegree schooling will be included in the coefficient 

for the degrees. But we followed this strategy for two reasons. First, NELS does not report any 

years of schooling for students who complete degrees, so this strategy is the only option that we 

had. And, to make the analyses of the two datasets comparable, we also used this approach for 

HS&B. Second, this strategy is a commonly used approach in the literature (see Grubb 1993 and 

Kane and Rouse 1995), so using this specification will facilitate comparison to other studies. 

 We also disaggregated the FTE years of schooling variable by baccalaureate (Sbac

i) and 

sub-baccalaureate occupational (Ssub-oc

i) and academic (Ssub-aci) students.21 Thus, we could test 

whether occupational students benefit more from taking courses without finishing degrees than 

academic students. It is important to emphasize that this specification does not provide a direct 

test of the sheepskin effect. The coefficient on the degree variables measures the total return to 

the degree including the direct effects of the years of schooling and the extra effect of the degree 

(the sheepskin effect). To test for the sheepskin effect for an associate degree, for example, we 

multiplied the coefficient of the FTE years of schooling variable by 2 and compared that with the 

coefficient on the associate degree. If the latter was higher, then we could conclude that the 

student gets an extra benefit from the degree. We formally tested this hypothesis using an F test 

of the restriction that twice the coefficient for one FTE year of schooling is equal to the 

coefficient for an associate degree. 
44

The central econometric problem with all of these models is that students are not 

randomly distributed among the different educational programs under study. Students who 

choose to pursue their education beyond high school may be different from those who choose not 

to do so. Those who enroll in baccalaureate programs may differ from those who enroll in subbaccalaureate programs. Those in academic majors may differ from those in occupational 

majors, and students who complete degrees may have important differences from those who 

leave college with no degree. A comprehensive treatment of these issues would require a multiequation structural model with several instrumental variables. These datasets do not have enough 

information to analyze this complex decision process. We could, however, control for family 

background characteristics and test scores that reflect academic talent and pre-college academic 

performance. Thus, in both datasets, we have measures of family income, parental educational 

levels, and scores on standardized tests taken during high school. These variables can control for 

many of the factors that determine student allocation into these different types and levels of 

postsecondary education. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that some returns to degrees 

or FTE years of schooling may result both from the effects of the education and from 

unmeasured characteristics of students choosing to enroll in those different types of programs. 

 Outcomes by Gender 

The results of these models, estimated separately for women and men, are presented in 

tables 4 and 5. Columns (i) and (iii) of each table show the results of the basic model in which 

we included measures of the years of postsecondary schooling, differentiating between 

 21 In some specifications, we aggregated all sub-baccalaureate students. 
45

baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate students, and an indicator of the highest degree earned: 

certificate, associate or bachelor’s. In columns (ii) and (iv), we further divide the subbaccalaureate years of schooling into those experienced by occupational students, academic 

students and students with no declared major. We also divided the students receiving associate 

degrees into those who declared occupational and academic majors and those with no declared 

major. Note that all specifications reported in these tables include controls for years of work 

experience, family socioeconomic status and test scores. 

Tables 6 and 7 present results from a hypothesis test of sheepskin effects for certificates, 

associate degrees for academic and occupational students, and bachelor’s degrees. We also tested 

the equivalence of the value of one year of postsecondary schooling for occupational and 

academic students, the value of associate degrees for academic and occupational students, and 

the value of a year of schooling for baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate occupational students. 

 Outcomes for Students Who Do Not Complete a Degree 

The data presented on tables 4 through 9 provide evidence that students do benefit from 

postsecondary education, even when they do not complete a degree. Female students who do not 

complete a degree earn between 10 percent (NELS) and 14 percent (HS&B) more per year than a 

high school graduate. The analysis using NELS suggests that students get a larger benefit per 

year of schooling from enrolling in a baccalaureate program than in an occupational subbaccalaureate program, which is usually in a community college (table 6, row 1). The NELS 

analysis suggests that women who enroll in occupational sub-baccalaureate programs do not 
46

benefit from years of schooling unless they complete a degree. The coefficient implies that, if a 

female occupational student completes one year of postsecondary schooling, she will earn 5 

percent more than a high school graduate, but the coefficient is not statistically significant (table 

4, column ii). In the earlier cohort (HS&B), female occupational students experienced a 12 

percent return for each year of postsecondary schooling. 

The results for men are mixed. For the later cohort (NELS), the value of a year of 

postsecondary schooling is between 6 percent and 10 percent. Once again, a year of education in 

a bachelor’s program appears to have higher returns, although that difference is also not 

statistically significant. Nevertheless, the HS&B analysis shows no returns to postsecondary 

education without a degree, either for baccalaureate or sub-baccalaureate men. 

 Outcomes for Students Who Earn a Certificate 

Completing a certificate has no statistically significant value for men, although it does 

appear to raise women’s earnings. The analysis neither of NELS nor of HS&B indicates a 

statistically significant non-zero return to earning a certificate for men. The results presented in 

table 5 (column ii) indicate that a male occupational student who completes a year of schooling 

without completing a degree may earn more than a male student who completes a certificate, 

although the difference is not statistically significant (table 7, row 4). In contrast, in the NELS 

analysis, women who completed a certificate earned about 15 to 16 percent more than high 

school graduates. The analysis of the earlier cohort (HS&B) suggests an even higher return. 

Moreover, it appears that the certificate does raise earnings for women above the earnings of 
47

female occupational students who complete a year of schooling without a degree, although this 

difference is not statistically significant (table 6, row 4). 

 Outcomes for Students Who Earn an Associate Degree 

Over the past 20 years, many analysts have expressed skepticism about the economic 

value of a community college or sub-baccalaureate education. Our study suggests that subbaccalaureate students do indeed benefit economically from their education. We have already 

shown that women benefit from a sub-baccalaureate education even when they do not complete 

their degrees, and the analysis of NELS suggests the same for men, although this conclusion is 

primarily true for men in occupational programs. The results presented in tables 4 and 5 on the 

overall returns to associate degrees reinforce that positive conclusion. Women who complete 

associate degrees earn about 37 percent to 39 percent more than high school graduates (table 4, 

columns i and iii) whereas male associate degree graduates enjoy about a 12 percent to 16 

percent earnings advantage (table 5, columns i and iii). The evidence here suggests that the 

associate degree is much more valuable for occupational students than it is for academic 

students, especially for men. Indeed, no statistically significant return to an academic associate 

degree for men is evident, and our hypothesis tests show that the difference between the returns 

to an associate degree for occupational and academic students is significant at the 10 percent 

level (table 7, row 3). For the later cohort, men with occupational associate degrees earned 

almost one quarter more than comparable high school graduates (table 5, column ii). The returns 

to an associate degree for a female occupational student are also higher than for an academic 

student, but in this case, the difference is not statistically significant. 
48

There is also some evidence for a sheepskin effect associated with an associate degree for 

sub-baccalaureate occupational students. In the NELS analysis for women, two FTE years of 

sub-baccalaureate occupational education generates about an 11 percent return whereas an 

associate degree is worth a 39 percent return for a female occupational student. Clearly, a 

statistically significant sheepskin effect occurs for women in the later cohort (table 6, row 5). 

The same is true for women in HS&B, although here it is significant only at the 7 percent level. 

However, although both datasets indicate that, for male occupational students, the associate 

degree is worth more than twice the value of an FTE of postsecondary education not resulting in 

a degree, these differences are not statistically significant. 

How do the returns to occupational associate degrees compare with those returns for 

bachelor’s degrees? Because it takes twice as long to earn a bachelor’s degree and it costs more 

than twice as much (since tuition at four-year schools is greater than it is at two-year schools), 

we might expect that the returns to a bachelor’s degree would be at least double those for an 

associate degree. Indeed, for women in both cohorts and for men in the later cohort, twice the 

return to an associate degree for occupational students equals or exceeds the returns to the 

bachelor’s degree (tables 6 and 7, row 8). Only in the analysis of men using HS&B do the returns 

to the bachelor’s degree exceed twice the returns to an associate degree for occupational 

students, and this difference is not statistically significant. 
49

 Outcomes for Students Who Earn a Bachelor’s Degree 

The data displayed in tables 4 and 5 indicate very large returns to bachelor’s degrees. 

Indeed, according to the analysis of NELS, women who complete a bachelor’s degree earn about 

two-thirds more than high school graduates. Moreover, these returns grew during the 1990s.22

Although these estimates are higher than for most previous studies, other studies have also found 

high returns to bachelor’s degrees. For example, Kane and Rouse (1995) presented estimates for 

returns to bachelor’s degrees for women of almost 40 percent, and their data showed that men 

who complete a bachelor’s degree earn between 35 and 40 percent more than high school 

graduates. 

Is there a sheepskin effect associated with completing a bachelor’s degree? Certainly the 

analysis of HS&B for men suggests that men gain a large benefit from completing their 

bachelor’s degree (table 7, row 7). Indeed, there are no returns for FTE years of postsecondary 

education for baccalaureate students who do not complete their degree (table 5). Moreover, for 

all of the other analyses—women in NELS and HS&B and men in NELS—the returns to the 

bachelor’s degree are more than four times the returns to a year of postsecondary education for a 

 

22 We have previously suggested that our specification may result in an overestimate of the returns to degrees 

because we do not take account of any credits or time in school spent subsequent to earning the highest degree. If a 

student benefits from this kind of extra education, then that benefit will be reflected in the returns to the degree. 

However, we are interpreting the coefficients as the returns to education. As we have pointed out, these coefficients 

should be exponentiated to derive the returns. This process will cause the most problems when the coefficients are 

large; therefore, interpreting the coefficients as the percentage returns to education will cause the largest 

underestimation of those returns to the bachelor’s. 
50

bachelor’s student. This finding suggests a sheepskin effect. Nevertheless, none of these 

differences are statistically significant (tables 6 and 7, row 7).23

Effect of High School Vocational Track 

Next, we turn to the question of whether students who had enrolled in vocational tracks 

while in high school experienced higher than average earnings gains from enrolling in subbaccalaureate occupational programs. We conducted an analysis of the NELS dataset in which 

we included measures of high school track, based on student transcripts, as predictors of wage 

outcomes. We included two dummy variables: the first equal to 1if the student’s high school 

curriculum was vocational, the second equal to 1 if the student’s high school curriculum was 

academic. The omitted category is general curriculum, and students concentrating in general 

study served as our reference group.24

We first included measures of high school curriculum, by themselves, to see whether they 

had any direct effect on earnings outcomes. Next, we included interaction terms between high 

school vocational track and (a) subsequent enrollment in a sub-baccalaureate occupational 

program and (b) receipt of an associate degree with a major in an occupational field. These 

interaction terms allowed us to test whether those who study and earn degrees from sub-

 

23 Using the exponentiated coefficients for these tests is more likely to find a sheepskin effect; therefore, the 

estimates presented here are an underestimate of the value of completing a degree compared with accumulating an 

equivalent amount of postsecondary education. 24 Because of the transcript-derived information about high school curriculum in NELS, we are able to define high 

school track only for those students who graduate from high school. Consequently, we are forced to eliminate high 

school dropouts and GED recipients from the analyses of the subsequent earnings effects of vocational high school 

study. 
51

baccalaureate occupational programs fare better if they had concentrated in vocational study 

while in high school. 

The results (not shown here) indicate that, overall for women, there is no significant 

direct effect of a high school vocational curriculum on subsequent earnings in the NELS and 

HS&B cohorts. In other words, the coefficients on the measure of concentration in vocational 

studies in high school are small and negative, but the coefficients are dwarfed by their respective 

standard errors. Our estimates do suggest, however, that a female student who pursues an 

occupational track in high school and who completes an associate degree does benefit from her 

high school track. 

For men, the data show no evidence of a direct effect of study in a high school vocational 

track on wage outcomes. Further, the data show no evidence that students who enroll in subbaccalaureate occupational programs or who earn degrees from those programs fare any better if 

they had studied in a vocational track while in high school. However, note that these are not very 

powerful statistical tests because cell sizes are somewhat small. For example, only 40 men in our 

sample both earned occupational associate degrees and had studied in a vocational program 

while in high school. Given the small sample sizes, we would expect that only very powerful 

effects would be picked up in these tests. 

Nontraditional and Special Populations 

In this section, we examine the extent to which nontraditional and special populations 

benefit from a sub-baccalaureate education. We use the same specification shown in equation 2, 
52

but restrict the sample to the subpopulation of interest—in this case, students who are older, a 

racial-ethnic minority, or academically or economically disadvantaged.25 Overall, the findings 

suggest that sub-baccalaureate and occupational education are not equally beneficial for all 

groups, which is generally consistent with findings in earlier studies. More important, however, 

they underscore the point that certain groups are still struggling economically despite having a 

higher education and, in some cases, despite attaining degrees. 

 Older Students 

We begin with an analysis of immediate earnings for older students in BPS. We use the 

term immediate to differentiate the BPS89 analysis from NELS and HS&B because, on average, 

the earnings in BPS89 are observed after only a year or two postcollege. Some students in NELS 

and HS&B could also be out of college a year, but that is more the exception than the rule. As 

mentioned previously, because of the way in which the sample was created, caution should be 

taken when reading the returns from this analysis. 

As shown in table 10, the economic outcomes of older men and women were no different 

(and, in some cases, worse) than similar-aged individuals with no college. Moreover, some 

evidence indicates that attaining a certificate lowers earnings in the first several years after 

college. For instance, older women and men who receive a certificate earn roughly 42 percent 

less than high school graduates. Older men in occupational programs are significantly worse off 

 

25 Note that, in some instances, the restricted samples left too few observations in certain key cells, which can 

compromise the reliability of the estimates. If the restricted sample was too small, we estimated the direct effect of 

the subgroup by adding a dummy variable to the model. We also added a series of enrollment and degree 

interactions to estimate the indirect effect. 
53

if they attain an associate degree. Their earnings are nearly 78 percent lower than high school 

graduates. No sheepskin effect occurs for sub-baccalaureate degrees. However, note that only 84 

observations occur in this analysis, so the short-term earnings effects for older students should be 

interpreted with care.26

Turning our attention to the immediate economic outcomes of younger (age 24 or 

younger) students, we find that the returns to postsecondary education are generally positive, but 

the key is attaining a degree. Young, occupational females earn 37 percent more than high school 

graduates if they attain an associate degree. This coefficient is statistically different from the 

return to an associate degree for academic students, which indicates that a premium, or sheepskin 

effect, exists for those completing occupational programs. The coefficients on certificate and 

associate degrees are positive for young men, but they are not statistically different from high 

school graduates. One possible explanation for men may be the existence of a strong labor 

market for workers with a high school education. Yet, as our long-term earnings analysis shows, 

the economic parity between male high school and college students is short-lived. Our NELS and 

HS&B analysis shows that, if an average male occupational student attains an associate degree, 

his earnings gains over a high school graduate will materialize in the long term. 

 For the most part, the findings from our immediate earnings analysis agree with those of 

Leigh and Gill (1997). They found that older female students who attained a sub-baccalaureate 

degree did not earn significantly more than those without a credential. Our findings mainly 

 

26 As stated earlier, the findings using NELS and HS&B are much more reliable than the short-term analysis, but it 

is still possible that our long-term economic outcomes analysis underestimates the effects of these background 

variables because they may influence earnings by increasing the probability that students will enroll in particular 

types of education. For example, we do know that students from lower-income families are more likely to enroll in 
54

support this conclusion. The one exception is that, in our analysis, females in occupational 

programs who attain an associate degree earn substantially more than high school graduates and 

other sub-baccalaureate students. 

 Racial-Ethnic Minority Students 

 We now turn our attention to racial-ethnic minorities, who have consistently earned less 

than whites with the same level of education. Some evidence indicates that this trend persists into 

the 1990s, especially for black men, but the results for women are generally positive (see tables 

11 and 12). As shown in table 12, even after controlling for a similar set of background 

characteristics, black men earn almost 28 percent to 38 percent less than white men immediately 

after college. However, the earnings of Hispanic men are statistically indistinguishable from 

white men. The findings from BPS89 also indicate that being a racial-ethnic minority does not 

have a significant effect on the immediate earnings of women. 

In our analysis of long-term economic effects (tables 4 and 5), black women do relatively 

well in the later cohort, and Hispanic women earn more in the earlier cohort compared with 

white women. But once again, black men earn substantially less than whites in both cohorts. We 

concur with Averett and D’Allesandro (2001), who point out that higher economic returns of 

racial-ethnic minorities are undermined by lower completion rates, but further analysis is needed 

to determine other reasons why these disparities continue to exist. 

 

sub-baccalaureate education. Thus, the coefficients on these educational variables will absorb some of the overall 

effect of low socioeconomic status. 
55

 Academically or Economically Disadvantaged Students 

Our final subpopulation analysis involves individuals who are academically or 

economically disadvantaged. We define academically disadvantaged students as those who 

scored in the lower two quartiles of a math and reading test administered in tenth grade. We 

define economically disadvantaged students as those who earned, or are part of a family that 

earned, less than $20,000 the year before college attendance. Many of these students enroll in 

occupational education because of those programs’ less than rigorous academic standards27 or 

because the student can acquire an employable labor market skill quickly and at a low cost, 

which is highly attractive. The key question, therefore, is whether this economic strategy is 

beneficial in the long term. 

We begin with academically disadvantaged students. We could not estimate short-term 

economic effects for this subpopulation, so our discussion will focus only on the long-term 

effects using NELS. As with many of the findings in this section, the evidence is encouraging, 

but not for all groups. As reported in tables 13 and 14, female occupational students who fail to 

attain a credential earn roughly the same as high school students. Moreover, they do not 

experience the same economic benefit as academic students, who earn 24 percent more than high 

school graduates even without attaining a credential. In fact, female occupational students could 

experience a strong incentive to attain at least an associate degree because the average returns are 

quite strong: 44 percent. However, because of small sample sizes, we are unable to determine 

whether occupational students are at an economic advantage compared with other program 

completers or to test for sheepskin effects. Academically disadvantaged men, in contrast, appear 
56

to benefit from taking occupational course work and from attaining an associate degree (table 15, 

column ii, and table 16), but the presence of a positive sheepskin effect from the associate degree 

cannot be formally tested. 

Our findings suggest that, in the short run, postsecondary education cannot compensate 

for being economically disadvantaged. Tables 11 and 12 show that the earnings of economically 

disadvantaged men and women are, on average, not statistically different from high school 

graduates, but again, this finding may possibly be because of limitations of the sample. In time, 

however, postsecondary education can greatly benefit economically disadvantaged students, 

particularly men. In fact, even if they do not attain a formal credential, men experience sizeable 

returns to schooling. The benefit to a year of occupational course work is 15 percent, but the 

return to the same year of academic course work is more than double (table 15, column iii). The 

difference between the returns to a year of occupational and academic course work, however, is 

not statistically significant. Overall, attaining a certificate or associate degree greatly enhances 

economic outcomes, but if a male occupational education student attains an associate degree, his 

earnings are similar to a high school graduate. This finding may partly explain why associate 

degree completion rates for occupational males are low; disadvantaged men experience no 

economic incentive to continue and attain a degree. 

Unlike men, there is a significant associate degree return, 29 percent, for female 

occupational education students who are economically disadvantaged, but no return to 

occupational course work. The difference is large enough that a test for a sheepskin effect was 

significant at the 10 percent level. Economically disadvantaged women in academic programs do 

 27 In some cases, no remediation or developmental education is offered in occupational programs of study. 
57

not benefit from either enrolling in course work or attaining an associate degree. Using the same 

argument as above, the evidence suggests that women in occupational education programs have a 

strong incentive to earn an associate degree and an even stronger incentive to get a bachelor’s 

degree. Even receiving a certificate will increase earnings 26 percent over a high school 

graduate, an option that may be a more feasible for women who face significant economic 

disadvantages. 
58

VI. Conclusion 

Our findings from data based on a nationally representative sample of young adults in 

each of the last two decades generally support the overall conclusion that students benefit from a 

sub-baccalaureate education whether they complete degrees or not, although some differences 

occur between men and women and among various subpopulations. Moreover, occupational subbaccalaureate students do at least as well financially as academic students. More surprisingly, we 

found less evidence for the sheepskin effect than we expected, especially for the bachelor’s 

degree, although our analysis probably understates the sheepskin effect for that degree. We did 

find a strong sheepskin effect for associate degrees for female occupational students and 

somewhat weaker evidence for male occupational students. In the following discussion, we 

review our answers to the six questions that we posed at the beginning of this report. 

Summary of Findings 

1. What are the average earnings benefits associated with sub-baccalaureate 

degrees? We found that, on average (not controlling for any background variables), with the 

exception of certificates, each additional degree was associated with higher earnings. Students 

whose highest degree was a certificate earned less, on average (not controlling for any 

background characteristics), than students who had no more education beyond high school. At 

the sub-baccalaureate level, occupational students who completed associate degrees earned, on 

average, more than academic students who completed those degrees. 
59

2. How do the earnings of sub-baccalaureate students (those who complete degrees 

and those who do not) compare with the earnings of individuals who have no more than a 

high school diploma? In most cases, we found that sub-baccalaureate students who did not 

complete degrees still had higher earnings than high school graduates. For the analysis of HS&B 

men, we found no statistically significant effect for years of postsecondary education for those 

without degrees, but for women and for men in the later cohort (NELS), we estimated that an 

additional year of sub-baccalaureate education was worth between 5 percent and 10 percent in 

additional earnings. These findings accord closely with the conclusions from Grubb’s (2002) 

review. For occupational students, the return was about 5 percent for women (not statistically 

significant) and 8 percent for men. For both sexes and both datasets, the overall returns to an 

associate degree for occupational students were positive and statistically significant. For men, 

this estimate rose from 12 percent in HS&B to 26 percent in NELS. For women, the estimates 

from both datasets were approximately 39 percent. These estimates are also similar to those 

reported by Grubb (2002). Male occupational students benefit much more from an associate 

degree than academic students, and the difference is statistically significant. The estimates for 

women also suggest that occupational students who complete degrees benefit more than 

academic students, although the difference is not statistically significant. Certificates, which are 

overwhelmingly occupational, resulted in higher earnings only for women (15 percent in NELS). 

Men who complete certificates do not earn any more than similar high school graduates. Uneven 

returns to certificates have also been found in other studies (Grubb 2002). 

3. Do occupational students who complete degrees earn more than those who 

complete an equivalent amount of education but do not earn degrees? For occupational 
60

students who earn associate degrees, a sheepskin effect exists for women in both NELS and 

HS&B and for men in HS&B. For example, in NELS, female occupational students who 

complete two years of sub-baccalaureate education without a degree experience a return of about 

11 percent above the earnings of a high school graduate, whereas women in occupational 

programs who earn an associate degree enjoy a 39 percent earnings advantage compared with a 

high school graduate. This difference is statistically significant, which indicates the existence of 

a positive sheepskin effect from the associate degree. For men, earnings rise from 15 percent to 

26 percent, but that difference is not statistically significant. 

4. Is the sheepskin effect stronger or weaker for occupational students than it is for 

academic students? In contrast to the results for occupational students, no associate degree 

sheepskin effect occurs for academic students, but it should be emphasized that, for men in both 

NELS and HS&B and for women in HS&B, no statistically significant overall effect occurs for 

academic associate degree students. Students who complete an academic associate degree do not 

earn more than either (a) students who complete two years of sub-baccalaureate education but 

earn no degree or (b) high school graduates. In NELS, female occupational students do benefit 

from academic associate degrees compared with high school graduates, but they get no benefit 

from the degree in addition to the returns to two years of postsecondary schooling. 

5. What is the earnings effect of enrollment in a high school vocational track on the 

subsequent earnings of sub-baccalaureate students, and does the high school track have a 

different effect on the earnings of academic and occupational sub-baccalaureate students?

High school track has no direct effect on earnings after controlling for background characteristics 
61

and postsecondary enrollment and achievement variables. However, female occupational 

students who complete an associate degree do earn more if they also had a vocational 

concentration in high school. This effect is not true for men. These results should be interpreted 

with caution, however, because much of the effect of high school track may operate through its 

influence on the type of postsecondary program in which the student enrolls. 

6. Is occupational education beneficial for subpopulations such as older students, 

racial-ethnic minorities, academically challenged students, and economically disadvantaged 

students? Unlike older students, young females in occupational programs receive a substantial 

return to an associate degree. This return is statistically greater than the return to an associate 

degree for younger academic students, which is an indication of a degree premium or sheepskin 

effect. The return to a certificate and associate degrees is positive for young men in occupational 

programs, but they are not statistically different from high school graduates. However, our longterm economic analysis seems to suggest that, if a male occupational student attains an associate 

degree, he will experience a significant earnings premium over a high school graduate. 

All things being equal, black men continue to earn less than white men with similar levels 

of education, and this earnings gap persists over time. In contrast, black and Hispanic women 

show positive and significant earnings gains in the long run, and their earnings are at least 

statistically similar to white women in the short term. 

For students who are academically or economically disadvantaged, the results are 

encouraging, but in no way should occupational education be considered a panacea. 
62

Academically disadvantaged, female occupational students who fail to attain a credential earn 

roughly the same as high school graduates with no postsecondary education, but there could be a 

strong incentive for them to attain at least an associate degree because the average returns are 

significant. Academically disadvantaged men, in contrast, appear to benefit from occupational 

course work and from attaining an associate degree. Although it does not appear to affect shortterm economic outcomes, an occupational postsecondary education can greatly benefit 

economically disadvantaged students, particularly men. Even if they do not attain a degree, 

economically disadvantaged men experience sizeable returns to occupational course work, but 

the gains are not realized for those who attain an academic associate degree. In comparison, a 

significant associate degree effect occurs for occupational females who are economically 

disadvantaged, but women in this group experience no return to occupational course work. Thus, 

a strong incentive exists for economically disadvantaged women in occupational programs to 

persist and attain a sub-baccalaureate degree, an incentive that does not exist for men. 

The results presented in this report suggest a generally positive picture of postsecondary 

occupational education. For sub-baccalaureate occupational students, the returns to a year of 

postsecondary education are close to or equal with the returns to a year of schooling for a student 

in a baccalaureate program or a sub-baccalaureate academic student. The value of an associate 

degree for an occupational student often exceeds the value of an associate degree for an 

academic student and, in some cases, exceeds one-half the value of a bachelor’s degree. 

Occupational programs appear to be particularly useful for students whose highest credential is 

an associate degree. 
63

Policy Implications 

Two broad policy conclusions emerge from this analysis. First, sub-baccalaureate 

occupational education is a viable and productive educational alternative for many students. In 

general, students pursing an occupational program in a community college do not suffer in the 

sense that they earn less than either baccalaureate or academic students with equivalent amounts 

of education. Indeed, some evidence indicates that they earn more than academic students. Thus, 

Congress can continue to support sub-baccalaureate occupational education and be confident 

that, on average, students will benefit from the programs supported. 

Second, earning an associate degree is important. In general, sub-baccalaureate students 

benefit from years of postsecondary schooling even if they do not complete a degree, although 

our analysis of NELS shows no independent years-of-schooling effect for female occupational 

students. Thus, a very large and statistically significant sheepskin effect occurs for female 

occupational students who earn an associate degree. For male occupational students, the value of 

an associate degree considerably exceeds the value of two years of a sub-baccalaureate 

education, although the difference is not statistically significant. Thus, although many students 

do appear to benefit from a community college education without earning a degree (as many 

college personnel argue), students, especially women, can gain significant additional benefits 

from graduating. And although our analysis has shown that a sub-baccalaureate academic 

education has lower returns than an occupational education, we suspect that it is because most of 

the benefits for these students would come from transfer to a bachelor program and completion 

of a bachelor’s degree. Thus, completion and transfer are important objectives for sub-
64

baccalaureate students, and Congress should develop strategies and incentives to encourage 

students to achieve these educational outcomes. 
65

References 

Averett, S., and S. D’Allesandro. (2001). Racial and gender differences in the returns to two-year 

and four-year degrees. Education Economics 9(3): 281-292. 

Bailey, T., M. Alfonso, M. Scott, D. T. Leinbach, G. Kienzl, B. Kennedy, and D. Marcotte. 

Forthcoming. Educational outcomes of occupational postsecondary students. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Bailey, T., D. T. Leinbach, M. Scott, M. Alfonso, G. Kienzl, B. Kennedy, and D. Marcotte. 

Forthcoming. The characteristics of occupational sub-baccalaureate students. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Becker, G. 1964. Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Blair, L. M., M. G. Finn, and W. Stevenson. 1981. The returns to the associate degree for 

technicians. Journal of Human Resources 16(3): 449–58. 

Brint, S., and J. Karabel. 1989. The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of 

educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Card, D. 1999. The causal effect of education on earnings. In Handbook of labor economics ( 

Vol. 3A), ed. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. New York: North Holland. 

Choy, S. P., and L. J. Horn. 1992. A guide to using postsecondary transcript data and an 

overview of course taking in less-than-four-year postsecondary institution. Berkeley: 

University of California, National Center for Research in Vocational Education. 
66

Curtin, Thomas R., Ingels, Steven J., Wu, Shiying, and Heuer, Ruth. (2002). National Education 

Longitudinal Study of 1988: Base-Year to Fourth Follow-up Data File User's 

 Manual (NCES 2002-323). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Dougherty, K. J. 1994. The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures 

of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press. 

Eaton, J. 1993. General education in the community college: Developing habit of thought. New 

Directions for Community Colleges 81:21–30. 

Grubb, W. N. 1993. The varied economic returns to postsecondary education: New evidence 

from the class of 1972. The Journal of Human Resources 28(2): 365–92. 

Grubb, W. N. 2002. Learning and earning in the middle, Part I: National studies of prebaccalaureate education. Economics of Education Review 21:299–321. 

Heineman, H. N., and E. Sussna. 1977. The economic benefits of a community college 

education. Industrial Relations 16(3): 345–54. 

Jacobson, L., R. LaLonde, and D. Sullivan. 1997. The return from community college schooling 

for displaced workers. Working Paper WP-97-16. Chicago: FederalReserve Bank of 

Chicago. 

Jaeger, D. A., and M. E. Page. 1996. Degrees matter: New evidence on sheepskin effects in the 

returns to education. The Review of Economics and Statistics 4:733–40. 

Kane, T. J., and C. E. Rouse. 1995. Labor market returns to two- and four-year colleges. 

American Economic Review 85: 600–14. 
67

Kane, T. J., and C. E. Rouse. 1999. The community college: Educating students at the margin 

between college and work. Journal of Economic Perspectives 13:63–84. 

Leigh, D., and A. Gill. 1997. Labor market returns to community colleges: Evidence for 

returning adults. Journal of Human Resources 32(2): 334–53. 

Levy, F., and R. J. Murnane. 1992. U.S. earnings levels and earnings inequality: A review of 

recent trends and proposed explanations. Journal of Economic Literature 30(3): 1333–81. 

Mincer, J. 1974. Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Murphy, K., and F. Welch. 1989. Wage premium for college graduates: Recent growth and 

possible explanations. Educational Research 18: 17–26. 

Murphy, K., and F. Welch. 2002. Wage differentials in the 1990s: Is the glass half-full or halfempty? Retrieved September 1, 2002, from University of Chicago Web site: 

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/kevin.murphy/teaching/glass.doc 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. Digest of education statistics, 2001. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Pratt, Daniel J., Whitmore, Roy W., Wine, Jennifer S., Blackwell, Karen M., Forsyth, Barbara 

H., Smith, Timothy K., Becker, Elizabeth A., Veith, Kurt J., Mitchell, Marisa, & Borma, 

Geoffrey D. 1996. Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study Second Followup (BPS:90/94) Final Technical Report (NCES 96-153). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Schultz, T. W. 1961. Investments in human capital. American Economic Review 51(1): 1–17. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. October current population surveys. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of the Census. 
68

Wine, Jennifer S., Whitmore, Roy W., Heuer, Ruth E., Biber, Melissa, & Pratt, Daniel J. 2000. Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-up 1996-98 (BPS:96/98) Methodology 

Report (NCES 2000-157). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Zahs, Daniel, Pedlow, Steven, Morrissey, Marjorie, Marnell, Patricia, & Nichols, Bronwyn. 

1995. High School and Beyond Fourth Follow-Up: Methodology Report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 
69

Tables 
70

Table 1: Student Sample Demographics

NELS HS&B BPS89

Initial Control Variables

Black 0.120 0.138 0.115

0.011 0.008 0.013

Hispanic 0.101 0.081 0.084

0.008 0.005 0.012

Nonnative 0.045 0.036 0.027

0.004 0.003 0.006

High school dropout (No GED) 0.105 0.089

0.009 0.005

GED 0.079 0.071 0.101

0.006 0.004 0.011

Enrollment Variables

Baccalaureate 0.310 0.219 0.160

0.010 0.007 0.012

Sub-baccalaureate 0.327 0.377 0.682

0.010 0.008 0.018

By Field of Study

Occupational 0.550 0.693 0.440

0.018 0.011 0.020

Academic 0.325 0.219 0.139

0.018 0.010 0.016

No major 0.122 0.088 0.103

0.011 0.007 0.013

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate 0.063 0.078 0.181

0.005 0.005 0.013

Highest Degree: Associate 0.050 0.077 0.089

0.003 0.004 0.010

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.283 0.216 0.047

0.010 0.007 0.006

Started as a baccalaureate 0.807 0.730 0.794

0.014 0.013 0.068

Started as a sub-baccalaureate 0.193 0.270 0.206

0.014 0.013 0.068

Family Characteristics Variables

Parents completed some college 0.411 0.284 0.225

0.010 0.007 0.014

Parents have bachelor's degree 0.249 0.236 0.197

0.010 0.008 0.014

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000, High School and 

Beyond:1980/1992, and Beginning Postsecondary Students:1989/1994.
71

Table 2: Economic Outcomes by Enrollment and Degree

Sample 

average No PSE Total Occ Non-occ

Baccalaureate GED

High 

school 

diploma Certificate Associate Bachelor's

Wages and salary 

income (1999) $26,028 $20,295 $25,600 $25,603 $25,596 $32,804 $20,280 $23,297 $22,426 $27,225 $33,733

Hourly rate of pay 

(1999) $13.68 $11.34 $13.75 $13.71 $13.79 $16.28 $12.02 $12.15 $12.62 $13.78 $16.47

Weeks worked (1999) 47.4 45.9 48.1 47.9 48.4 48.3 45.8 47.6 46.8 49.4 48.7

Hours worked per 

week (1999) 43.4 43.0 42.7 42.9 42.4 44.6 41.6 42.9 41.7 42.5 44.6

Proportion currently 

employed (2000) 88.2% 79.7% 90.9% 90.9% 91.0% 95.2% 78.4% 85,7% 88.6% 94.8% 95.9%

Proportion employed 

full-time (2000) 80.9% 72.1% 82.8% 83.3% 82.3% 89.3% 71.1% 77.1% 77.2% 85.8% 90.8%

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000.

BY ENROLLMENT BY DEGREE

Sub-baccalaureate
72

Table 3: Economic Outcomes by Gender and Sub-baccalaurate Program of Study and Degree

No PSE Total Occ Non-occ GED

High 

school 

diploma Certificate Associate Bachelor's

Wages and salary 

income (1999) $26,712 $30,897 $32,599 $29,170 $29,051 $28,854 $30,198 $32,200 $38,392

Hourly rate of pay 

(1999) $13.51 $15.25 $15.99 $14.48 $15.04 $14.04 $14.76 $15.22 $17.98

Weeks worked (1999) 47.9 49.1 48.6 49.6 47.3 49.2 49.6 49.8 49.5

Hours worked per 

week (1999) 46.0 45.1 46.2 44.0 44.1 45.6 46.7 44.4 46.3

Proportion currently 

employed (2000) 90.6% 96.9% 97.2% 96.6% 90.1% 92.4% 97.9% 97.8% 97.5%

Proportion employed 

full-time (2000) 86.5% 92.5% 94.2% 90.6% 86.7% 86.8% 95.1% 91.2% 94.0%

No PSE Total Occ Non-occ GED

High 

school 

diploma Certificate Associate Bachelor's

Wages and salary 

income (1999) $12,508 $20,367 $19,425 $21,584 $12,820 $15,151 $17,133 $22,668 $29,564

Hourly rate of pay 

(1999) $8.71 $12.25 $11.64 $13.02 $9.25 $9.39 $11.13 $12.49 $15.14

Weeks worked (1999) 42.9 47.0 47.2 46.8 44.2 45.0 44.8 49.0 48.0

Hours worked per 

week (1999) 38.7 39.9 39.5 40.4 38.9 38.5 38.1 40.8 42.9

Proportion currently 

employed (2000) 67.0% 85.0% 85.2% 84.7% 67.7% 76.2% 82.3% 92.3% 94.4%

Proportion employed 

full-time (2000) 55.2% 73.3% 73.5% 73.0% 57.1% 63.6% 65.1% 81.3% 87.9%

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000.

FEMALES

Sub-baccalaureate Highest Degree

Sub-baccalaureate

MALES

Highest Degree
73

Table 4: Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Women

Independent Variables (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Initial Control Variables

Black 0.078 0.073 0.236 0.238

0.061 0.059 0.062 0.062

Hispanic 0.119 0.117 -0.008 -0.002

0.059 0.059 0.111 0.112

Nonnative 0.133 0.123 0.041 0.048

0.105 0.098 0.101 0.102

High school dropout (No GED) -0.363 -0.362 -0.703 -0.713

0.108 0.108 0.422 0.422

GED -0.058 -0.058 0.346 0.340

0.075 0.073 0.212 0.212

Years of Schooling (FTE) Variables

Baccalaureate 0.141 0.148 0.113 0.108

0.026 0.026 0.028 0.028

Sub-baccalaureate 0.099 0.135

0.033 0.026

Occupational 0.053 0.122

0.043 0.031

Academic 0.152 0.149

0.056 0.036

No major 0.173 0.115

0.044 0.041

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate 0.151 0.155 0.228 0.215

0.073 0.074 0.072 0.072

Highest Degree: Associate 0.365 0.387

0.064 0.065

Associates * Occupational 0.385 0.373

0.064 0.066

Associates * Academic 0.335 0.292

0.129 0.202

Associates * No major 0.549 0.172

0.179 0.096

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.662 0.667 0.582 0.563

0.048 0.048 0.061 0.060

Number of observations 2,342 2,312 2,398 2,398

R-squared 0.360 0.365 0.268 0.266

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000 and High School and Beyond:1980/1992. 

NELS HS&B
74

Table 5: Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Men

Independent Variables (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Initial Control Variables

Black -0.230 -0.232 -0.132 -0.123

0.064 0.064 0.067 0.068

Hispanic -0.011 -0.015 0.021 0.023

0.059 0.059 0.066 0.065

Non-native -0.037 -0.036 0.127 0.123

0.065 0.066 0.094 0.094

High school dropout (No GED) -0.216 -0.221 -0.379 -0.384

0.082 0.082 0.205 0.206

GED -0.012 -0.011 -0.187 -0.188

0.054 0.055 0.128 0.127

Years of Schooling (FTE) Variables

Baccalaureate 0.099 0.101 0.007 0.005

0.022 0.023 0.028 0.028

Sub-baccalaureate 0.057 0.021

0.022 0.023

Occupational 0.077 0.039

0.029 0.027

Academic 0.036 0.004

0.040 0.036

No major 0.041 -0.069

0.032 0.065

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate 0.063 0.061 0.051 0.045

0.047 0.047 0.056 0.055

Highest Degree: Associate 0.158 0.115

0.064 0.051

Associates * Occupational 0.264 0.121

0.064 0.045

Associates * Academic 0.022 -0.107

0.140 0.234

Associates * No major -0.057 0.338

0.098 0.162

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.374 0.370 0.374 0.364

0.048 0.050 0.046 0.045

Number of observations 2,410 2,363 2,331 2,331

R-squared 0.157 0.162 0.169 0.171

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000 and High School and Beyond:1980/1992. 

NELS HS&B
75

Table 6: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: Women

F-tests of joint significance of:

1 Baccalaureate FTE = 0.148 vs. 0.053 p>0.01 0.108 vs. 0.122 p>0.70

Occupational FTE

2 Occupational FTE = 0.053 vs. 0.152 p>0.16 0.122 vs. 0.149 p>0.51

Academic FTE

3 Occupational*Associate = 0.385 vs. 0.335 p>0.14 0.373 vs. 0.292 p>0.69

Academic*Associate

4 Occupational FTE = 0.053 vs. 0.185 p>0.18 0.122 vs. 0.215 p>0.18

Certificate

5 2*Occupational FTE = 0.106 vs. 0.385 p>0.00 0.244 vs. 0.373 p>0.07

Occupational*Associate

6 2*Academic FTE = 0.304 vs. 0.335 p>0.84 0.298 vs. 0.292 p>0.97

Academic*Associate

7 4*Baccalaureate FTE = 0.592 vs. 0.667 p>0.28 0.432 vs. 0.563 p>0.18

Bachelor's

8 2*Occupational*Associate = 0.770 vs. 0.667 p>0.37 0.244 vs. 0.583 p>0.11

Bachelor's

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000 and High School and Beyond:1980/1992. 

NELS HS&B
76

Table 7: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: Men

F-tests of joint significance of:

1 Baccalaureate FTE = 0.101 vs. 0.077 p>0.39 0.005 vs. 0.039 p>0.33

Occupational FTE

2 Occupational FTE = 0.077 vs. 0.036 p>0.37 0.039 vs. 0.004 p>0.40

Academic FTE

3 Occupational*Associate = 0.264 vs. 0.022 p>0.10 0.121 vs. -0.107 p>0.33

Academic*Associate

4 Occupational FTE = 0.077 vs. 0.061 p>0.80 0.039 vs. 0.045 p>0.91

Certificate

5 2*Occupational FTE = 0.154 vs. 0.264 p>0.16 0.078 vs. 0.121 p>0.49

Occupational*Associate

6 2*Academic FTE = 0.072 vs. 0.022 p>0.75 0.008 vs. -0.107 p>0.63

Academic*Associate

7 4*Baccalaureate FTE = 0.404 vs. 0.370 p>0.27 0.020 vs. 0.364 p>0.00

Bachelor's

8 2*Occupational*Associate = 0.528 vs. 0.370 p>0.18 0.242 vs. 0.364 p>0.13

Bachelor's

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000 and High School and Beyond:1980/1992. 

NELS HS&B
77

Table 8: Estimates from Full Model: Women

NELS HS&B

Independent Variables

Initial Control Variables

Black 0.073 0.238

0.059 0.062

Hispanic 0.117 -0.002

0.059 0.112

Non-native 0.123 0.048

0.098 0.102

Family Income 0.002 0.038

0.000 0.012

Parental Ed: Some college/Associate -0.115 0.032

0.040 0.050

Parental Ed: Bachelor's degree or higher -0.099 0.090

0.048 0.053

Composite test score: Second quartile -0.006

0.065

Composite test score: Third quartile 0.232

0.068

Composite test score: Fourth quartile 0.077

0.072

Math test score: Second quartile 0.158

0.056

Math test score: Third quartile 0.134

0.060

Math test score: Fourth quartile 0.186

0.063

Reading test score: Second quartile 0.047

0.062

Reading test score: Third quartile 0.059

0.057

Reading test score: Fourth quartile 0.060

0.062

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. 

 Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000 

and High School and Beyond:1980/1992. 
78

Table 9: Estimates from Full Model: Men

NELS HS&B

Independent Variables

Initial Control Variables

Black -0.232 -0.123

0.064 0.068

Hispanic -0.015 0.023

0.059 0.068

Non-native -0.036 0.123

0.066 0.094

Family Income 0.002 0.044

0.000 0.100

Parental Ed: Some college/Associate -0.063 -0.002

0.037 0.040

Parental Ed: Bachelor's degree or higher -0.050 -0.105

0.042 0.040

Composite test score: Second quartile 0.063

0.055

Composite test score: Third quartile 0.077

0.063

Composite test score: Fourth quartile 0.118

0.057

Math test score: Second quartile 0.040

0.044

Math test score: Third quartile -0.020

0.047

Math test score: Fourth quartile 0.035

0.054

Reading test score: Second quartile -0.016

0.043

Reading test score: Third quartile 0.009

0.044

Reading test score: Fourth quartile -0.040

0.048

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. 

 Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000 

and High School and Beyond:1980/1992. 
79

Table 10: Immediate Returns to Degree and Enrollment by Age (Under 24 & 24 and Over)

Under 24 24 and Over Under 24 24 and Over

Independent Variables (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Initial Control Variables

Black -0.069 -0.741 -0.225 -1.088

0.188 0.235 0.145 0.239

Hispanic 0.109 -1.251 0.169 0.009

0.127 0.371 0.110 0.253

Non-native 0.225 0.469 -0.491 -0.173

0.219 0.453 0.268 0.477

GED -0.641 -0.316 -0.290 -0.269

0.365 0.224 0.164 0.176

Years of Schooling (FTE) Variables

Baccalaureate 0.036 -0.453 -0.033 #

0.064 0.299 0.056

Sub-baccalaureate

Occupational -0.020 -0.419 -0.014 -0.172

0.091 0.214 0.094 0.170

Academic -0.029 -0.266 -0.036 #

0.112 0.149 0.063

No major -0.032 # -0.013 #

0.115 0.059

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate 0.042 -0.422 0.116 -0.435

0.168 0.170 0.141 0.186

Highest Degree: Associate

Associate * Occupational 0.367 -0.146 0.178 -0.780

0.143 0.219 0.114 0.285

Associate * Academic -0.501 # 0.106 #

0.323 0.187

Associate * No major 0.214 # 0.381 #

0.174 0.225

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.129 # -0.333 #

0.175 0.188

Number of observations 620 162 488 84

R-squared 0.156 0.356 0.173 0.310

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

# denotes insufficient number of observations in cell.

Models also control for parental education and work experience.

Source: Beginning Postsecondary Students:1989/94. 

BPS89

Females Males
80

Table 11: Immediate Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Women

Independent Variables (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Initial Control Variables

Black -0.238 -0.165 -0.249 -0.171

0.177 0.181 0.174 0.169

Hispanic -0.071 0.053 -0.071 0.057

0.179 0.142 0.177 0.140

Non-native 0.296 0.231 0.263 0.266

0.260 0.215 0.263 0.213

GED -0.702 -0.536 -0.685 -0.528

0.273 0.254 0.272 0.253

Economically disadvantaged -0.276 -0.264

0.157 0.157

Years of Schooling (FTE) Variables

Baccalaureate -0.024 -0.024 -0.027 -0.035

0.063 0.072 0.063 0.067

Sub-baccalaureate -0.094 -0.115

0.076 0.080

Occupational -0.100 -0.182

0.096 0.128

Academic -0.105 -0.091

0.093 0.115

No major -0.082 -0.044

0.108 0.089

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate -0.067 -0.022 -0.075 -0.051

0.135 0.160 0.135 0.156

Highest Degree: Associate -0.089 -0.228

0.183 0.231

Associate * Occupational 0.227 0.241

0.136 0.156

Associate * Academic -0.598 -0.774

0.323 0.347

Associate * No major 0.127 0.036

0.173 0.170

Highest Degree: Bachelor's -0.068 -0.119 -0.080 -0.149

0.191 0.179 0.187 0.171

Interaction: Econ disadvantaged * Years of Schooling (FTE)

Sub-baccalaureate 0.099

0.131

Occupational 0.190

0.168

Academic -0.126

0.218

No major

Interaction: Econ disadvantaged * Degree

Highest Degree: Certificate -0.047 -0.049

0.293 0.291

Highest Degree: Associate 0.428

0.261

Associate * Occupational -0.071

0.216

Associate * Academic 0.950

0.368

Associate * No major 

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.209 0.207

0.373 0.367

Number of observations 782 755 782 755

R-squared 0.120 0.135 0.141 0.166

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

# denotes insufficient degrees of freedom.

Models also control for parental education and work experience.

Source: Beginning Postsecondary Students:1989/94. 

BPS89
81

Table 12: Immediate Returns to Degree and Enrollment: Men

Independent Variables (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)#

Initial Control Variables

Black -0.376 -0.279 -0.375

0.110 0.125 0.110

Hispanic 0.147 0.165 0.152

0.098 0.099 0.101

Non-native -0.280 -0.268 -0.283

0.233 0.228 0.234

GED -0.292 -0.285 -0.292

0.125 0.128 0.125

Economically disadvantaged -0.417

0.185

Years of Schooling (FTE) Variables

Baccalaureate -0.074 -0.118 -0.074

0.050 0.048 0.050

Sub-baccalaureate -0.051 -0.105

0.057 0.055

Occupational -0.053

0.084

Academic -0.073

0.060

No major -0.033

0.060

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate -0.036 -0.106 -0.039

0.114 0.128 0.115

Highest Degree: Associate 0.038 -0.185

0.117 0.129

Associate * Occupational 0.014

0.118

Associate * Academic 0.027

0.194

Associate * No major 0.188

0.163

Highest Degree: Bachelor's -0.459 -0.708 -0.459

0.174 0.238 0.174

Interaction: Econ disadvantaged * Years of Schooling (FTE)

Sub-baccalaureate 0.215

0.144

Occupational 

Academic 

No major

Interaction: Econ disadvantaged * Degree

Highest Degree: Certificate 0.284

0.225

Highest Degree: Associate 0.655

0.242

Associate * Occupational 

Associate * Academic 

Associate * No major 

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.653

0.344

Number of observations 572 562 572

R-squared 0.160 0.180 0.161

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

# denotes insufficient degrees of freedom.

Models also control for parental education and work experience.

Source: Beginning Postsecondary Students:1989/94. 

BPS89
82

Table 13: Returns to Degree and Enrollment by Disadvantaged Status: Women

Independent Variables (i) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii) (iii)#

Initial Control Variables

Black 0.061 0.066 0.068 0.152 0.135

0.097 0.098 0.099 0.085 0.077

Hispanic 0.191 0.196 0.191 0.047 0.033

0.096 0.097 0.095 0.096 0.095

Non-native 0.009 0.002 -0.003 0.216 0.171

0.142 0.139 0.138 0.224 0.202

High school dropout (No GED) -0.297 -0.291 -0.289 -0.274 -0.285

0.134 0.135 0.135 0.153 0.153

GED 0.002 0.010 0.011 -0.032 -0.046

0.109 0.110 0.112 0.104 0.098

Years of Schooling (FTE) Variables

Baccalaureate 0.202 0.206 0.207 0.226 0.226

0.054 0.055 0.054 0.039 0.038

Sub-baccalaureate -0.024 0.137

0.088 0.052

Occupational -0.069 -0.071 0.050

0.110 0.110 0.064

Academic 0.023 0.025 0.236

0.145 0.146 0.091

No major 0.229 0.225 0.240

0.106 0.108 0.053

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate 0.254 0.262 0.261 0.081 0.076

0.117 0.116 0.116 0.123 0.122

Highest Degree: Associate 0.105 0.121 0.436 0.434

0.148 0.150 0.087 0.087

Associate * Occupational 0.268

0.115

Associate * Academic -0.127

0.294

Associate * No major 

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.882 0.897 0.883 0.734 0.736

0.124 0.122 0.123 0.085 0.085

Number of observations 441 441 438 780 780

R-squared 0.427 0.431 0.433 0.370 0.378

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

# denotes insufficient degrees of freedom.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000.

Economically Disadvantaged Academically Disadvantaged

NELS
83

Table 14: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: Women

F-tests of joint significance of:

1 Occupational FTE = -0.071 vs. 0.025 p>0.58

Academic FTE

2 Occupational*Associate = 0.268 vs. -0.127 p>0.20

Academic*Associate

3 2*Occupational FTE = -0.142 vs. 0.268 p>0.10

Occupational*Associate

4 2*Academic FTE = 0.050 vs. -0.127 p>0.66

Academic*Associate

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

# denotes insufficient degrees of freedom.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000. 

Economically Disadvantaged Academically Disadvantaged#
84

Table 15: Returns to Degree and Enrollment by Disadvantaged Status: Men

Independent Variables (i) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii) (iii)#

Initial Control Variables

Black -0.157 -0.152 -0.158 -0.103 -0.108

0.122 0.121 0.120 0.061 0.062

Hispanic -0.061 -0.037 -0.051 0.095 0.097

0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093

Non-native 0.065 0.051 0.058 -0.141 -0.140

0.098 0.102 0.107 0.065 0.065

HS dropout (No GED) -0.039 -0.045 -0.037 -0.065 -0.069

0.141 0.140 0.140 0.083 0.083

GED -0.042 -0.032 -0.032 -0.139 -0.140

0.084 0.084 0.085 0.089 0.090

Years of Schooling (FTE) Variables

Baccalaureate 0.148 0.151 0.145 0.078 0.070

0.052 0.052 0.053 0.044 0.044

Sub-baccalaureate 0.206 0.091

0.057 0.038

Occupational 0.144 0.151 0.097

0.059 0.060 0.047

Academic 0.288 0.306 0.049

0.097 0.099 0.058

No major 0.123 0.128 0.065

0.053 0.054 0.049

Degree Variables

Highest Degree: Certificate 0.209 0.213 0.219 0.108 0.103

0.100 0.101 0.100 0.068 0.068

Highest Degree: Associate 0.281 0.284 0.282 0.275

0.132 0.133 0.080 0.080

Associate * Occupational 0.241

0.137

Associate * Academic 0.809

0.139

Associate * No major 0.488

0.235

Highest Degree: Bachelor's 0.641 0.662 0.681 0.412 0.400

0.121 0.122 0.123 0.078 0.077

Number of observations 446 446 440 840 840

R-squared 0.194 0.200 0.205 0.175 0.175

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

# denotes insufficient degrees of freedom.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000.

Economically Disadvantaged Academically Disadvantaged

NELS
85

Table 16: Tests of Sheepskin Effects and the Equivalence of Different Types of Education: Men

F-tests of joint significance of:

1 Occupational FTE = 0.151 vs. 0.306 p>0.15

Academic FTE

2 Occupational*Associate = 0.241 vs. 0.809 p>0.00

Academic*Associate

3 2*Occupational FTE = 0.302 vs. 0.241 p>0.72

Occupational*Associate

4 2*Academic FTE = 0.612 vs. 0.809 p>0.32

Academic*Associate

Note: Standard errors are below coefficient. Bolded coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level.

# denotes insufficient degrees of freedom.

Models also control for parental education, family income, test scores, and work experience.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study:1988/2000. 

Economically Disadvantaged Academically Disadvantaged#