Search

There are hundreds of local labor markets fuel the American economy, and each one is driven by the needs of the local area's mix of industries and the skills of its workers. For each labor market to operate at its peak potential, these needs and skills must align. Achieving alignment requires local education and training providers to convey in-demand skills through the programs they offer; when providers fail at this task, skills gaps can manifest or grow. The result of failure is a great misalignment between credential supply and labor-market demand, specifically at the middle-skills level. On one side of this great misalignment is the middle-skills employment: jobs that require more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor's degree. On the other side lies the vast array of middle-skills education and training providers, which include public community colleges, private nonprofit and for-profit two-year institutions, and private training institutions such as technical, clerical, and cosmetology schools, along with some four-year colleges that offer middle-skills credentials. These providers often explicitly design their programs to serve local workforce needs, including by collaborating directly with employers to create educational offerings that match the skills demands of the local labor market. This report focuses on middle-skills credentials--that is, postsecondary sub-baccalaureate certificates and associate's degrees. As of the 2020-2021 school year, providers of these credentials numbered almost 4,800 nationwide. These providers were spread unevenly across the 565 local labor markets described in this report, with some markets served by dozens of providers and others served by only one. The pressure on these middle-skills providers to meet community workforce needs continues to grow: the national economy is expected to create an average of 18.5 million job openings annually through 2031, and 5.8 million of these job openings each year (slightly more than 31 percent) will go to workers with an associate's degree, a certificate, or some college credit but no degree.

Rural America has long been perceived as "left behind" by policies that leave it struggling while benefiting bustling urban cities and suburbs. That narrative holds some truth: rural America has a declining population, along with lower educational attainment and lower workforce participation than urban America. But while rural America certainly faces challenges, it also has its own strengths and assets. "Small Towns, Big Opportunities: Many Workers in Rural Areas Have Good Jobs, but These Areas Need Greater Investment in Education, Training, and Career Counseling" counters some of the negative stereotypes and finds that working adults in rural America are almost as likely (50 percent) as working adults in urban America (54 percent) to have a good job.

Concerns about rising college costs and uncertain economic returns have combined with a wave of populist backlash to reduce public trust in higher education, which plummeted to new lows in 2023. President Biden, who ran his 2020 campaign on a platform that included student loan forgiveness and free community college, has focused some of his recent public messaging on high-paying jobs for workers without college degrees--despite the fact that such jobs are rare. The data shows that time and again a college degree is the most reliable pathway to the middle class: 74 percent of workers with college degrees have good jobs, compared with 42 percent of workers with no more than a high school diploma. These statistics indicate that Americans need both more access to affordable college education and more and better pathways to economic opportunity for workers without college degrees. But they also demonstrate that college degrees remain valuable both to individuals and to society. This report documents the economic benefits associated with increases in college degree attainment that occurred between 2010 and 2020, both nationally and within each state. It also describes the nonmonetary ways in which education contributes to human flourishing.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ban on race-conscious admissions, the pursuit of diversity and equity in higher education is increasingly under threat. While access to higher education has improved overall for historically underrepresented students, the quality of that opportunity remains uneven, particularly along the lines of race/ethnicity and class. Race-conscious affirmative action brought about a modicum of racial and ethnic diversity to selective colleges, and by extension to our social and economic institutions. Yet this still failed to sufficiently increase representation at selective institutions to reflect the growing percentage of underrepresented minority students who are of college age. This report is a retrospective analysis of the changing demographics of selective and open-access institutions from 2009 to 2019, the decade leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. Race/ethnicity could still be explicitly considered in the admissions process during that decade. The authors chose to end the analysis with the onset of COVID-19 because the pandemic profoundly altered college enrollment. This report demonstrates that even with race-conscious affirmative action, diversity gains made at the nation's most selective colleges and universities were incremental at best. The US is still a long way from successfully closing equity gaps by race/ethnicity at selective universities, while historically underrepresented students continue to disproportionately enroll in open-access institutions.

The staggering highs and lows of the recent US economy and their effect on the labor force has been deeply unsettling. The US has come through the COVID-19 recession, the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, followed by the quickest recovery ever. One trend in the workforce has remained unaltered throughout this historic change: the increasing need for workers to have greater levels of education in order to succeed in the modern economy. The US economy is bifurcated between a large but sluggish blue-collar and skilled-trades economy and a smaller but faster-growing managerial and professional economy. This is leading to a widening economic divide between those who have postsecondary education and those who do not. The projections of education demand outlined in this report rest on a combination of historical data and growth forecasts. The economy will continue to create jobs for workers with a high school diploma or less. But these jobs, in many cases, do not offer high enough earnings for the workers who hold them to adequately maintain a home and raise a family. The labor force will be increasingly divided between those who have postsecondary education and those who don't. But it is becoming ever clearer that postsecondary education or training is the only path for most workers to a middle-class lifestyle.

Over the past century, the United States workforce has undergone a massive structural shift. Technological change has moved the economy toward skilled labor and away from unskilled labor--a phenomenon known as skill-biased technical change. This structural shift has increased the relative demand for educated and skilled labor, leading to commensurate increases in the relative wages of skilled workers, and changes in the nature of work itself. The authors project that the United States will have 171 million jobs in 2031, compared to 155 million in 2021. This total is even more impressive when compared to the low of 138 million jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This report shows: (1) A breakdown of job projections by 13 major industries; and (2) A breakdown of job projections by nine major occupational clusters and 22 total occupational groups. All of the industry and occupational sections include projections for jobs through 2031 by needed level of educational attainment. This report also accounts for the increasing role of technology in American society, particularly in the world of work. The authors find that the nature of work has changed dramatically to incorporate technology not only as a complement to human labor but also as a substitute for tasks within jobs and sometimes even workers. This report includes a national overview of job projections and their educational requirements across industries, occupational clusters, and detailed occupational groups.

This report projects education requirements linked to forecasted job growth for all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 2021 through 2031. It complements a larger national report that projects education demand by occupation and industry for the same period. The national report finds that by 2031, 72 percent of all jobs nationally will require at least some postsecondary education and training beyond high school. These requirements will differ by state: in the District of Columbia, more than 80 percent of all jobs will require postsecondary education in 2031, while in two states, Louisiana and Arkansas, fewer than 60 percent of jobs in 2031 will require education beyond high school. In this report, the authors show the following for each state: (1) The education composition of jobs in the base year (2021) compared to the forecast year (2031); (2) How each state's job forecasts compare to the national average, and how the states rank compared to one another; and (3) A breakdown of where the jobs are by state and by education level and occupation, for 25 detailed occupational categories in 2031.

This appendix documents the methodology used by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce to project educational demand within the US economy. The methodology produces forecasts using data from two private analytics companies. The authors use occupational forecasts provided by Lightcast that are calibrated to total employment forecasts from IHS Markit. The data is then fed into a model that was created more than a decade ago and has been repeatedly refined. In the model, the authors use gross domestic product (GDP) and employment projections from IHS Markit as feedstock for an input-output (I/O) model developed by Lightcast. The authors have a four-step approach to forecasting educational demand: (1) Forecast educational distributions within occupations; (2) Estimate long-term employment projections; (3) Estimate change in the occupational structure; and (4) Project educational demand through 2031.

As young people progress with their education and their early careers, they find themselves pushed forward or held back at critical junctures without full regard for their individual capabilities. Their paths are too often defined less by their talents and more by characteristics such as their race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic or class status. By default, too many young people encounter barriers based on these characteristics, narrowing the scope of their educational and career options. The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) built the Pathways-to-Career policy simulation model, which uses longitudinal data to identify promising actions for increasing the likelihood of working in a good job--as defined as providing minimum annual earnings of about $38,000 per year, with a median of $57,000 at age 30. The Pathways-to-Career model establishes an actionable, solution-oriented framework for improving the economic lives of young adults by simulating the potential impacts of different pathway changes at critical junctures along the route from adolescence to early adulthood. The model relies on data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97)--an ongoing study that tracks a nationally representative sample of individuals born in the early 1980s from ages 12-16 to adulthood. The data set allows researchers to estimate the expected labor-market effects of different pathway changes for young people overall and separately by race/ethnicity, gender, and class. It also allows them to layer these pathway changes and examine the gains associated with comprehensive policy efforts to expand access to good jobs. Using the Pathways-to-Career model, they examined 38 pathway changes involving hypothetical adjustments to individuals' education, sectoral training, and work-based experiences at different life stages, from adolescence to their mid-20s. They then narrowed down these 38 pathway changes to the 10 that could most improve the likelihood of having a good job at age 30. The report outlines how the expected impacts of each of these 10 pathway changes differ by race/ethnicity, gender, and class, as well as how these 10 pathway changes could influence opportunity gaps in good jobs at age 30. It also considers the enhanced impact of strategically combining pathway changes for maximum effect. [For the executive summary, see ED628029.]

This is the executive summary of the report, "What Works: Ten Education, Training, and Work-Based Pathway Changes That Lead to Good Jobs. Findings by Race, Gender, and Class from the Georgetown University Pathways-to-Career Policy Simulation Model." To identify the pathway changes with the greatest potential, the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) developed the Pathways-to-Career policy simulation model. The model uses longitudinal data to identify promising junctures at which a strategic intervention could increase the likelihood of working in a good job--one define as providing minimum annual earnings of about $38,000 per year, with a median of $57,000, at age 30. The Pathways-to-Career model establishes an actionable, solution-oriented framework for improving the economic lives of young adults by simulating the potential impacts of different pathway changes at critical junctures along the route from adolescence to early adulthood. Using the model, the researchers identified 10 pathway changes involving education, training, and work experience that could most improve the likelihood of having a good job at age 30. [For the full report, see ED628027.]

An expected national ban on the consideration of race in college admissions will threaten the racial and ethnic diversity of students at selective colleges unless these colleges fundamentally alter their admissions practices. This report finds that selective colleges barred from considering race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions may be able to partially claw back some racial/ethnic diversity using class-conscious admissions practices, but they will be extremely unlikely to enroll student bodies that come close to mirroring the demographic diversity of the high school class. The authors examine the following six admissions models and the impact they would likely have on racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity if used consistently across selective colleges: (1) Academic merit, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity; (2) High school class rank, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity; (3) Academic merit only; (4) Academic merit and socioeconomic status; (5) High school class rank only; and (6) High school class rank and socioeconomic status. All six models assume the elimination of preferences for legacy applicants, student athletes, and other groups that receive admissions boosts for reasons unrelated to academic merit, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic status (SES).

If the Supreme Court bans race-conscious affirmative action, as expected, selective higher education institutions almost certainly will become less diverse, reducing the rates of degree attainment among students from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. "Race, Elite College Admissions, and the Courts: The Pursuit of Racial Equality in Education Retreats to K-12 Schools" explores the legal history of racial equity in education, evaluates alternatives to using race/ethnicity in college admissions, and considers changes to the K-12 education system that would improve educational opportunity. In the long term, the only way to ensure diversity at selective higher education institutions is to confront the segregation and inequity in K-12 education and society at large.

College typically pays off for low-income students, but not as much as it does for their peers. Low-income students, whose families earn $30,000 or less per year, comprise more than one-third of college students. "The Colleges Where Low-Income Students Get the Highest ROI" finds that low-income students have a lower return on investment (ROI) than all students, largely because they tend to earn less as adults. This holds true across public and private institutions and certificates, associate's degrees, and bachelor's degrees. Among institutions that primarily award bachelor's degrees, public institutions generally lead to the highest ROI for low-income students during a 40-year timeframe ($951,000), followed by private nonprofit institutions ($863,000) and for-profit colleges ($763,000). The ROI for low-income students follows a similar pattern at colleges that primarily grant associate's degrees and certificates, with the highest returns from public institutions, followed by private nonprofit and for-profit institutions. However, low-income students' returns from associate's degrees can exceed $1 million, and certificates can be just as lucrative, depending on which college a student attends.

Majoring in business typically pays off. While graduates' earnings and federal student loan debt vary by institution and degree level, the majority of business programs lead to median earnings that are roughly 10 times graduates' debt payments two years after program completion. "The Most Popular Degree Pays Off: Ranking the Economic Value of 5,500 Business Programs at More Than 1,700 Colleges" finds that the economic value of business programs is high compared to the financial returns from other programs, though not as high as returns associated with health, engineering, and computer and information sciences programs. Two years after graduation, associate's degree holders in business have median annual earnings of $30,000 after debt payments. The financial returns from a business degree rise to $43,200 after debt payments for bachelor's degree holders and $51,600 for master's degree holders.

Americans share a strong belief that the country offers access to opportunity. In 2017, 82 percent of Americans said they had achieved the American Dream or were on their way to achieving it. But do all Americans--regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status--have equal access to the American Dream? This report examines racial/ethnic and gender gaps in who has a good job as a young adult. It explores how the likelihood of having a good job is affected by the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender and related opportunity gaps in: (1) educational attainment; (2) field of study; (3) occupation; (4) full-time work; (5) access to high-quality work-based learning; (6) experiences with structural racism and sexism; and (7) intergenerational wealth. These elements work together to perpetuate inequality of opportunity for young Americans. It is part of a two-report exploration of the elongated pathway to a good job. [For the companion report, "The Uncertain Pathway from Youth to a Good Job: How Limits to Educational Affordability, Work-Based Learning, and Career Counseling Impede Progress toward Good Jobs," see ED624515.]

The economic and social landscape that young people encounter today is substantially more complex and challenging than the one faced by earlier generations. Technological change and globalization have transformed the labor market, increasing the value of postsecondary education and hollowing out industries that once employed many workers who had no more than a high school diploma. While access to postsecondary education has expanded, gaps in educational attainment and access to good jobs among demographic groups persist. Together, these factors limit opportunity for many young workers. Within each racial/ethnic group, women are less likely to have a good job than men. Many young people seeking to secure a good job find themselves on winding pathways rife with barriers. Among these barriers are three major hurdles: (1) the rising cost of postsecondary education, (2) limited access to high-quality work-based learning (WBL), and (3) an absence of comprehensive counseling and career navigation services. These three hurdles, exacerbated by discrimination, have heightened disparities in educational attainment and financial security by race, class, and gender. Finally, they have slowed young adults' ability to accumulate wealth, especially for those who acquire substantial debt to cover the rising costs of postsecondary education. [For the full reports, "The Uncertain Pathway from Youth to a Good Job: How Limits to Educational Affordability, Work-Based Learning, and Career Counseling Impede Progress toward Good Jobs," see ED624515 and "The Uncertain Pathway from Youth to a Good Job: How Racial and Gender Bias Impede Progress toward Good Jobs," see ED624516.]

The propensity to believe that good things are likely to happen fuels the enduring belief in the American Dream, including the expectation that each generation will enjoy a better quality of life than the previous one. This report is part of a series on young people's pathways to good jobs. In it, the researchers examine how the route from youth dependency to economic independence in young adulthood has changed over time. It explores how the likelihood of having a good job is affected by (1) educational attainment; (2) field of study; (3) occupation; (4) full-time work; (5) access to high-quality work-based learning; and (6) socioeconomic status. These elements work together to perpetuate inequality of opportunity for young Americans. In this report, the researchers focus on overall historical trends and socioeconomic gaps in opportunity. [For the companion report, "The Uncertain Pathway from Youth to a Good Job: How Racial and Gender Bias Impede Progress toward Good Jobs," see ED624516.]