Are All Degrees Worth the Same? A Comparative Analysis of Community College and University Baccalaureate Graduates’ Financial Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examines the financial outcomes of graduates from community college baccalaureate (CCB) programs compared to those from traditional 4-year university baccalaureate programs in Ontario, Canada. It aims to understand whether graduating from a CCB program influences earnings, student loan status, and loan balances relative to university graduates. Additionally, it explores how field of study and post-graduation pathways shape these outcomes. Methods: Using administrative data from Statistics Canada, this study analyzes four cohorts of Ontario college and university graduates from 2010 to 2013. It employs ordinary least squares regression models to estimate the relationship between CCB graduation and financial outcomes, controlling for individual and institutional characteristics. Results: CCB graduates experience a wage premium of 5% to 14% 2 years post-graduation compared to their university counterparts, conditional on postgraduate pathway. They are also 13 to 14 percentage points less likely to incur student loan debt, though no significant differences are observed in loan balances among those who borrow. The wage advantages are particularly notable in applied and technical fields. Conclusion: The findings suggest that CCB degrees provide competitive financial returns, challenging traditional assumptions about institutional quality. This study contributes to the literature on horizontal stratification in higher education and highlights the need for further research on mechanisms driving these results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".