Adults who complete tertiary education benefit from high returns on investment because they are more likely to be employed and to earn more than adults without tertiary education.
Not only does education pay off for individuals financially, but the public sector also benefits from having a large proportion of tertiary-educated individuals, for example through greater tax revenues and social contributions.
Across OECD countries on average, a man invests around USD 45 100 (direct costs plus foregone earnings) to earn a tertiary degree, while a woman invests around USD 34 800. Because men tend to have higher earnings and employment rates, they also have higher total benefits over their career: USD 341 000 for men, compared to USD 262 400 for women.
Education at a Glance 2019
Indicator A5. What are the financial incentives to invest in education?
Highlights
Figure A5.1. Private net financial returns for a man or a woman attaining tertiary education (2016)
As compared with returns to upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP; future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
1. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
2. Year of reference differs from 2016. Refer to the source table for details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of private net financial returns for a man.
Source: OECD (2019), Tables A5.1a and A5.1b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-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 higher revenues from taxes and social contributions 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 access to and completion of higher education (see Indicator B5).
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, and social outcomes, such as greater participation in cultural or sport activities (see Indicator A6).
Other findings
In most OECD countries, the main cost of tertiary education is not direct payments, such as tuition fees and living expenses, but the earnings individuals forego while they are in education. This is true even when taking students’ earnings into account.
The private benefits from investing in education depend on countries’ tax and social contributions systems. For instance, in Chile, Estonia and Korea, income taxes and social contributions amount to less than one-quarter of the gross earnings benefits for a man attaining tertiary education, while in Belgium and the Netherlands they add up to more than half of the gross earnings benefits.
For nearly all countries with available data, the private and public net financial returns from obtaining a bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree are greater 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 rates 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 qualification; and 2) investing in upper secondary education versus entering the labour market without an upper secondary qualification (available on line).
It considers two types of investors: 1) the individuals (referred to here as “private”) who choose to pursue higher levels of education and the additional net earnings and costs they can expect; and 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. The direct costs of 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
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 return from tertiary education for a man is USD 295 900. Although young women tend to be more likely to complete higher education than young men (see Indicator A1), they tend to receive lower relative net financial returns on investing in tertiary education than men. For a woman, on average, the net financial return from tertiary education is USD 227 600, representing about three-quarters of the return for a man (Figure A5.1).
The private financial returns from tertiary education are higher for men than for women in most OECD countries with available data. The only countries where women have higher private financial returns than men are Belgium, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Turkey (Tables A5.1a and b). Women in these countries still faced lower earnings and employment rates than men in 2016 (Education at a Glance Database), but they gain more from attaining a tertiary degree, compared to only upper secondary education, than men do. This means that, in these countries, the gap between earnings and employment by level of educational attainment is larger 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 greater 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.
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 an 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 17% for men and 21% 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 correspond to earnings from employment. To show the impact of the tax system on total benefits, the income tax effect and social contributions effect are also analysed (see Definitions section).
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 of attaining tertiary education is about USD 8 400. However, in most countries, the main costs are foregone earnings, i.e. the earnings individuals could expect to receive if they 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 reducing their foregone earnings and the total cost of education. Indicator A6 in Education at a Glance 2017 (OECD, 2017[1]) shows the prevalence of student employment and the level of student earnings across OECD and partner countries.
Figure A5.2. Private costs and benefits of education for a man or a woman attaining tertiary education (2016)
As compared with returns to upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP; future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
1. Year of reference differs from 2016. Refer to the source table for details.
2. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
Countries are ranked in ascending order of total private benefits for a man.
Source: OECD (2019), Tables A5.1a and A5.1b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en).
Men’s foregone earnings while attaining tertiary education range from less than USD 10 000 in Israel and Turkey to nearly USD 70 000 in Switzerland. When direct costs and foregone earnings are combined, Turkey has the lowest total cost and Switzerland the highest of all OECD countries with available data. Men or women attaining tertiary education in Switzerland can expect their total costs to be more than seven times higher than those in Turkey (Tables A5.1a and b).
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 341 000, while the total benefit for a tertiary-educated woman is USD 262 400. This means that, over a career of 40 years, a tertiary-educated man will gain about USD 2 000 more per year in total benefits (compared to a man with only upper secondary education) than a tertiary-educated woman. 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 course of an individual’s career, private benefits from investing in education also depend on countries’ tax and social contributions systems (Brys and Torres, 2013[2]). For instance, in Chile, Estonia and Korea, income taxes and social contributions amount to less than one-quarter of the gross earnings benefits for a man attaining tertiary education, while in Belgium and the Netherlands they add up to more than half of the gross earnings benefits. As women tend to have lower earnings, they often fall into lower income tax brackets. For example, in 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 whether 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), investment in education generates higher public returns, because tertiary-educated adults pay higher income taxes and social contributions. On average across OECD countries, the public net financial returns for each individual completing tertiary education are about USD 148 200 for a man and USD 77 300 for a woman (Figure A5.3).
Figure A5.3. Public net financial returns for a man or a woman attaining tertiary education (2016)
As compared with returns to upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP; future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
1. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
2. Year of reference differs from 2016. Refer to the source table for details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total public returns for a man.
Source: OECD (2019). Tables A5.2a and A5.2b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en).
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 (Figure A5.1 and Figure A5.3). 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 one of the highest private returns for a man attaining tertiary education, but the second-lowest public returns because it collects a smaller share of individuals’ additional earnings in the form of taxes and social contributions (Tables A5.1a and A5.2a).
The costs and benefits of tertiary education for governments
Public net financial returns are based on the difference between the costs and the 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 and social contributions.
For governments, direct costs (including student grants) 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). The countries with high direct costs are also the countries with the largest total public costs, reaching over USD 100 000 for men in Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. In contrast, Chile has the lowest total public cost (around USD 10 000 for men and women) of all OECD countries. On average across OECD countries, the total public cost for an individual to attain tertiary education is USD 58 100 for a man and USD 54 100 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 206 300 for a man with tertiary education and USD 131 400 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. On average, the total public benefits of education for a man attaining tertiary education are about 57% larger than the total public benefits for a tertiary-educated woman. Across OECD countries, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have the largest total public benefits of tertiary education for a man (above USD 400 000) and Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have the largest benefit for a woman (above USD 250 000) (Tables A5.2a and b).
The internal rate of return to governments is higher for a man attaining tertiary education (9%) than for a woman (7%). 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 greater 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 206 300) for a tertiary-educated man can be broken down into income tax effects (USD 148 100) and social contribution effects (USD 58 200). For a tertiary-educated woman, the total public benefits (USD 131 400) can be broken down into USD 87 300 in income tax effects and USD 44 100 in social contribution effects (Tables A5.2a and b).
Private and public costs and benefits by level of tertiary education
The returns for tertiary education can be broken down by level 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 tertiary education overall (Figure A5.4).
For nearly all countries with available data, the private and public net financial returns from obtaining a bachelor's, master's, doctoral or equivalent degree are greater than from obtaining a short-cycle tertiary degree. 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 during individuals’ working lives compensate for the higher initial costs (Tables A5.3a and b).
Turkey is the only country where both the private and public returns to a short-cycle tertiary degree are higher than for a bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degree for a man. Turkey is also the OECD country with the highest share of first-time entrants to tertiary education in short-cycle tertiary programmes (48%) (see Indicator B4). The public returns for a woman attaining short-cycle tertiary education are higher than for a bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degree in Denmark and Korea.
Figure A5.4. Private financial returns for a woman attaining a short-cycle tertiary degree or a bachelor's, master's and doctoral or equivalent degree (2016)
As compared with returns to upper secondary education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP; future costs and benefits are discounted at a rate of 2%
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 2016. Refer to the source table for details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total private returns for a woman with a bachelor's, master's, doctoral or equivalent degree.
Source: OECD (2019). Table A5.3b. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en).
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. The OECD countries that perform similar cost-benefit analysis use higher discount rates than 2%, but the rate used varies across countries (OECD, 2018[3]).
Table A5.a. Net financial returns for a man attaining tertiary education, by discount rate (2016)
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 to the nearest hundred.
1. Year of reference 2015.
2. The probability of students having earnings refers to the employment rate from the LSO TRANS questionnaire instead of the share of earners from the LSO Earnings questionnaire.
3. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
4. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2019). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
In order to assess the size of the impact of the discount rate it is helpful to perform a sensitivity analysis. Table A5.a shows how the private financial returns 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 at least 70% in all countries. These comparisons highlight the sensitivity of the NPV results to changes in the discount rate.
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 of 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 not in education (a non-student) can expect, minus the net earnings an individual can expect to receive while studying.
Foregone taxes are the additional tax revenues the government would have received if the individual had chosen to enter the labour force as a non-student instead of pursuing 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.
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.
Methodology
This indicator estimates the financial returns on investment in education from the age of 15 to a theoretical retirement age of 64. Returns to education are studied from the perspective of financial investment.
Two periods are considered(Diagram 1):
1. time spent in education during which the private individual and the government pay the cost of education
2. time spent after leaving formal education (or "not studying") 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 lifetime 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 the 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).
Change in methodology between Education at a Glance 2019 and Education at a Glance 2018
The current model focuses on earnings from employment. The unemployment benefits and social transfers, reported in the 2018 edition, are not included in the 2019 edition. Compared to previous editions, the main changes have been the use of the employment rate (instead of a ratio based on the active population) as the probability for an individual to receive earnings and the introduction of actual students' earnings in the calculation of foregone earnings. Please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018 (OECD, 2018[4]) for more information and Annex 3 for country-specific notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en).
Source
The source for the direct costs of education is the UOE data collection on finance (year of reference 2016 unless otherwise specified in the tables).
The data on gross earnings are based on the OECD Network on Labour Market and Social Outcomes earnings data collection, which compiles data from national Labour Force Surveys, EU Statistics on Incomes and Living Conditions, Structure of Earnings Surveys, and other national registers and surveys. Earnings are age-, gender- and attainment-level specific. For the calculation of this indicator, data on earnings have been pooled from three different years (2014-16).
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 2018 (OECD, 2018[5]).
Employee social contributions are computed using the OECD Taxing Wages model’s scenario of a single worker aged 40 with no children. For country-specific details on employee social contributions in this model, see Taxing Wages 2018 (OECD, 2018[5]).
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
[2] 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.
[3] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
[4] 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.
[5] OECD (2018), Taxing Wages 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/tax_wages-2018-en.
[1] OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.
Indicator A5. Tables
Table A5.1a Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2016)
Table A5.1b Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2016)
Table A5.2a Public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2016)
Table A5.2b Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2016)
Table A5.3a Private/public costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education, by level of tertiary education (2016)
Table A5.3b Private/public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education, by level of tertiary education (2016)
WEB Table A5.4a Private costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary education (2016)
WEB Table A5.4b Private costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary education (2016)
WEB Table A5.5a Public costs and benefits for a man attaining upper secondary education (2016)
WEB Table A5.5b Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining upper secondary education (2016)
Cut-off date for the data: 19 July 2019. Any updates on data can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en. More breakdowns can also be found at http://stats.oecd.org/, Education at a Glance Database.
StatLink: https://doi.org/10.1787/888933980868
Table A5.1a. Private costs and benefits for a man attaining tertiary education (2016)
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 2015.
2. The probability of students having earnings refers to the employment rate from the LSO TRANS questionnaire instead of the share of earners from the LSO Earnings questionnaire.
3. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
4. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2019). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-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 (2016)
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 2015.
2. The probability of students having earnings refers to the employment rate from the LSO TRANS questionnaire instead of the share of earners from the LSO Earnings questionnaire.
3. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
4. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2019). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-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 (2016)
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 2015.
2. The probability of students having earnings refers to the employment rate from the LSO TRANS questionnaire instead of the share of earners from the LSO Earnings questionnaire.
3. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
4. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2019). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table A5.2b. Public costs and benefits for a woman attaining tertiary education (2016)
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 2015.
2. The probability of students having earnings refers to the employment rate from the LSO TRANS questionnaire instead of the share of earners from the LSO Earnings questionnaire.
3. Results are based on the net earnings of tertiary-educated adults (as compared with the net earnings of adults with upper secondary education).
4. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2019). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-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 (2016)
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 2015.
2. The probability of students having earnings refers to the employment rate from the LSO TRANS questionnaire instead of the share of earners from the LSO Earnings questionnaire.
3. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2019). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-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 (2016)
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 2015.
2. The probability of students having earnings refers to the employment rate from the LSO TRANS questionnaire instead of the share of earners from the LSO Earnings questionnaire.
3. Year of reference 2014.
Source: OECD (2019). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.