The 2026 NCAA women鈥檚 tournament, combining a mix of expected winners and up-and-coming programs, has provided an exciting month of basketball for millions of fans across the nation. In the last few years, thanks to the athleticism and on and off the court charisma of powerhouse stars in both pro and college teams, women鈥檚 basketball is now front and center and more thrilling than ever. 

Witness, for instance, the Vanderbilt Commodores鈥� Mikayla Blakes, the nation鈥檚 leading scorer, perform a near triple-double with 25 points against Illinois. Or the outstanding performance of UCLA鈥檚 Lauren Betts and Gabriela Jaquez as the Bruins stomped the Gamecocks of South Carolina to win the school鈥檚 first NCAA national title. The list that highlighted the Madness this March could go on, but the point is clear: Women鈥檚 basketball is a treat to watch.

But how well do these competitive schools, whose ability on the court has been rewarded with bids to the Big Dance, do when it comes to helping their students reach financial security? 

To find out, I have applied a methodology detailed in my recent analysis of the men鈥檚 tournament. 

The formula used ranks each college on an Economic Mobility Index (EMI), based on how many years graduates need to pay down the total net cost of their degree; how much more than a high school graduate the college’s bachelor’s degree recipients earn after 10 years; and how broadly the school鈥檚 effort applies to its low- and moderate-income students, using the percentage of students eligible for Pell grants as a proxy for low family income. 

Consequently, the EMI ranks 1,320 bachelor鈥檚 degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its most disadvantaged students. 

One way to grasp the value of the EMI is by comparing the two colleges that made it to the NCAA Tournament’s championship game. Although both schools are mighty on the court, there are wide differences in the statistics they provide for the tournament and for the index. To get to the championship game, the No. 1 seeded Bruins of University of California-Los Angeles had to overcome 23 turnovers and survive a late surge from the Texas Longhorns to manage a 51-44 win against the only team that beat them this season. Meanwhile, the South Carolina Gamecocks made it by breezing past the Horned Frogs of Texas Christian University. 

More significantly, in the Social Mobility Tournament, the University of South Carolina got only as far as the second round because the school鈥檚 total price tag is $43,300, but the earning premium for its graduates 鈥� compared with someone with only a high school diploma 鈥� averages just $28,600. Therefore, it takes 1.5 years on average to pay down the cost of its degrees. Compare this to UCLA, where a degree costs $34,500 and the earning premium is a whopping $45,000, making it possible to pay back the amount spent on a degree in less than one year. 

What鈥檚 more, South Carolina鈥檚 student body is made up of only 19.9% Pell-eligible students, compared with 31.9% for UCLA. The result: South Carolina ranks 501 in our index with a 17.6 EMI score, whereas UCLA, which went on to play in the championship game in both our bracket and the NCAA tournament, is ranked 115 with an EMI score of 30.4. 

Given the challenges colleges face today, as more and more people question whether they are worth the cost, the EMI calculations provide an important service. Not only do they help to identify which colleges are associated with the highest return on the educational investment made, but also which ones are doing so for the greatest numbers of underresourced students.

From a wider perspective, the 2026 NCAA teams in the Sweet Sixteen were a formidable lot. The No. 1 seeded University of Connecticut Huskies crushed the Syracuse Orange. The No. 1 seeded Gamecocks of South Carolina did the same to the embattled Trojans of USC. Meanwhile, the Louisiana State University Tigers, on their way to a fourth consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearance, battered the unfortunate Lady Raiders of Texas Tech by a punishing 101-47 score. 

Still, not every game leading to the Sweet Sixteen was lopsided. In one of the most thrilling games of the tournament, the Gophers of Minnesota sneaked by the Ole Miss Rebels by a mere 2 points, and it took two overtime periods for the University of Virginia Cavaliers to best the Hawkeyes of Iowa. 

But no matter which team you rooted for, this is exhilarating basketball right through to the Final Four matches between four No. 1 seeds. Still, as I have noted in the past, what should be no less thrilling is observing how well some of the tournament鈥檚 schools succeed in putting their students on the path to economic security.

After all, with college costs a major concern for most parents and students, an examination of the total net price to earn a degree at the participating schools is worth undertaking. For example, on average, an undergraduate degree at the Sweet Sixteen colleges in our Social Mobility Tournament costs approximately $40,900 but provides an earning premium beyond a high school graduate of about $32,200. It is data like these that make possible an earning premium that permits a graduate to pay down the cost of their degree in less than two years. This type of information is important for anyone considering a college education.

Also important is knowing how wide the door is open at any institution. For instance, when it comes to access, the colleges in our Sweet Sixteen differ greatly from their counterparts in the NCAA tournament. The Social Mobility Sweet Sixteen enroll nearly twice as many Pell-eligible students 鈥� 138,000 out of 461,600 鈥� than those in the NCAA Sweet Sixteen, where only 74,200 out of 342,000 students qualify for Pell grants. 

While the winners in the NCAA tournament receive much praise, and their schools enjoy both bragging rights and potential increases in applications and donations, there is much reason to also celebrate this year鈥檚 Social Mobility Tournament champion, the University of California at San Diego. 

Not only did the Tritons win the Big West Tournament, but they also enjoy a 34.8 EMI score, putting them in 68th place out of 1,320 schools in the index. This means their approximately 11,100 lower-income graduates can pay back the cost of their education in less than one year and go on to earn on average more than $43,600 than a high school graduate in California.

I look forward to seeing powerhouse teams like the NCAA鈥檚 Final Four win games, but more than that, I am pleased that policymakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in state legislatures are now paying close attention to which schools are putting their students on the road to financial well-being. These are the schools most worthy of our praise and most deserving of the admiration that comes with success, whatever their fate on the court.

March Madness, that anxious, exciting and promising time for players and fans alike, is upon us. Like millions of others, I have been really enjoying these three weeks of competitive games full of surprises and awesome athletic feats. However, beyond the thrills, this moment highlights the stakes not just for the players, but also for colleges and their broader missions. While loyal students and alumni have experienced moments of joy and grief as they followed their schools’ progress, and administrators hoped for wins that will increase applications and donations, even more important for the nation is how these colleges enable upward economic mobility for their graduates. 

American higher education is experiencing one of the most challenging times in its history. Since 2017, when 社区黑料 began publishing a Social Mobility Tournament bracket composed of colleges participating in the Big Dance, the percentage of surveyed adults who believe a four-year degree is not worth the cost has risen from 40% to 63%. 

This loss in public support that colleges previously took for granted has made them targets of both left- and right-leaning critics and policymakers. They are demanding that schools take greater responsibility not only for educating students, but for ensuring that the education they receive leads to employment with meaningful earnings.

With this in mind, our bracket aims to shift the focus to the broader mission of higher education: advancing economic mobility. Beginning in 2017, each year we have taken the schools competing in the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament and plotted them in a parallel bracket, where winners and losers are determined not by their prowess on the court, but by how well the colleges put students on the road to financial security.

To do this, we employ Third Way’s Economic Mobility Index (EMI), created by the former director of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 College Scorecard, Michael Itzkowitz. This index uses information from the department and the Census Bureau to rank 1,320 bachelor鈥檚 degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students. Taking into account the key concerns of students, parents and policymakers, the EMI first assesses the return on investment for lower- and moderate-income students at each college by calculating the out-of-pocket costs required to earn a four-year degree. 

The index then considers the added financial benefits students gain from attending one of these schools. This earnings premium is the additional income graduates accrue compared to someone with only a high school diploma. In effect, the lower the out-of-pocket costs and the higher the earnings premium, the quicker a student will receive a return on the investment needed to obtain the degree. Lastly, the index rewards schools for the proportion of financially challenged students they enroll and for the return on investment they deliver. (Click on each school in the bracket to see its Social Mobility score, total net price, earning premium and how long it takes graduates to pay off the cost of their education.)

To make this clearer, consider the following: While the Wolverines of the and the Wildcats of the faced each other in this year鈥檚 NCAA Final Four, neither school went further than the second round in our Social Mobility Tournament bracket. After all, Michigan had a lowly score of 16.9 in the EMI and Arizona only a slightly higher ranking at 25.1. Digging into the data, this disparity shows the importance of each data point that composes the index鈥檚 score.

As a EMI breakdown shows, the University of Arizona, a public institution, has a total price of $41,000 but an earning premium of a mere $23,700 for graduates when compared with someone holding only a high school diploma. This translates into a price-to-earnings premium that allows Wildcat graduates to pay off the cost of their education in 1.7 years. But the University of Michigan enjoys a net price of just $15,850 and a handsome earning premium of $48,800, making it possible for grads to pay down the total cost of their degree in only 0.3 years.

While winning games in a tournament made up of proven champions is a difficult achievement for any college, helping students move up the economic ladder is no less a challenge, especially for schools serving a high percentage of low- and moderate-income undergraduates. That鈥檚 why we believe colleges should be honored not only for victories on the court, but also for earning a high ranking in the Economic Mobility Index.

So, which teams deserve the highest praise this year? Of the 68 teams in the Social Mobility Tournament bracket, only 16 are private universities, and just six of them advanced past the first round. Moreover, by the end of Round 2, just a single private school, , managed not only to reach our Sweet 16, but, as it did last year, to go on to win our Social Mobility Tournament.

The main surprise here is that any private school could go that far, considering that the EMI is based primarily on affordability 鈥� how quickly the cost of a degree can be repaid 鈥� and the percentage of students enrolled who require financial aid. Therefore, beyond producing winning teams that can be invited to the NCAA tournament, private colleges must be inexpensive and serve a wide range of students to move up the Social Mobility Bracket. 

Given these requirements, how did BYU win it all? Though the Cougars were beaten by the in the first round of the NCAA Tournament, they earned their 33rd straight bid by having a 23-12 season in which they defeated eight teams ranked among the Associated Press’ Top 25. In addition, have a price-to-earnings premium that permits them to pay down the cost of their degree in less than a year, a feat made possible through low tuition and generous financial aid. Meanwhile, the school serves a student body in which nearly 37% of students receive Pell Grants.

How about the other three teams that make up our Final Four? How did they get there? The , and all have high EMI scores of at least 35%, giving them rankings that place them in the top 104 out of 1,320 colleges in the index. This translates into graduates who on average can pay down the cost of their degrees in fewer than four years, and all while having student bodies made up of at least 36% Pell Grant recipients. These, then, are excellent examples of schools working to increase the social mobility of their students.

In this highly polarized time, it is good to know that a bipartisan consensus exists around policies that require colleges to do more to help students gain employment with reasonable earnings. This state of affairs supports our nearly decade-long call to praise colleges like those in our Final Four. After all, few athletes will ever make the pros, but all students need to make a decent, family-sustaining living.

Clarification: The Economic Mobility Index is the property of Third Way.

But the NCAA tournament is not just fun and games for the schools involved; the stakes can be high. Beyond earning bragging rights, schools with triumphant teams can expect increases in both applications and donations. And a small number of players, having demonstrated amazing feats of agility, coordination and speed, can make it to the NBA draft.

Still, for the rest, basketball is only a sideshow to the serious business of higher education. College is about many things (yes, including sports), but one of the most important contributions America鈥檚 universities make to society is helping students move up the ladder of economic success.

Central to the American Dream is the belief every generation should do better financially than the previous one and that even low-income students should have a shot at moving up in the world. Despite everything that’s happening, most Americans expect colleges to serve as engines of economic growth and personal improvement.

So how well do the universities whose names are emblazoned on the players鈥� jerseys excel at helping their students move up the income ladder?

For the last eight years, we have taken the opportunity, while Americans are debating which are the best teams on the court, to examine which of the participating colleges are best at assisting their students in doing well economically after they graduate. 

Each year, we have constructed a parallel Social Mobility Tournament Bracket, plotting how well or how poorly the colleges participating in the national tournament do in helping to place students on a path leading to the American Dream of upward mobility.

From 2017 to 2022, we constructed our bracket by comparing the tournament鈥檚 colleges according to how many of their low-income students were earning family-sustaining earnings by their early 30s. In 2023, we shifted to comparisons that take into consideration college access, affordability and post-graduation earnings 鈥� that is, the issues that are top of mind for today鈥檚 students, parents and policymakers. 

As we noted last year, present-day families and legislators want to know which colleges are worth their tuition cost in time and money; how long a student will have to work to pay off that cost; and what proportion of each college鈥檚 under-resourced students is being placed on the path to financial security.

To account for these concerns, we have turned to the (EMI), created by the former director of the , Michael Itzkowitz, as source material for our bracket.聽

Using publicly available information from the department and the Census Bureau, this index ranks 1,320 bachelor鈥檚 degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students. To do so, it first considers the return on investment that lower-income students obtain at each college by calculating the out-of-pocket costs required to obtain a four-year degree. 

The index then considers the additional financial benefits students obtain by attending one of these schools. This earnings premium is the additional income graduates make in comparison to someone with only a high school diploma. In short, the lower the out-of-pocket costs and the higher the earnings premium, the quicker a student will receive a return on the investment needed to obtain the degree. Lastly, the index rewards schools for the proportion of lower- and moderate-income students it enrolls in addition to the return on investment it provides.

By considering not only the percentage of students who move up the economic ladder, but also the number of graduates qualified for federal Pell Grants, we can also assess the role each college plays in helping the nation as a whole improve social mobility for its less advantaged students.

Given that rankings on the EMI rely heavily on affordability and the percentage of underresourced students, it is no surprise that only six private colleges made it to Round 2 in our parallel bracket. 

To understand why only two of them made it to the Sweet Sixteen in our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket, consider that the average net price for a degree at these six schools is $68,500. On the other hand, a degree at the 26 public colleges that also made it to Round 2 costs only $39,000, a nearly 44% discount.  

That said, the real surprise in our bracket this year is that a private university, , won the championship. The BYU Cougars, a 21 seed in the NCAA tournament, ranked 66 out of the 1,320 colleges in the EMI. Their graduates enjoy a price-to-earnings premium that allows them to pay down the total net cost of their degree in less than a year.聽

Our Social Mobility Tournament runner-up, , is not far behind. The Tritons, the 47th seed in the NCAA tournament, rank 68 in the index and also manage to pay back the cost of their degree in less than a year.聽

Indeed, the other two schools making up our Final Four, the universities of and , are also worthy of great praise. The former ranks 67 in the index, with its Cougars able to pay back their education in less than two years. Meanwhile, Memphis ranks a very respectable 130^th聽 in the index, with its Tigers taking only three years to pay back the cost of their degree.

Whichever school takes home the NCAA tournament trophy will rightly celebrate its prowess on the court and will likely reap the benefit of increased applications. In contrast, little to no acclaim will accrue to schools whose primary merit is their ability to help students reach family-sustaining wages when coming out of low-income households.

Nearly 4,500 basketball players make up the pool of tournament dreamers. These athletes are drawn from among the approximately 7.5 million young men who made up the nation’s high school graduating classes during four years. This means a male high school graduate has an extremely small chance of playing on a Division I basketball team, and of these, fewer than 1 in 75 senior players will ever be drafted by an NBA team. No doubt, much is at stake for players and schools as they battle their way to the Final Four.

But much is likewise at stake for the more than 16 million students who enroll in American two- or four-year colleges. Like the Division I players, most of them are working hard to gain a solid spot in the U.S. economy. But with college graduation rates rarely surpassing 60%, the colleges and universities that manage to do well for large numbers of low-income students are far more deserving of recognition than even those schools committed to producing winning basketball teams.

In effect, the Economic Mobility Index scores matter, and schools that rank high on it should celebrate them as a source of pride. After all, as we have said over the last eight years, these are the sorts of results that should be boosting applications from the many young adults who want to enjoy not only the ephemeral pleasure of having a winning school team, but also the long-term benefits of upward mobility.

For the second year in a row, we have taken colleges participating in the women鈥檚 tournament and plotted them on an alternative bracket based on how well, or how poorly, they help make the American Dream of upward mobility a reality for their students.

Our parallel bracket makes use of an Economic Mobility Index (EMI) created by Michael Itzkowitz, former director of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 College Scorecard. This index uses information from the department and the Census Bureau to calculate the out-of-pocket costs required to obtain a four-year degree and the return on investment for lower-income students at each school. Then, an earnings premium is determined, representing the extra income these students make 10 years after graduation in comparison with someone with only a high school diploma. It follows that the lower the cost to obtain a degree and the higher the earnings premium, the less time a graduate will need to pay down the total net cost of a degree. 

Because access is a major concern for parents and students, the EMI also considers the proportion of low- to moderate-income students enrolled, in order to measure how great an impact each school is making on the future of underresourced students. To make this assessment, the percentage of Pell Grant recipients (a proxy for low family income) at each college is multiplied by its percentile rank on return on investment that each school offers its students versus other colleges. 

The result is the college’s placement within the EMI and, therefore, its location on our Social Mobility Tournament bracket. The EMI rewards schools for both their proportion of lower- and moderate-income students and the additional return on investment it provides them. 

This year鈥檚 Sweet Sixteen in our Social Mobility Tournament bracket are all public universities, which educate the majority of low- and middle-income students. With the exception of the Kansas State Wildcats and the Rebels of Ole Miss 鈥� both of which lost in the second round 鈥� the rest of our Sweet Sixteen never made it past the first round of the NCAA tournament. 

However, what they lacked on the court was more than made up by their strength as social mobility powerhouses. Together, the 16 colleges educate nearly 293,000 undergraduates, an average 35.6% of whom are Pell Grant recipients who manage to pay back the cost of their education in approximately 2.5 years. This is made possible by an earnings premium that averages some $19,400 over the income of those with only a high school diploma. 

These numbers make possible EMI rankings between 51 and 536 (out of 1,320) and percentages from 16.9% to 37.3% (on a range of 0 to 66.7%). In short, our Sweet Sixteen rank higher than almost 60% of all other colleges in the EMI dataset, hundreds of which 鈥� whether public or nonprofit private schools 鈥� require 10 or more years to pay down the cost of their degree. And many offer only a small earnings premium beyond that of a high school graduate.

The Elite Eight in our bracket represents a significantly higher level of accomplishment compared with those that lost in the round of 16. First, their EMI rankings are much higher (ranging between 51 and 216). These eight colleges serve nearly 141,400 students, nearly 36% of whom are Pell Grant-eligible. With an average earnings premium of $18,000, their graduates pay back the cost of their education in just over two years. 

Still, our Final Four are in a class of their own. won 15 straight games on their way to the Mountain West championships. Though they lost in Round One, they rank 108^th on the index, with an EMI of 31.1%. With over 37% receiving Pell Grants, UNLV students pay off their schooling in less than two years and enjoy an earnings premium of nearly $18,000. Meanwhile, the Eastern Washington Eagles, experiencing their best season ever, beat Northern Arizona to capture the Big Sky Conference championship. Unfortunately, they were no match for the Oregon Beavers in the first round of the NCAA tournament, but they rank 117^th in the EMI at 30.4%. 

In the meantime, women ended their basketball season 26-7 and captured the Sun Belt Women鈥檚 Basketball championship, earning their first bid to the NCAA tournament since 1997. Though they suffered a lopsided loss to the Virginia Tech Hokies in Round One, they have every reason to be proud of their school. Attending a school ranking 110^th in the index, with an EMI score of 30.8%, the Thundering Herd pay only $24,100 for their degree while experiencing on average an earnings premium of $10,125. This makes it possible to pay off their degree in only 2.4 years. All this with a student population that is nearly 40% lower-income. 

Which leads us to the 2024 Social Mobility Tournament bracket champion: the They earned a spot in the NCAA tournament by defeating UC-Davis in the Big West Conference tourney. But they earned our bracket鈥檚 championship because their school does something far better for its students. With an average degree cost of $36,700 and an earnings premium of over $36,900, Anteaters can pay down the total net cost of their degree in one year. This helps put Irvine’s nearly 12,000 Pell students higher up on the escalator leading to family-sustaining earnings. With these numbers, the university has earned an exemplary EMI ranking of 51 in the index and a 37.3% EMI.

We look forward to this year鈥檚 NCAA Elite Eight and Final Four games, but most of all, we look forward to seeing colleges receive the attention and support they merit when they do as well for their students as our Sweet Sixteen manage to do for theirs. 

Since 2017, we have taken this opportunity, when Americans are debating which are the best college teams on the court, to examine which are best at helping their students succeed after they leave school. 

Our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket plots the tournament鈥檚 colleges by how well 鈥� or how poorly 鈥� they put their students on a path leading to the American Dream of upward mobility. 

This may not matter to the lucky players talented enough to be drafted by the NBA (a mere one in 75 of those playing in the tournament). But their not-so-fortunate classmates will likely face an uncharted trajectory of adult responsibilities after graduation.

While all colleges are supposed to instill in their students the skills, habits and knowledge they will need to have rewarding careers, those serving large numbers of low- and moderate-income students have a special obligation to make sure they are doing the right thing. That’s why our parallel bracket of winners and losers celebrates success in fostering economic mobility for all rather than the athletic prowess of a few.

From 2017 to 2022, our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket used the Harvard-based Opportunity Insights dataset to spotlight the extent to which disadvantaged students enrolled in the tournament鈥檚 colleges managed to reach family-sustaining earnings by their early 30s. That dataset, based on the percentage of students born to parents in the bottom 40% of income distribution who reached earnings in the upper 40% of household income, is now too limited for our purpose. 

Growing concerns about college access, affordability and post-graduation earnings demand more comprehensive tools by which to understand the value of higher education. Consequently, beyond how effectively schools help make intergenerational advancement possible, it is important to know which colleges are worth the cost of tuition in time and money; how long a student will have to work to pay off that debt; and what proportion of each college鈥檚 underresourced students is being placed on the path to financial security.

With that in mind, since last year we have used a dataset developed and analyzed by Michael Itzkowitz, former director of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 College Scorecard. His Economic Mobility Index (EMI) ranks 1,320 bachelor鈥檚 degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students.

Using publicly available information from the U.S. Department of Education and the Census Bureau, he first determined the return on investment that lower-income students obtain at each school by calculating the out-of-pocket costs required to obtain a four-year degree. He then considered the additional financial benefits students obtain by attending one of these schools 鈥� an earnings premium representing the extra income these graduates make in comparison with someone with only a high school diploma. The lower the out-of-pocket costs and the higher the earnings premium, the faster a student will receive a return on the investment needed to obtain the degree.

The EMI also considers the proportion of lower- and moderate-income students enrolled. If a college provides a very strong return on investment to lower-income students but most come from upper-class backgrounds, it cannot be said to provide meaningful economic mobility. Therefore, the EMI rewards schools for the proportion of lower- and moderate-income students it enrolls in addition to the return on investment it provides.

Most colleges that help provide social mobility for significant numbers of low- and middle-income students tend to be public. So it鈥檚 no surprise that 23 of the 32 in the second round are public. Given their focus on access to a high percentage of Pell Grant-eligible students and their relatively low tuition, these schools make it possible for their graduates to pay down the total net cost of their education in less than two years, on average.

That said, this year鈥檚 Sweet Sixteen includes three private universities: , and . The Sweet Sixteen were all ranked on the EMI above 371 (out of 1,320) and enjoyed an EMI average of 28.6% (on a range of 0 to 66.7%). These are exceptional numbers when one considers that these colleges are educating nearly 454,000 undergraduates, over 34% of whom are in households with gross adjusted incomes rarely higher than 225% of their state鈥檚 poverty guideline.

But to reach the social mobility Elite Eight, a high order of accomplishments was required. With the exception of the Michigan State Spartans, whose school ranked 332^nd on the index, the rest of the pack came in above 165th in rank, all while serving an undergraduate population that on average is 40% eligible for Pell Grants.聽聽Which brings us to the 2024 social mobility Final Four: the Owls of (last year’s winner), the Cougars of , the Beach of and this year鈥檚 Social Mobility Tournament Champion, the Peacocks of . All were ranked above 66^th in the index, had EMI scores above 48% and served student bodies with over 48% Pell recipients.

St. Peter鈥檚 is a winner on and off the court. Two years ago, the team defeated mighty Kentucky on its way to the NCAA tournament鈥榮 Elite Eight. This year, the 15th-seeded Peacocks return to the Big Dance having won the MAAC Tournament. Meanwhile, all 2,640 undergraduates receive financial aid and over 62% have Pell Grants. That, coupled with low tuition ($36,900 per degree) and an earnings premium of nearly $16,000 beyond what a high school grad would earn, makes it possible for St. Peters students to pay down the cost of their degree in just 2.3 years.

At 17th in the index and with a 49% EMI rank, St. Peter鈥檚 is a most deserving champion of our 2024 Social Mobility Tournament.

In the past, I used data that permitted one to determine the percentage of a college鈥檚 students born to low-income parents who by their 30s managed to reach earnings in the upper 40% of household income. This intergenerational measure of upward mobility is useful, but it gives little insight into the factors that help or hinder students鈥� access to a better life, such as how long it will take to pay off the cost of their education. The data also failed to spell out the extent, in comparison to other schools, to which each college promotes the mobility of low- and moderate-income students.

To address these concerns, this year I used an Economic Mobility Index (EMI) prepared for by Michael Itzkowitz, former director of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 College Scorecard. The EMI ranks 1,320 bachelor鈥檚 degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students. All the colleges in the 2023 NCAA women鈥檚 tournament are found in this index. 

To assess the degree of economic mobility the tournament schools provide their less-resourced students, the percentage of Pell Grant recipients (a proxy for low family income) at each college is multiplied by its percentile rank on return on investment (ROI) that the school offers these students versus other colleges.

The ROI itself is obtained from the total out-of-pocket cost of attaining a degree and how much more a bachelor’s recipient earns 10 years after enrolling in college than a high school graduate. For example, if a four-year college costs $60,000 and its graduates earn $15,000 more than they would have without a bachelor’s, it would take them approximately four years to recoup their education costs ($60,000 in costs divided by $15,000 in additional earnings). The result of multiplying a college’s percentile rank on its ROI for lower-income students by its proportion of such students determines its placement within the EMI. Therefore, the EMI captures both the proportion of underresourced students served and the strength of the return graduates receive from their educational investment.

The importance of these calculations is this: If a school provides a very strong ROI to lower-income students but enrolls mostly those from middle- and upper-class backgrounds, it cannot be said to be a good source of economic mobility. Therefore, the EMI rewards schools for both their proportion of lower- and moderate-income students and the additional ROI it provides them. 

This year鈥檚 national women’s champion, California State University-Sacramento, appears in the NCAA tournament for the first time. Although the Hornets lost to UCLA in the first round, the players gave it their all, as they did in winning the Big Sky Tournament. Sacramento State, one of only four California teams in the tournament, greatly deserves to be at the top of our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket. 

Of the 1,320 schools in the sample, Sac State ranks 19th with an EMI of 48.4%. And it does this while serving a student body with nearly 53% Pell Grant recipients, an amazing 15,200 of whom on average take just 1.2 years to pay down the total net cost of their education. Tom Hanks would surely be proud of his alma mater鈥檚 role in providing that measure of upward mobility to so many.

Rounding out our Final Four are the Rebels of UNLV, the Blue Raiders of Middle Tennessee and the Mocs of Chattanooga, all of whom unfortunately lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament. These schools, along with the University of South Florida and UCLA (which, sorry to say, faced Sacramento too early in our bracket) range in rank and EMI from 85th to 192nd and from 33.3% to 26.3%. To get to these figures, these schools enroll large numbers of disadvantaged students who on average can pay back the cost of their degree in 2陆 years or less. With such a low opportunity cost, these students can attain family-sustaining earnings early in their working life. In effect, however exciting it is to win games 鈥� and exciting it is, indeed 鈥� these results are what ultimately matter most for the athletes, as few of them will ever be drafted by the WNBA. 

With college affordability top of mind, it bears digging a bit into the cost of the participating schools. The net price for lower-income students to earn a degree at Sac State is $26,700; at South Florida, it鈥檚 $25,000. As a flagship institution, UCLA charges an average of $10,000 more for its degree. For the top 17 teams on the Social Mobility Tournament bracket, the average cost of a degree is $35,800. Of course, these are mostly public universities, the schools most Americans count on to reach living-wage jobs. 

As for access, our top 17 colleges manage to serve over 127,000 Pell students. But adding in the next highest-performing 26 colleges in our bracket 鈥� those where, on average, the degree can be paid down in less than two years 鈥� means a whopping 1,222,600 Pell students are on the road to earning, on average, more than $30,000 per year than someone with only a high school diploma. These 26 additional schools have an average EMI of over 20%, and none have an EMI rank higher than 519th out of the 1,320 colleges in the index.

All in all, with minimal exceptions 鈥� such as the scrappy Pioneers of Sacred Heart, who rose past the NCAA鈥檚 First Four only to be felled by the Stanford Cardinal, and who, on average, take 5.6 years to pay for their degree 鈥� the schools in the tournament make it possible for their lower-income students to pay down the cost of their bachelor’s in less than three years. This is amazing, considering that 4 out of 10 schools in our database average well over 6陆 years to do the same, and students at 264 of these schools take on average 14 years or more to earn back their investment in their education.

The school that wins the NCAA tournament trophy has every right to celebrate its prowess on the court. After all, it鈥檚 not easy to defeat six teams with winning records while millions watch. But colleges such as those making a run for the Social Mobility Tournament championship are also worthy of celebration for succeeding so well at helping thousands of disadvantaged students climb the earnings ladder leading to the American Dream of economic well-being. 

While we can鈥檛 wait to see who makes it to the Elite Eight and on to the Final Four, we look forward to the time when colleges that win in our parallel bracket, as Sac State has done, proudly announce on T-shirts, advertising and websites that they are 鈥淚ncome Mobility Champions.鈥� 

March Madness is indeed a great escape, but social mobility is the great escape. 

Once again, March Madness has taken hold of much of the nation as this month鈥檚 NCAA men鈥檚 Division I basketball tournament gets off the ground. As we have done over the past six years, we take this opportunity, when the nation is focused on figuring out which colleges produce the best basketball teams, to examine which of the participating schools are the best at preparing their students for life beyond college.聽

We undertake this exercise by creating a parallel bracket 鈥� the Social Mobility Tournament Bracket 鈥� that plots the colleges invited to the Big Dance by how well or how poorly they help their students reach the American Dream of upward mobility. 

For most middle-class, traditional-aged college students, life after graduation can be a very scary time. If they have ended their studies, their scheduled and predictable life is abruptly interrupted by the start of an uncharted trajectory of adult responsibilities. Given that fewer than one senior in 75 playing in the tournament will be lucky enough to be drafted by an NBA team, this applies as well to most of the athletes eager to show their skills on the court this month.

For low-income students, often racial or ethnic minorities and frequently the first in their families to go to college, the challenges can be far greater. Consequently, while all schools are responsible for equipping their students with the skills, habits and knowledge they will need to have rewarding careers after graduation, those institutions serving low- and moderate-income students have an even greater obligation to make sure they are doing the right thing.

Schools that do well for their students should be recognized as true champions; colleges that fail to do so should be pointed out as needing improvement. It is with that mission in mind that each year we have created a parallel bracket of winners and losers, where economic mobility, rather than prowess on the court, is celebrated.

In years past, we have used the Harvard-based Opportunity Insights dataset to spotlight the extent to which disadvantaged students enrolled in the tournament鈥檚 colleges have managed to reach family-sustaining earnings by their early 30s. In particular, each school has been mapped on a bracket where winners and losers are determined through a mobility rate that represents the percentage of students born to parents in the bottom 40% of income distribution who reach earnings in the upper 40% of household income. 

While this comparison of achievement across generations has been useful, growing concern around college access, affordability and post-collegiate earnings has called for more comprehensive tools by which to understand the value of college for individuals and the nation. Consequently, beyond how well or how poorly schools help make intergenerational advancement possible, today it is important to know which colleges are worth their tuition cost in time and money; how long a student will have to work to pay off that cost; and what proportion of each college鈥檚 less-resourced students is being placed on the path to financial security.

With that in mind, we have used a new dataset for this year’s Social Mobility Tournament Bracket. This dataset was developed and analyzed by Michael Itzkowitz, former director of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 College Scorecard. With these data, he created ‘s Economic Mobility Index (EMI) that ranks 1,320 bachelor鈥檚 degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students.

Itzkowitz used publicly available information from the U.S. Department of Education and the Census Bureau to ascertain each college鈥檚 rank on the index. First, he determined the return on investment that lower-income students obtain at each of these 1,320 colleges, by calculating the out-of-pocket costs required to obtain a four-year degree. The EMI then considers the additional financial benefits students obtain by attending one of these schools. This earnings premium is defined as the additional income these graduates make in comparison to someone with only a high school diploma. In sum, the lower the out-of-pocket costs and the higher the earnings premium, the quicker a student will receive a return on the investment needed to obtain the degree.

The EMI also considers the proportion of lower- and moderate-income students a college enrolls. If the school provides a very strong ROI to lower-income students, but enrolls mostly students from upper-class backgrounds, it cannot be said to be doing a good job at providing economic mobility. Therefore, the EMI also rewards schools for the proportion of lower- and moderate-income students it enrolls in addition to the ROI it provides them.

In effect, this year, we are taking into consideration not only the percentage of students who move up the economic ladder, but also the size of the group of low- and moderate-income students a school places on the escalator to a better life. In doing so, colleges that rank highly in our updated bracket may be quite different from those that in the past would have made it to the Final Four and beyond.

For example, the Final Four in last year鈥檚 Social Mobility Tournament Bracket were Marquette, Providence, Notre Dame and Bryant. Compared with the other schools in the 2022 tournament, these had the highest percentages of students who climbed to the top 40% in earnings though their parents were in the lowest 40% of income. This feat is certainly admirable. But taking into consideration the relatively small number of low-income students who out-earned their parents, we find that these schools have had a very small impact as social mobility promoters. In fact, their EMI rank, respectively, is 558th, 844th, 925th and 1020th out of the 1,320 institutions in the index. 

As the parallel bracket shows, of the 32 teams making it past the first round, 27 are public colleges and universities. These are the workhorse schools providing students with many of the services and programs that can best lead to widespread upward mobility. And chief among their virtues is the reasonable net cost for their degrees, hovering on average around $39,000.

That leaves us with a Sweet Sixteen composed only of public colleges, the best of which make for an Elite Eight with EMI scores averaging 28.9% and all with an EMI rank above 346.

The Final Four in this year鈥檚 Social Mobility Tournament Bracket have EMI rankings worthy of detailed attention. The Houston Cougars 鈥� seeded No. 1 in the Midwest Region 鈥� have an impressive EMI score of 34.9% while ranking 67th in the index. Cougars can take pride in the fact that it takes them less than two years to earn the cost of their degree. Meanwhile, the Sun Devils at Arizona State, ranked 95th, on average pay back their undergraduate degree in a mere 1.2 years 鈥� and they do it with about 36% of their undergraduates on Pell Grants. UC-Santa Barbara鈥檚 Gauchos are not far behind, with a 106th ranking and a payback period of 1.6 years, and all while serving a student body where over a third are Pell Grant recipients.

That brings us to this year鈥檚 national champion, Florida Atlantic University. At 36%, the school has the highest EMI score among the tournament鈥檚 participants and ranks 63rd of the 1,320 colleges in the sample. This means two important things: On average, Florida Atlantic Owls take only one year to pay down the total net cost of their degree, and this feat is accomplished with an undergraduate population of nearly 39% low- to moderate-income students.

All in all, these winners in the race to provide the most mobility to the greatest number of students are worth celebrating and supporting no matter how well or poorly their teams may perform in the NCAA tournament. Colleges like these represent not only the best hope for tens of thousands of today鈥檚 most challenged students, but also the best answer for a nation hoping to prepare its residents to compete in a progressively polarized world.

When begins on , it鈥檚 a sure bet that millions of Americans will be making wagers on the annual college basketball tournament.

The American Gaming Association estimates that in 2022, 45 million people – or more than 17% of American adults 鈥� on the NCAA tournament. That makes it one of the nation鈥檚 most popular sports betting events, alongside contests such as . By at least one estimate, March Madness is the .

While people have been , one difference now is that betting on college sports is legal in many states. This is largely due to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that for each state to decide whether to permit people to gamble on sporting events. Prior to the ruling, legal sports betting was only allowed in Nevada.

Since the ruling, sports betting has grown dramatically. Currently, some form of legalized sports betting. And now, Georgia, Maine and Kentucky are .

About two weeks after sports betting became , someone, disappointed by an unexpected to Virginia Commonwealth University, and against Dayton .

The Ohio case is by no means isolated. In 2019, a Babson College student who was a 鈥溾�� was for sending death threats to at least 45 professional and collegiate athletes in 2017.

Faculty members of are concerned that the increasing prevalence of sports betting could potentially lead to more such incidents, putting more athletes in danger of threats from disgruntled gamblers who blame them for their gambling losses.

The anticipated growth in sports gambling is quite sizable. Analysts estimate the market in the U.S. may reach .

Gambling makes inroads into colleges

Concerns over college athletes being targeted by upset gamblers are not new. and have expressed worry that expanded gambling could lead to harassment and compromise their safety. Such concerns led the nation鈥檚 major sports organizations 鈥� MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and NCAA 鈥� to over a plan to initiate legal sports betting in that state. They argued that sports betting would make the public think that games were being thrown. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that it was if they wanted to permit legal gambling.

Sports betting has also made inroads into America鈥檚 college campuses. Some universities, such as Louisiana State University and Michigan State University, have to promote gambling on campus.

Athletic conferences are also cashing in on the data related to these games and events. For instance, the Mid-Atlantic Conference in 2022 to provide real-time statistical event data to gambling companies, which then leverage the data to create real-time wager opportunities during sporting events.

As sports betting comes to colleges and universities, it means the schools will inevitably have to deal with some of the . This potentially includes more than just gambling addiction. It could also involve the potential for student-athletes and coaches to become targets of threats, intimidation or bribes to influence the outcome of events.

The risk for addiction on campus is real. According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, over 2 million adults in the U.S. , and another 4 million to 6 million may have mild to moderate problems. One report estimates that .

What can be done

Colleges and universities don鈥檛 have to sit idly by as gambling grows.

Two faculty fellows at Miami University鈥檚 鈥� former Ohio State Senator William Coley and Sharon Custer 鈥� recommend that regulators and policymakers work with colleges and universities to reduce the potential harm from the growth in legal gaming. Specifically, they recommend that each state regulatory authority:

• Develop plans to coordinate between different governmental agencies to ensure that individuals found guilty of violations are sanctioned in other jurisdictions.
• Dedicate some of the revenue from gaming to develop educational materials and support services for athletes and those around them.
• Create anonymous tip lines to report threats, intimidation or influence, and fund an independent entity to respond to these reports.
• Assess and protect athlete privacy. For instance, schools might decline to publish contact information for student-athletes and coaches in public directories.
• Train athletes and those around them on basic privacy management. For instance, schools might advise athletes to not post on public social media outlets, especially if the post gives away their physical location.

The NCAA or athletic conferences could lead the development of resources, policies and sanctions that serve to educate, protect and support student-athletes and others around them who work at the schools for which they play. This will require significant investment to be comprehensive and effective.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

But here at 社区黑料, we thought we鈥檇 use the occasion of March Madness to celebrate top schools for an entirely different reason 鈥� elevating graduates into the workforce and empowering social mobility. 

Colleges vary widely in how well they set graduates up for career success and aid them in climbing the 鈥渋ncome ladder.鈥� Recently Jorge Klor de Alva, president of the Nexus Research and Policy Center, worked with the Harvard-based Opportunity Insights dataset to match and analyze data from thousands of colleges as well as millions of income tax returns to determine every school鈥檚 ability to take students born to parents in the bottom 40 percent of income distribution and to help them go on to achieve earnings in the upper 40 percent of household income by their early 30s. 

By identifying the percentage of students who made this ascension, Klor de Alva was able to compare schools in an apples-to-apples fashion in a reimagined March Madness bracket. 

鈥淎 score of 0.50 on our bracket means 50 percent of students whose parents were in the lowest 40 percent were able to climb to the top 40 percent in earnings,鈥� he wrote in a recent essay. 鈥淥ur Social Mobility Tournament Bracket spotlights the extent to which disadvantaged students enrolled in the selected colleges have managed to reach family-sustaining earnings 10 years after leaving the school.鈥� 

As we enter Sweet 16 weekend, here鈥檚 what the finalists would look like if used Klor de Alva鈥檚 social mobility percentages to determine winners: 

In real life, Bryant University鈥檚 basketball team lost their First Four game and failed to progress in the brackets. But, after seeing our 鈥淪ocial Mobility Tournament,鈥� Bryant would be the 2022 contest winner if the focus was celebrating schools that helped students prosper.

For context, here鈥檚 the full March Madness bracket, scored by social mobility percentage (click to enlarge):聽

Of note: UCLA, which previously won our Social Mobility Tournament in 2017, makes it all the way the Social Mobility Sweet 16 before being knocked out by Wisconsin鈥檚 Marquette University. 

To learn more about the calculations, the rationale and the importance of celebrating schools in moving students up the ladder, read Klor de Alva鈥檚 deep dive right here.

As the nation鈥檚 concerns about the pandemic are moved to the back burner by Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine, it may seem insensitive to turn our attention to sports. But sports are important. From kindergarten through college, participation in sports helps develop vital human values, from the ability to work in teams to the willingness to sacrifice oneself in the pursuit of common goals. Sports build friendships across diverse peoples and help develop resilience in the face of disappointment. So, with no apologies, millions of sports fans deserve the distraction that comes with this month鈥檚 NCAA men鈥檚 Division I basketball tournament.

After fighting off the winter鈥檚 variant of COVID-19 and with the first four games completed, the 68 colleges selected to compete have started battling each other for the national championship. Unlike last year, where it all took place in a limited number of sanitized bubbles, this time the venues will include multiple cities with stadiums filled with cheerleaders, fans and bands whose frenzy is so much a part of March Madness.

All this means it鈥檚 time for us to join in with our own alternative bracket. Since 2017, each year we have prepared a bracket that plots the tournament鈥檚 colleges based on how well each participating school helps its students reach the American Dream of upward mobility. In effect, our parallel bracket charts the schools not by what they could be expected to do on the court, but by what they are already doing to improve their students鈥� chances to succeed in life. 

Our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket spotlights the extent to which disadvantaged students enrolled in the selected colleges have managed to reach family-sustaining earnings 10 years after leaving the school. To examine how well or how poorly these colleges put their students on the path to financial security, we use the Harvard-based Opportunity Insights dataset. By combining millions of anonymous income tax returns with information on thousands of American colleges, these data permit us to map each school in the tournament on a bracket where winners and losers are determined through a mobility rate that represents the percentage of a school鈥檚 students born to parents in the bottom 40 percent of income distribution who reach earnings in the upper 40 percent of household income by their early 30s. Put another way, a score of 0.50 on our bracket means 50 percent of students whose parents were in the lowest 40 percent were able to climb to the top 40 percent in earnings.

Based on this year鈥檚 March Madness picks, the schools to watch in our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket are Marquette, Providence, Bryant and Notre Dame. While the Bulldogs and the Fighting Irish began the tournament in the lowly First Four rung, in our bracket, Bryant University (0.78) and Notre Dame (0.74) reached our Final Four, with Bryant the overall Champion.  

We believe our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket is significant because it has never been more important to know whether the time and money spent on college is worth it. As we have noted before, the American Dream 鈥� a big part of which rests on children doing better than their parents 鈥� has become progressively more elusive. For example, children born in 1940 had a 90 percent chance of outearning their parents, but only half of Millennials can expect the same. Members of Gen Z, those 18 to 25 who make up the bulk of today鈥檚 undergraduate cohort, are likely to find it even more difficult. According to recent estimates, as many as 63 percent of them report that receiving an inheritance will be essential to securing their financial future.

It is no surprise, then, that as the public has started to question the value of a college degree 鈥� given increasing tuition costs, low graduation rates and underemployment among graduates 鈥� the importance of knowing what an education can yield at a particular college or with a specific degree has become more important than at any time in the nation鈥檚 history. Fortunately, for all who see postsecondary education as the way to a better life, since 2015 the U.S. Department of Education, through its , has made earnings data publicly available for students 鈥� whether they graduated or not 鈥� from nearly all institutions. Today, College Scorecard data track earnings not just by school, but by both degree and field of study six, eight or 10 years after students enroll.

Using these data, researchers have estimated the return on investment in education at thousands of colleges. This endeavor is making comparisons between schools more meaningful. For example, armed with these resources, we now know that approximately 14 percent of postsecondary institutions leave their students in such bad straits that they will never be able to gain back their cost of attendance. Meanwhile, because of high dropout rates, researchers have estimated that at about 30 percent of colleges, more than 50 percent of students will still be earning less than a high school graduate a decade after enrollment.

Nonetheless, all universities claim their students will be able to maneuver well the intricacies of their education, and all assert that what their students are taught will add up to a great job and a fulfilling career. But for those students whose parents are in the lowest two quintiles of income distribution, the likelihood that they will climb the ladder to financial success greatly depends on where they go to school. And how well that school performs on the basketball court is no indication of how much its students will earn compared to their parents. 

This is true even for the outstanding players who are demonstrating their basketball prowess on TV screens across America this week and through the championship game April 4. Only a small number will be able to make money from participating in March Madness; in fact, fewer than one senior in 75 playing in the tournament will be lucky enough to be drafted by an NBA team. For most of these athletes, what matters most for their financial security is something beyond basketball.

With that in mind, we offer our alternative rankings with the hope that they can help draw attention to those colleges that work hardest at putting their low-income students on the ladder to a life-transforming future of financial well-being. With scores ranging from 0.73 to 0.78, meaning over 70 percent of their low-income students advanced to the top 40 percent of earners, we heartily congratulate our Final Four. And a special shout out goes to Northeast Conference Champion Bryant University on its crowning as Social Mobility Tournament champion on its first appearance in the Division I level NCAA tournament!

Jorge Klor de Alva is the president of the Nexus Research and Policy Center. He was previously a senior executive at Apollo Education Group, Inc., a professor at Princeton University, and the Class of 1940 Professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

To be more precise: Our annual 鈥淪ocial Mobility Tournament鈥� is compiled by Nexus Research and Policy Center President Jorge Klor de Alva and uses the Harvard-based Opportunity Insights dataset to capture a different view of higher education institutions, combining millions of anonymous income tax returns with information on thousands of American colleges. As Klor de Alva explains, he assigns a score to each school in the tournament 鈥渦sing a mobility rate that represents the percentage of its students born to parents in the bottom 40 percent of income distribution who reach earnings in the upper 40 percent of household income by their early 30s.鈥�

The goal here is a different kind of bracketology 鈥� to create 鈥渁 parallel competition that plots the tournament鈥檚 participating colleges on a bracket based on how well each school helps its students reach the American Dream of upward mobility. Over the years, our bracket has served to highlight how well or how poorly colleges in the tournament have managed to place their most disadvantaged students on the road to family-sustaining earnings, as opposed to how well their players have done on the court.鈥�

With this year鈥檚 Sweet Sixteen set to kick off at Saturday afternoon, as the Oregon State Beavers take on the Loyola Ramblers, we鈥檝e taken our full 68-college Social Mobility Bracket and broken out which schools would make our Sweet Sixteen, our Elite Eight, and our Final Four. Here are our 2021 victors for social mobility:

And for those wondering how the other top schools in the tournament did in serving more than 1.5 million students, here鈥檚 a copy of our complete 2021 bracket:

Klor de Alva has noted several interesting trends and observations from this year鈥檚 participants 鈥� and results. 鈥淭he 68 schools participating in this year鈥檚 March Madness have succeeded in making the intergenerational income leap possible for about 109,000 students out of their total student population of over 1.5 million,鈥� he noted, 鈥渁 somewhat disappointing 7 percent.鈥�

Two years ago, when they last held the tournament, that figure was 11 percent. Read Klor de Alva鈥檚 full assessment of the 2021 social mobility tournament 鈥� and why such a conversation is essential when we consider the purpose and the payoff of our higher education system.

Click here to read his complete 2021 assessment: