BYU Leads March Madness Bracket for Advancing Graduates in the Economic Ladder – The 74

March offers a welcome break from the current political turmoil with the NCAA men’s Division I basketball tournament. March Madness gives everyone the chance to set aside concerns and focus on the thrill of brackets, exciting fast breaks, and the nail-biting tension of buzzer-beaters.

But for the schools involved, the NCAA tournament is more than just a fun spectacle; the stakes are high. Beyond gaining bragging rights, successful teams can expect an increase in applications and donations. Additionally, a select few players, after showcasing incredible athleticism, may even earn a spot in the NBA draft.

However, for most, basketball is a secondary concern to the true purpose of higher education. College encompasses many elements (yes, including sports), but one of its most significant roles is to help students rise economically.

At the heart of the American Dream lies the idea that each generation should have a better financial future than the one before, and that even students from low-income families should have an opportunity to advance. Despite everything going on, most Americans believe colleges should function as engines of economic growth and personal advancement.

So, how effective are the universities whose logos appear on the players’ jerseys in helping students improve their economic standing?

For the past eight years, while Americans argue over which teams are the best on the court, we have examined how well the colleges participating in the tournament help students achieve economic success post-graduation.

Each year, we have created a parallel Social Mobility Tournament Bracket, assessing which colleges best assist students in climbing the economic ladder.

From 2017 to 2022, we compared schools based on the number of their low-income students earning family-sustaining incomes by their early 30s. In 2023, we shifted our focus to factors like college accessibility, affordability, and post-graduation earnings — issues that are front and center for today’s students, parents, and policymakers.

As we noted last year, modern families and legislators want to know which colleges provide the best value in terms of tuition costs, how long it takes to repay those costs, and how effectively each school helps under-resourced students secure financial stability.

To address these concerns, we’ve used the Economic Mobility Index (EMI), developed by Michael Itzkowitz, the former director of the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, as the basis for our bracket.

Using public data from the department and the Census Bureau, the EMI ranks 1,320 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions on how well they foster economic mobility. It first evaluates the return on investment for lower-income students by considering the out-of-pocket costs associated with earning a four-year degree.

The index then factors in the financial advantages students gain by attending these colleges. This earnings premium reflects the additional income earned by graduates compared to those with only a high school diploma. In short, schools that have lower costs and higher earnings premiums allow students to recoup their investment faster. The index also rewards colleges for enrolling a higher percentage of low- and moderate-income students in addition to offering strong returns on investment.

By examining both the percentage of students who ascend the economic ladder and the proportion of Pell Grant-eligible graduates, we can evaluate how each college contributes to improving national social mobility for disadvantaged students.

Given that the EMI heavily weighs affordability and the proportion of underresourced students, it’s not surprising that only six private colleges reached Round 2 in our parallel bracket

To understand why only two of these made it to the Sweet Sixteen in our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket, consider that the average net cost of earning a degree at these six schools is $68,500. In contrast, the 26 public colleges that also made it to Round 2 have a degree cost of only $39,000 — a nearly 44% difference.

However, the real surprise this year is that Brigham Young University, a private school, took the championship. The BYU Cougars, a 21 seed in the NCAA tournament, ranked 66th out of the 1,320 colleges on the EMI. Their graduates enjoy a favorable price-to-earnings premium, enabling them to pay off their degree in less than a year.

Our runner-up in the Social Mobility Tournament, UC-San Diego, is close behind. The Tritons, ranked 47th in the NCAA tournament, hold the 68th spot in the index and similarly manage to pay off their degree costs in under a year.

The other two schools in our Final Four — the University of Houston and the University of Memphis — also deserve high praise. Houston ranks 67th on the index, with its graduates able to repay their degree costs in under two years. Memphis ranks 130th but still manages to pay back the degree in just three years.

Whichever team wins the NCAA tournament will rightfully celebrate their on-court accomplishments and likely see a surge in applications. In contrast, little recognition typically goes to schools whose main strength lies in helping students secure sustainable wages after graduating from low-income backgrounds.

Roughly 4,500 basketball players enter the tournament each year, drawn from the approximately 7.5 million high school graduates over a four-year period. This means the chances of a male high school graduate making it to a Division I basketball team are incredibly slim, and only about 1 in 75 senior players will ever be drafted by the NBA. Clearly, much is at stake for the players and schools competing for a spot in the Final Four.

But just as much is at stake for the over 16 million students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. Like the Division I athletes, these students are working hard to establish themselves in the U.S. economy. However, with graduation rates rarely exceeding 60%, the institutions that excel at helping low-income students are far more deserving of recognition than even the schools that produce winning basketball teams.

In essence, the rankings on the Economic Mobility Index matter, and the schools that rank highly should take pride in those results. As we’ve emphasized for the past eight years, these are the outcomes that should be driving applications from young adults eager not only to enjoy the fleeting thrill of having a successful school basketball team but also to secure the long-term benefits of upward mobility.