Not only does education pay off for individuals financially, but the public sector also benefits from having a large proportion of tertiary-educated individuals through, for instance, greater tax revenues and social contributions.
Adults who complete tertiary education benefit from substantial returns on investment, because they are more likely to be employed and to earn more than adults without tertiary education.
Across OECD countries on average, a man invests around USD 52 500 (direct costs plus foregone earnings) to earn a tertiary degree, while a woman invests around USD 41 700. Because men tend to have higher earnings and employment rates, they also have higher total benefits over their career: USD 319 600 for men, compared to USD 234 000 for women.
Education at a Glance 2018
Indicator A5. What are the financial incentives to invest in education?
Figure A5.1. Private net financial returns for a man or a woman attaining tertiary education (2015)
1. Reference year differs from 2015. Refer to the source table for more details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of private net financial returns for a man.
Source: OECD (2018), Tables A5.1a and A5.1b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Context
Investing time and money in education is an investment in human capital. Better chances of employment (see Indicator A3) and higher earnings (see Indicator A4) are strong incentives for adults to invest in education and postpone employment. Although women currently have higher levels of education than men on average (see Indicator A1), men reap more benefits from their investment, as they have better employment and earning outcomes from education, on average.
Countries benefit from more highly educated individuals, through reduced public expenditure on social welfare programmes and higher revenues earned through taxes paid once individuals enter the labour market. As both individuals and governments benefit from higher levels of educational attainment, it is important to consider the financial returns to education alongside other indicators, such as completion and access to higher education (see Indicator B7).
It is crucial for policy makers to understand the economic incentives to invest in education. For instance, large increases in labour-market demand for more highly educated workers can drive up earnings and returns until supply catches up. Such conditions signal a need for additional investment in education.
Other factors not reflected in this indicator also affect the returns to education. The financial returns may be affected by the field of study and by the country-specific economic, labour-market and institutional context, as well as by social and cultural factors. Furthermore, returns to education are not limited to financial returns, but also include other economic outcomes, such as increased productivity boosting economic growth, and social outcomes, such as higher involvement towards environmental protection (see Indicator A6).
Other findings
In most OECD countries, the main cost for tertiary education is not direct payments, such as tuition fees and living expenses, but the earnings individuals forego while they are in school. This is true even when taking into account the fact that many students work while pursuing further education.
Private benefits from investing in education depend on countries’ tax and social benefits systems. For example, in Chile, Estonia and Korea, income taxes and social contributions amount to less than a quarter of the gross earning benefits for a man attaining tertiary education, while in Belgium, they add up to more than half of the gross earning benefits.
For all countries with available data, the private net financial returns from obtaining a bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree are at least 40% higher than the returns from obtaining a short-cycle tertiary degree.
Note
This indicator provides information on the incentives to invest in further education by considering its costs and benefits, including net financial returns and internal rate of return. It examines the choice between pursuing higher levels of education and entering the labour market, focusing on two scenarios:
1) investing in tertiary education versus entering the labour market with an upper secondary degree
2) investing in upper secondary education versus entering the labour market without an upper secondary degree.
Two types of investors are considered:
1) the individual (referred to here as “private”) who chooses to pursue higher levels of education and the additional net earnings and costs he or she can expect
2) the government (referred to here as “public”) that decides to invest in education and the additional revenue it would receive (e.g. as tax revenues) and the costs involved.
This indicator estimates the financial returns on investment in education only up to a theoretical retirement age of 64 and, therefore, does not take pensions into account. Values are presented separately for men and women, to account for gender differences in earnings and unemployment rates. The direct costs to education presented in this indicator do not take into account student loans.
Please note that due to continuous improvements to this indicator’s methodology, the values presented in this edition of Education at a Glance are not comparable with those in previous editions.
Analysis
Financial incentives for individuals to invest in tertiary education
Figure A5.1 shows that, on average across OECD countries, investing in education pays off in the long run for both men and women. The gains associated with a higher level of education that individuals can expect to receive over their career exceed the costs they bear during their studies. This is true for tertiary education, and it also holds for upper secondary education (Figure A5.1, Tables A5.1a and b, and Tables A5.4a and b, available on line).
Across OECD countries, the average private financial returns from tertiary education for a man are USD 267 100. Although young women tend to complete higher education more often than young men (see Indicator A1), women tend to have lower relative net financial returns to investing in tertiary education than men. For a woman, on average, net financial returns from tertiary education are USD 192 300, representing less than three-quarters of those for a man (Figure A5.1).
The private financial returns from tertiary education are higher for men than for women in all OECD countries with available data, with the exception of Belgium, Estonia, Norway, Spain and Turkey. Women in these countries still faced lower earnings and employment rates than men in 2016, but the gain from a tertiary degree, as compared to attaining only upper secondary, is higher for women than for men. This means that, in these countries, the gap between earnings and employment by level of educational attainment is higher for women than for men.
The generally lower returns for women can be attributed to a variety of factors, such as women's lower earnings, lower employment rates, a higher share of part-time work on average and differences in choices of field of study between men and women. The availability of affordable, high-quality early childhood education and care can also influence women’s employment outcomes. Japan has the largest gender difference, with net financial returns for a tertiary-educated man about 13 times higher than for a woman with a similar level of education. In Japan, the tax system and the labour-market structure tend to drive down women’s returns from tertiary education. However, private net financial returns may increase for Japanese women in the future, as the current government aims to promote higher labour-market participation among women by introducing a number of specific policy measures (Cabinet Secretariat, 2016[1]) (Tables A5.1a and b).
Another way to analyse returns to education is through the internal rate of return, which is the real interest rate that would equalise the costs and benefits, leading the investment to break even. It can be interpreted as the interest rate on the investment made on a higher level of education that an individual can expect to receive every year during a working-age life. On average across OECD countries, the internal rate of return to tertiary education is 14% for men and 16% for women. The higher internal rate of return for women reflects the fact that their initial investment to attain the higher level of education (in terms of foregone earnings) is lower (Tables A5.1a and b).
The costs and benefits of tertiary education for individuals
Private net financial returns are the difference between the costs and benefits associated with attaining an additional level of education. In this analysis, the costs include direct costs of attaining education and foregone earnings, while the benefits include earnings from employment and unemployment benefits. To show the impact of the tax system on total benefits, the income tax effect, social contributions effect and social transfers effect are also analysed (see Definitions section at the end of this indicator).
Total private costs (composed of direct costs and foregone earnings) generally rise with the level of education. On average across OECD countries, the total direct cost for a man or a woman to attain tertiary education is about USD 9 000. However, in most countries, the main costs are foregone earnings, i.e. the earnings an individual could expect to receive if he/she decided not to pursue further education. These vary substantially across countries, depending on the length of education, earnings levels and the difference in earnings across levels of educational attainment. The current model also takes into account the fact that, in many countries, it is common for students to work while studying, thus decreasing their foregone earnings and the total cost of education. Indicator A6 in Education at a Glance 2017 (OECD, 2017[2]) shows the prevalence of student employment and the level of student earnings across OECD and partner countries.
Foregone earnings for a man while attaining tertiary education vary from USD 8 500 in Turkey to more than USD 80 000 in Luxembourg. When direct costs and foregone earnings are combined, Japan has the highest total private costs. A man or woman attaining tertiary education in Japan can expect total costs to be more than seven times higher than those in Turkey (Tables A5.1a and b).
Figure A5.2. Private costs and benefits of education for a man or a woman attaining tertiary education (2015)
1. Reference year differs from 2015. Refer to the source table for more details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total private benefits for a man.
Source: OECD (2018), Tables A5.1a and A5.1b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Figure A5.2 shows that the earning advantages of higher education bring considerable benefits for individuals, but how men and women benefit can depend on country-specific labour-market outcomes. On average, the total benefit for a tertiary-educated man is USD 319 600, while the total benefit for a tertiary-educated woman is USD 234 000. This means that, over a career of 40 years, a tertiary-educated man will get about USD 2 100 more per year in total benefits (compared to a man with only upper secondary education) than a woman with the same level of education. This is mainly due to gender gaps in earnings (see Indicator A4), but is also related to higher inactivity and unemployment rates for women (see Indicator A3) (Tables A5.1a and b).
While further education yields higher earnings over the career of an individual, private benefits from investing in education also depend on countries’ tax and social benefits systems (Brys and Torres, 2013[3]). For instance, in Chile, Estonia and Korea, income taxes and social contributions amount to less than a quarter of the gross earning benefits for a man attaining tertiary education, while in Belgium they add up to more than half of the gross earning benefits. As women tend to have lower earnings, they often fall into lower income tax brackets. For example, in Greece, Ireland and Israel, the income tax and social contributions relative to gross earnings for a tertiary-educated woman are about 10 percentage points lower than for a tertiary-educated man (Tables A5.1a and b). Taxes and social contributions also relate to pensions and retirement programmes, which are not considered in this indicator.
Financial incentives for governments to invest in tertiary education
Governments are major investors in education (see Indicator C3). From a budgetary point of view, it is important to analyse if these investments will be recovered, particularly in an era of substantial fiscal constraints. Since higher levels of educational attainment tend to translate into higher earnings (see Indicator A4), investments in education generate higher public returns, because tertiary-educated adults pay higher income taxes and social contributions and require fewer social transfers. On average across OECD countries, the public net financial returns are about USD 139 600 for a man who has completed tertiary education and USD 72 100 for a woman (Tables A5.2a and b).
The net financial returns on investment for governments are generally closely related to private returns. Countries where individuals benefit the most from pursuing tertiary education are also those where governments gain the largest returns. This is the case in Ireland, Luxembourg and the United States, countries with very large net financial private and public returns.
However, different tax systems can considerably affect whether public returns will follow private returns. Chile, for example, has the highest private returns for a man attaining tertiary education, but because it collects a smaller share of individuals’ additional earnings in the form of taxes and social contributions, it has the third-lowest public returns (Tables A5.1a and A5.2a).
Figure A5.3. Public costs and benefits of education for a man or a woman attaining tertiary education (2015)
1. Reference year differs from 2015. Refer to the source table for more details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total public benefits for a man.
Source: OECD (2018), Tables A5.2a and A5.2b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
The costs and benefits of tertiary education for governments
Public net financial returns are based on the difference between costs and benefits associated with an individual attaining an additional level of education. In this analysis, the costs include direct public costs for supporting education and foregone taxes on earnings, while the benefits are calculated using income tax, social contributions, social transfers and unemployment benefits.
For governments, direct costs represent the largest share of total public costs for tertiary education, even though student loans are not taken into account in this indicator. This is particularly true in countries such as Denmark, Finland and Norway, where students pay low or no tuition fees and have access to generous public subsidies for higher education (see Indicator C5). Countries with high direct costs are also the countries with the largest total public costs, reaching over USD 100 000 for men in Luxembourg and Norway. In contrast, Chile and Greece have the lowest total public costs (less than USD 10 000 for men and women) of all OECD countries. On average across OECD countries, the total public cost to attain tertiary education is USD 48 500 for a man and USD 44 700 for a woman (Tables A5.2a and b).
Governments offset the costs of direct investment and foregone tax revenue associated with education by receiving additional tax revenue and social contributions from higher-paid workers, who often have higher educational attainment. On average, these total public benefits are USD 188 100 for a man with tertiary education and USD 116 800 for a woman (Tables A5.2a and b).
Total public benefits differ between men and women, mainly due to differences in labour-market outcomes. This suggests that governments have a role to play in easing the integration and participation of women in the labour market, in order to assure higher gains from the large investment that women make in their education. On average, the total public benefits of education for a man attaining tertiary education are about 60% larger than the total public benefits for a tertiary-educated woman. Across OECD countries, Luxembourg has the largest total public benefits of tertiary education for a man (USD 467 700) and for a woman (above USD 306 800) (Tables A5.2a and b).
The internal rate of return to governments is higher for a man (10% for tertiary and 9% for upper secondary) than for a woman with similar levels of education (8% for tertiary and 5% for upper secondary). This difference by gender is due to the fact that the public costs (i.e. public investment) are very similar for men and women while the public benefits for a man are higher than the public benefits for a woman (Tables A5.2a and b, and Tables A5.5a and b, available on line).
On average, the total public benefits (USD 188 100) for a tertiary-educated man can be broken down into income tax effect (USD 132 500), social contribution effect (USD 51 900), transfers effect (USD 600) and unemployment benefits effect (USD 3 100). For a tertiary-educated woman, the total public benefits (USD 116 800) can be broken down into USD 74 700 in income tax effect, USD 37 400 in social contribution effect, USD 2 700 in transfers effect and USD 2 000 in unemployment benefits effect (Tables A5.2a and b). The transfers effect for a tertiary-educated man are low on average and close to zero in most countries, because even those with only upper secondary attainment are likely to reach earnings that are high enough to not qualify for substantial social transfers from the government. For women, the transfers effect is positive in most countries and higher on average. This difference reflects the generally lower earnings of women compared to men, particularly among those without tertiary education, which makes them more likely to receive social transfers from the government.
Higher taxes can sometimes deter private investment in different areas (including education), and a number of countries have tax policies that effectively lower the actual tax paid by adults, particularly by those in high-income brackets. For example, tax relief for interest payments on mortgage debt has been introduced in many OECD countries to encourage home ownership. These benefits favour those with higher levels of education and high marginal tax rates. The tax incentives for housing are particularly large in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Norway and the United States (Andrews, Caldera Sánchez and Johansson, 2011[4]).
Private and public costs and benefits by level of tertiary education
The returns for tertiary education can be broken down into short-cycle tertiary (ISCED 5) and bachelor's, master's and doctoral or equivalent level (ISCED 6 to 8). The composition of the population with qualifications at each tertiary level differs between countries (see Indicator A1), and the mix of qualifications can have a significant effect on the financial returns to education for the aggregate tertiary level (Figure A5.4).
Figure A5.4. Private costs and benefits of education for a woman attaining a short-cycle tertiary degree or a bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral or equivalent degree (2015)
Note: Short-cycle tertiary degree corresponds to ISCED level 5 and bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree corresponds to ISCED levels 6, 7 and 8.
1. Year of reference differs from 2015. Refer to the source table for further details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total private benefits for a woman with a bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral or equivalent degree.
Source: OECD (2018), Table A5.3b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
For all countries with available data, the private net financial returns from obtaining a bachelor's, master's, doctoral or equivalent degree are greater than from obtaining a short-cycle tertiary degree. With the exception of Korea, this is also the case for the public net financial returns. Although the total costs of a bachelor's, master's, doctoral or equivalent degree tend to be higher than those of a short-cycle tertiary degree, the total benefits accrued along individuals’ working lives compensate for the higher initial costs (Tables A5.3a and b).
Therefore, private financial returns for the aggregate tertiary level will underestimate the value of investing in bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees, especially in countries with a larger share of adults whose highest level of attainment is short-cycle tertiary.
Box A5.1. The effect of the discount rate on the net financial returns to education
The calculation of the financial returns, or the net present value (NPV), of education corresponds to a cost-benefit analysis that converts future expected flows into a present value by using a discount rate. The discount rate takes into account the fact that money tomorrow is worth less than money today, and must therefore be “discounted” at a specific rate to find its current worth. The choice of the discount rate is challenging, and it will make a considerable difference when analysing the returns to long-term investments, as is the case with investment in education.
The results presented in the tables and figures of this indicator are calculated using a discount rate of 2%, based on the average real interest on government bonds across OECD countries. However, it can be argued that education is not a risk-free investment, and that the discount rate should therefore be higher.
OECD countries that perform similar cost-benefit analysis use higher discount rates than 2%, but the rate used varies widely across countries. Table A5.a shows the discount rate used by some OECD governments to assess public investments, not necessarily education-related investments.
Table A5.a. Discount rates used by governments in national cost-benefit analysis
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
In order to assess the magnitude of the impact of the discount rate it is helpful to perform a sensitivity analysis. Table A5.b shows how the net present value for a man attaining tertiary education changes when three different discount rates are used. Changing from a discount rate of 2% to a rate of 3.75% reduces the NPV by over 30% in all countries with available data. If a discount rate of 8% is used, the NPV falls by over 70% in all countries and even becomes negative in Norway. These comparisons highlight the sensitivity of the NPV results to changes in the discount rate.
Table A5.b. Net financial returns for a man attaining tertiary education, by discount rate (2015)
As compared with a man attaining upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP
Note: Values are based on the difference between men who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred.
1. Year of reference 2014.
2. Year of reference 2012. Students’ earnings are not included in the calculation of foregone earnings.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Definitions
Adults refer to 15-64 year-olds.
Direct costs are the direct expenditure on education per student during the time spent in school. Direct cost to education does not include student loans.
Private direct costs are the total expenditure by households on education. They include net payments to educational institutions as well as payments for educational goods and services outside of educational institutions (school supplies, tutoring, etc.).
Public direct costs are the spending by government on a student’s education. They include direct public expenditure on educational institutions, government scholarships and other grants to students and households, and transfers and payments to other private entities for educational purposes. They do not include student loans.
Foregone earnings are the net earnings an individual would have had if he or she had entered the labour market and successfully found a job minus the net earnings an individual can expect to have while studying.
Foregone taxes on earnings are the additional tax revenues the government would have received if the individual had chosen to enter the labour force and successfully found a job instead of choosing to pursue further studies.
Gross earnings benefits are the discounted sum of earnings premiums over the course of a working-age life associated with a higher level of education, provided that the individual successfully enters the labour market.
The income tax effect is the discounted sum of additional levels of income tax paid by the private individual or earned by the government over the course of a working-age life associated with a higher level of education.
The internal rate of return is the (hypothetical) real interest rate equalising the costs and benefits related to the educational investment. It can be interpreted as the interest rate an individual can expect to receive every year during a working-age life on the investment made on a higher level of education.
Levels of education: See the Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011 levels.
Net financial returns are the net present value of the financial investment in education, the difference between the discounted financial benefits and the discounted financial cost of education, representing the additional value that education produces over and above the 2% real interest that is charged on these cash flows.
The social contribution effect is the discounted sum of additional employee social contributions paid by the private individual or received by the government over the course of a working-age life and associated with a higher level of education.
The transfers effect is the discounted sum of additional social transfers from the government to the private individual associated with a higher education level over the course of a working-age life. Social transfers include two types of benefits: housing benefits and social assistance.
The unemployment benefit effect is the discounted sum of additional unemployment benefits associated with a higher education level over the course of a working-age life and received during periods of unemployment.
Methodology
This indicator estimates the financial returns on investment in education from the age of entry into further education to a theoretical retirement age of 64. Returns to education are studied purely from the perspective of financial investment that weighs the costs and benefits of the investment.
Two periods are considered (Diagram 1):
1) time spent in school during which the private individual and the government pay the cost of education
2) time spent in the labour market during which the individual and the government receive the added payments associated with further education.
In calculating the returns to education, the approach taken here is the net present value of the investment. To allow direct comparisons of costs and benefits, the NPV expresses present value for cash transfers happening at different times. In this framework, costs and benefits during a working-age life are transferred back to the start of the investment. This is done by discounting all cash flows back to the beginning of the investment with a fixed interest rate (discount rate).
Diagram 1. Financial returns on investment in education over a life-time for a representative individual
To set a value for the discount rate, long-term government bonds have been used as a benchmark. The choice of discount rate is challenging, as it should reflect not only the overall time horizon of the investment, but also the cost of borrowing or the perceived risk of the investment (Box A5.1). To allow for comparability and to facilitate interpretation of results, the same discount rate (2%) is applied across all OECD countries. All values presented in the tables in this indicator are in NPV equivalent USD using purchasing power parities (PPPs).
Changes in methodology between Education at a Glance 2018 and Education at a Glance 2017
Three important methodological changes were introduced in this edition:
1) The current model includes student earnings in the calculation of the foregone earnings. In the previous edition, it was assumed that students did not work and did not have earnings or pay taxes. The model continues to assume that students do not receive any transfers from the government.
2) The current model takes into account the probability of individuals being inactive, by using the employment rate instead of 1 minus the unemployment rate as the probability of having earnings.
3) Pooled earnings data from three different years are used instead of the earnings from a single reference year.
In addition, the reference year for this indicator has been moved one year forward. The reference year for this edition is 2015, while the reference year for last year’s edition was 2013.
Please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018 (OECD, 2018[5]) for more information and Annex 3 for country-specific notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Lithuania was not an OECD member at the time of preparation of this publication. Accordingly, Lithuania does not appear in the list of OECD members and is not included in the zone aggregates.
Source
The source for the direct costs of education is the UOE data collection on finance (year of reference 2015 unless otherwise specified in the tables).
The data on gross earnings are from the OECD Network on Labour Market and Social Outcomes earnings data collection. Earnings are age-, gender- and attainment-level specific. For the calculation of this indicator, data on earnings has been pooled from three different years (2013-15). A moving average will be used for future editions.
Income tax data are computed using the OECD Taxing Wages model, which determines the level of taxes based on a given level of income. This model computes the level of the tax wedge on income for several household composition scenarios. For this indicator, a single worker with no children is used. For country-specific details on income tax in this model, see Taxing Wages 2017 (OECD, 2017[6]).
Employee social contributions are computed using the OECD Taxing Wages model’s scenario of a single worker of age 40 with no children. For country-specific details on employee social contributions in this model, see Taxing Wages 2017 (OECD, 2017[6]).
Social transfers and unemployment benefits are computed using the OECD Tax-Benefit model, assuming a single worker of age 40 with no children. Individuals are considered eligible for full unemployment benefits during unemployment. For country-specific details on social transfers or unemployment benefits in the Tax-Benefit model, see OECD Benefits and Wages country-specific information, available on line at www.oecd.org/els/soc/benefits-and-wages-country-specific-information.htm.
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of ¬such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in ¬the West Bank under the terms of international law.
References
[4] Andrews, D., A. Caldera Sánchez and Å. Johansson (2011), “Housing markets and structural policies in OECD countries”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 836, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgk8t2k9vf3-en.
[3] Brys, B. and C. Torres (2013), “Effective personal tax rates on marginal skills investments in OECD countries: A new methodology”, OECD Taxation Working Papers, No. 16, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k425747xbr6-en.
[1] Cabinet Secretariat (2016), Japan Revitalization Strategy (Growth Strategy) Revised in 2015: Main Achievements to Date and Further Reforms, http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/new_seika_torikumien.pdf.
[5] OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
[2] OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.
[6] OECD (2017), Taxing Wages 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/tax_wages-2017-en.
Indicator A5 Tables
Table A5.1a. Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2015)
Table A5.1b. Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2015)
Table A5.2a. Public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2015)
Table A5.2b. Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2015)
Table A5.3a. Private/public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education, by level of tertiary education (2015)
Table A5.3b. Private/public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education, by level of tertiary education (2015)
Table A5.4a (Web only). Private costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary education (2015)
Table A5.4b (Web only). Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary education (2015)
Table A5.5a (Web only). Public costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary education (2015)
Table A5.5b (Web only). Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary education (2015)
Cut-off date for the data: 18 July 2018. Any updates on data can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en.
Table A5.1a. Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2015)
As compared with a man attaining upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
Note: Values are based on the difference between men who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred. Direct cost to education does not include student loans.
Due to changes in the methodology, values in this edition of Education at a Glance cannot be compared to results from previous editions. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Year of reference 2014.
2. Year of reference 2012. Students’ earnings are not included in the calculation of foregone earnings.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A5.1b. Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2015)
As compared with a woman attaining upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
Note: Values are based on the difference between women who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred. Direct cost to education does not include student loans.
Due to changes in the methodology, values in this edition of Education at a Glance cannot be compared to results from previous editions. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Year of reference 2014.
2. Year of reference 2012. Students’ earnings are not included in the calculation of foregone earnings.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A5.2a. Public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2015)
As compared with a man attaining upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
Note: Values are based on the difference between men who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred. Direct cost to education does not include student loans.
Due to changes in the methodology, values in this edition of Education at a Glance cannot be compared to results from previous editions. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Year of reference 2014.
2. Year of reference 2012. Students’ earnings are not included in the calculation of foregone earnings.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A5.2b. Type the Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2015)
As compared with a woman attaining upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
Note: Values are based on the difference between women who attained a tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred. Direct cost to education does not include student loans.
Due to changes in the methodology, values in this edition of Education at a Glance cannot be compared to results from previous editions. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Year of reference 2014.
2. Year of reference 2012. Students’ earnings are not included in the calculation of foregone earnings.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A5.3a. Private/public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education, by level of tertiary education (2015)
As compared with a man attaining upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
Note: Values are based on the difference between men who attained a specific level of tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred. Direct cost to education does not include student loans.
Due to changes in the methodology, values in this edition of Education at a Glance cannot be compared to results from previous editions. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A5.3b. Private/public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education, by level of tertiary education (2015)
As compared with a woman attaining upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
Note: Values are based on the difference between women who attained a specific level of tertiary education compared with those who have attained an upper secondary education. Values have been rounded up to the nearest hundred. Direct cost to education does not include student loans.
Due to changes in the methodology, values in this edition of Education at a Glance cannot be compared to results from previous editions. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information.
1. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.