See this chart? Nothing wrong with it really, but boy has it created communication challenges. This is the classic graphic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but you’ve probably seen versions of it everywhere. It’s message, or the way it was interpreted at least, was the more education the better if you want to earn a decent living and stay employed.
So what’s wrong with that? Well, as always, the devil is in the details and this chart is missing some really important details. And that explains why many of you economic developers have found yourself for the past several years explaining to students, to parents, to educators what those details are.
Here are two things that stand out to me as missing. First, our current definitions of how to account for people who have graduated from high school but not from a four year college does not reflect the value the marketplace gives to technical credentials. Yes, we acknowledge associates degrees, but there are many valuable programs of study right now that don’t result in an associates degree. That means the people who windup in the “some college, no degree” bucket are a mix of drop-outs and credential junkies, and when you average the employment and earnings of those two groups, you lose valuable detail. Second, as you well know, not all college degrees are created equal when it comes to earnings potential and employ-ability.
What does this mean for you as an economic development or workforce leader? It means that the best data you can share is your local data. Placement data, alumni data, even personal life stories will give people in your community a much more nuanced sense of the impact their education decisions will have on their lives.
So the data visualization lesson? Sometimes the chart is the problem not the solution.