TIME Education

Why Women’s Colleges Are Opening the Door for Men

Student working at desk in library
Getty Images

An effort to stop declining enrollment

Wilson College, a small women’s school in Pennsylvania, came close to shutting down once before. But a swell of opposition from staff and students in 1979 and a fundraising effort that raised $1.1 million in less than three months kept the college in business. Facing a similarly dire falloff in enrolled students and tuition revenue this year, the school turned to what it said is the only option for survival—admitting men.

One of a few dozen remaining women’s colleges in the U.S., Wilson said it can no longer afford to serve only half the population. While overall college enrollment has gone up by about 32% since 2000, enrollment at women-only colleges has fallen during that time by 29%. As a result, more women’s colleges are going co-ed. There were as many as 200 women’s colleges in 1960, according to the National Institute on Postsecondary Education. Today that number hovers around 44, as schools facing sluggish enrollment are forced to find ways to survive.

In the last two years, at least three other women’s colleges have gone coed or announced plans to. The first male students at William Peace University in Raleigh matriculated in 2012. Georgian Court University in New Jersey went co-ed last year. And Chatham University in Pittsburgh will admit men starting next fall.

At Wilson, undergraduate enrollment has been chronically low for 40 years, according to school spokesman Brian Speer. At its peak, the college enrolled 732 students, but it hasn’t had more than 338 since 1980. Last year, just under 600 applicants were offered admission—but only 100 chose to attend. That prompted the board of trustees to approve President Barbara Mistick’s plan to admit undergraduate men.

The process began last fall with undergraduate male commuter students. Male students who are living on campus arrived this fall. The shift to co-ed is part of a broader revitalization plan that also includes a 17% tuition reduction and a loan buyback program.

“This college has been trying to implement programs for 30 years to address the stagnant enrollment in the undergraduate college,” Speer said.“Those efforts have not gotten us anywhere near where we need to be.”

Not everyone is on board. Students and alumni have formed two groups to protest the change. One, Wilson College Women, is led by lawyer and 1980 graduate Gretchen Van Ness; it has 465 members on its Facebook page. Another, Wild Wilson Women, has more than 1,400 members.

Van Ness, who sat on the commission that made suggestions to Mistick, said it didn’t support coeducation as a way to boost enrollment. She accused the administration of breaking state Department of Education protocol that requires it to propose amendments to the college’s articles of incorporation and wait for approval before making changes. The college filed an application to change its charter with the state last year but didn’t wait for approval before admitting male commuter students that fall. Instead, Van Ness and others said, the college immediately advertised itself as co-ed, hired coaches for male athletic teams, and started preparing dorms for male residential students. Van Ness said this is illegal but Wilson maintains that changes to its charter in 1993 gave it permission to admit men.

“All of a sudden, Wilson’s identity as a women’s college had just disappeared,” Van Ness said.

In June, the women behind Wilson College Women were granted a hearing at the state Department of Education, where they made the case for state intervention that would block any further undergraduate coed operations at the school. The Department has not said when it will issue a ruling.

At Chatham University, the decision to admit men was much less controversial.

“It’s been a topic of conversation for 20 years. The idea was to keep the undergraduate women’s college and diversify the graduate programs,” said school spokesman Bill Campbell.

In 1992, men were invited to apply to graduate and other programs. Enrollment was temporarily boosted by the move, but it went down again in 2008.

“Less and less women are interested in women’s colleges today,” Campbell said.“Can we feasibly continue to put this much money to this mission decision?”

At Chatham, Campbell said the decision to admit men was proactive—the school relied on a February report from Standard & Poor’s that predicted the next few years to be especially tough for small, narrowly-focused colleges as an indication of trouble to come. Chatham got a low BBB- rating in the report.

Admitting men can be a financial solution for struggling schools, but it’s important for women to have a range of choices when they pick a college, said Marilyn Hammond, president of the Women’s College Coalition.

“What’s at stake is that there will be limits again to the options women have if women’s colleges don’t exist,” she said.

At Wilson, Van Ness and other opponents said they hope the state will protect that option. Van Ness was a junior and president of the student government at Wilson in 1979, when faculty and students protested the school’s closure, which was eventually blocked by a judge.

“We made history once,” Van Ness said. “As tough as it is out there in the constantly changing world of higher education, there is still a place for women’s colleges.”

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education-news outlet based at Teachers College, Columbia University.

TIME Education

Most Financial Aid Should Go To First-Generation College Students

College lecture hall
Lisa Klumpp—Getty Images

Schools aren’t helping the students that really need it

Sometimes, vague can be misleading—and harmful. For years, colleges have identified disadvantaged students based primarily on “diversity” and “need.” But those categories are broad and unspecific, and can be gamed by sophisticated applicants and parents. The result? Schools aren’t helping the students that really need it. And higher education is now perpetuating – rather than alleviating – inequality. We can reverse this pattern by learning from our education history and shifting the focus of that aid effort to first-generation college students.

The key here is this: colleges need to get more specific about who they want to help, and why. Universities’ commitment to “diversity” is important, but it’s a poor substitute for a policy of equal access for the disadvantaged because “diverse” students and disadvantaged students are not necessarily one and the same. Several studies have shown that beneficiaries of diversity-based admissions policies typically hail from the most well-educated and economically successful segments of “diverse” communities. That’s why a diversity strategy will not help universities reclaim their mission of fostering socio-economic mobility.

Focusing on first-generation college students, on the other hand, just might. These are the students whose parents never attained a bachelor’s degree from a U.S. college, and they’re a much better proxy group for those who are truly at a disadvantage in education. First-generation students typically attend secondary schools with fewer academic and financial resources. Yet we don’t have to look hard to find examples of students who demonstrate strong academic potential and have the discipline and perseverance to achieve long-term success. Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO; Kathleen McCartney, President of Smith College; Colin Powell, former Secretary of State; and Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Supreme Court Justice – all first-generation college students – are just a few examples of tremendous academic potential of these students.

So, how do we unlock all that potential? It’s easy to propose an outreach strategy to first-generation students, but harder to implement one. The 250 or so oversubscribed institutions that admit a fraction of thousands of applicants too often crowd out the smart but poorer students. High-ability students born to poor, uneducated parents have the most to gain from higher education and the most to lose as a result of current inequities. We need to remove some of the roadblocks in the present system, especially at selective institutions of higher learning.

Here’s one such roadblock: Many universities—an overwhelming majority, in fact—practice “need-sensitive” admissions and don’t accept academically able but poor students, at least in part because they cannot pay. And then there’s merit-based financial aid, which also gives wealthier students an edge: schools often use it to climb the infamous U.S News & World Report rankings, as Stephen Burd reports in a recent paper. No one is arguing that merit doesn’t matter, but we need to scrutinize merit aid awards more closely. The metrics most colleges use to define “merit” favor affluent students, whose schools have the resources to support standardized testing prep, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes and exams. And it’s not just colleges that are contributing to this problem: Even lower-income students who receive the maximum Pell award may be left with a significant financial burden because the government isn’t holding colleges accountable for rising costs. Too many students face an untenable choice: financing their college educations with costly student loans or forego higher education altogether.

The cumulative impact of these roadblocks is clear. Students from affluent backgrounds graduate from college at six times the rate of children from low-income households. For lower-income students, merely going to college is an achievement. Fewer than 30 percent enroll in a four-year college. Of those poorer students who do matriculate, fewer than half graduate. The most damning statistics concern high-achieving students from low-income households. Even when students from low-income households outscore higher-income peers, they graduate from college at a lower rate. This data belies the notion, once extolled by universal schooling proponent, Horace Mann, that our institutions of higher education are “great equalizers.”

To make good on the past, we need to discuss how data sometimes drives – and misidentifies – our priorities. The Department of Education mandates that colleges report a massive amount of information about their students, including test scores, graduation rates, average net price paid per student, and demographic information such as race and sex. But it neglects to ask colleges about their students’ first-generation status—sending schools the message that this status isn’t a government priority (an impression compounded by the fact no comprehensive database indicates how many such students are admitted to institutions that receive federal funds).

Even if the government were asking for data about first-generation status, universities aren’t likely to happily fork it over. In response to inquiries I made in connection with a forthcoming research paper on first-generation students’ access to higher education, administrators at numerous selective universities claimed to have no idea whether their students hail from Ph.Ds. or from high school drop outs. The data that I did manage to collect indicates that first-generation students constitute a fraction of the student bodies at selective colleges and universities. In 2011, for instance, only five percent of matriculating freshmen at the University of Michigan, and in 2013 just nine percent of matriculating freshman at the University of Virginia—both taxpayer-supported universities that enroll thousands of students—were first-generation college students.

The best way to address the social and economic inequality embedded in higher education policy is to tackle it at its roots. Admissions officials can start by practicing need-blind admissions, asking students whether their parents graduated from a four-year college, and consciously seeking to admit academically competitive first-generation students during the admissions process. Colleges should provide adequate financial support for low-income first-generation college students and the federal government must replace costly loans with grants for a greater number of needy students. The government can also look to its past for precedent to craft a legislative solution. Both the 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (“GI Bill”) and 1965 Higher Education Act (part of The Great Society) offer models for providing educational benefits and access to those who are most in need.

The inclusion of greater numbers of students from the bottom rungs of society in higher education need not be a zero sum game. This isn’t about displacing wealthier students. It’s about enriching the student body, and making college better for everyone with the potential to attend.

Tomiko Brown-Nagin is the Daniel P.S. Paul Professor of Constitutional Law and a Professor of History at Harvard University, where she is the co-director of the Program in Law and History. This piece was originally published in New America’s digital magazine, The Weekly Wonk. Sign up to get it delivered to your inbox each Thursday here, and follow @New America on Twitter.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

MONEY Student Loans

The 5 Colleges That Leave the Most Students Crippled By Debt

Almost 650,000 federal student loan borrowers have defaulted on their debt, new data shows. A handful of for-profit schools are a big part of the problem.

UPDATED: September 25, 2014

More than one out of eight students who had a federal student loan and left college or graduate school in 2011 has since defaulted—a total of almost 650,000 Americans, the U.S. Department of Education reported today.

In all, 13.7% of the 4.8 million federal student loan borrowers who graduated or dropped out of a higher education program in 2011 have gone at least nine months without making a payment on that debt.

That number is alarming to many analysts because new flexible repayment programs have made it much easier to repay federal student loans. Some of the government’s new income-driven repayment plans, for example, cap payments at 10% of a borrower’s discretionary income.

Students and parents should be wary of colleges with high default rates, advises Debbie Cochrane, research director of The Institute for College Access and Success. “At schools with both high borrowing rates and high default rates, too many students are clearly leaving school worse off than before they entered,” she says.

A handful of for-profit colleges are responsible for a disproportionate number of the defaults, according to the new government statistics.

The Education Department says it will stop making loans to students at the 21 colleges with the worst default rates. (It will cut off schools with a three-year default rate above 40%, or three consecutive three-year default rates above 30%.) Twenty of those schools are for-profit colleges.

Many of the colleges with the highest default rates are trade schools, and many are comparatively small. The Coast Career Institute, a California-based trade school with a 56% default rate, for example, currently reports having only 169 students. Eleven of the 21 colleges with the worst default records are beauty or barbering schools. On average, 19% of students at for-profit schools who left school in 2011 have defaulted.

What’s more, several other government agencies are looking into whether some for-profit colleges are trying to attract students using false or misleading marketing. Allegations of fraud leveled by the California attorney general have forced for-profit Corinthian College to shut down.

Overall, the default rates for public colleges was 12.9%. The default rate for private, non-profit colleges was 7.2%. But the four colleges with the largest numbers of defaulters were for-profit schools. They produced a combined total of more than 75,000 defaulters in the past three years.

The University of Phoenix, a for-profit company and the nation’s largest higher education system, with 242,000 students, accounted for more than 45,000 of the defaulters in the most recent three-year group. That represented 19% of all of the Phoenix students whose bills started coming due in 2011.

Spokesmen for Phoenix and an association of for-profit schools note that their default rates have been declining. The University of Phoenix’s three-year default rate for students who graduated or dropped out in 2010 was 26%, for example.

The largest producer of defaulters among public schools was Ivy Tech, a community college in Indiana, where 23% of the student borrowers who left there in 2011 have since defaulted on their student loans. On average, 20% of community college borrowers have defaulted over the past three years. Community college officials note that their students generally tend to borrow less than others because the schools charge lower tuition.

These five schools have the highest numbers of defaulters among those who left school in 2011, according the Education Department.

College Type # of federal student loan defaulters, 2011-14 % of borrowers who defaulted on federal loans due in 2011
1 University of Phoenix For-profit 45,123 19%
2 ITT Technical Institute For-profit 11,260 22%
3 Kaplan University For-profit 10,684 20%
4 DeVry University For-profit 9,081 19%
5 Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana Public community college 7,237 23%

Update: This post has been updated to add more information about schools with the highest default rates and to correct the Department of Education’s policy on loans for schools with high default rates.

TIME fraternities

Dear Wesleyan: Fraternities Should Never Be Co-Ed

Frat Party
The Sigma Pi and Phi Kappa Sigma fraternities have a waterfight on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. Gene Lester—Getty Images

Dillon Cheverere is Vice President of Media and a writer at Grandex, Inc., an Austin, TX-based media and apparel company that publishes TotalFratMove.com and TotalSororityMove.com.

How does mandating the inclusion of women in fraternities and frat culture solve the big issues? It doesn't.

Public perception says fraternities are bastions of heinous indiscretion and even crime—frat guys are drug-abusing, racist, misogynistic, alcoholic rapists. Fraternity members merely view their affiliations as means to a good time. The unfortunate reality, per usual, lies somewhere in the middle. Broad strokes are used to paint them in a terrible light, but the vast majority of fraternities in the United States are upstanding, respectable societal members. Their good deeds get buried under the dirt of the few—such as hazing deaths, or sexual assault.

Regardless of the proportion of offenders, problems within fraternity walls undeniably exist, and university administrators are forever trying to remedy them. Wesleyan University grabbed headlines this week after their administration ordered all on-campus fraternities to accept female students in order to remain in good standing with the university. Girls in fraternities: mandated.

Reasoning for this move includes terms “equity and inclusion” for all students, but reading between the lines tells us they are attempting to thwart fraternity behavior that typically grabs headlines, like the time when Wesleyan was in the news a couple years ago after its Beta Theta Pi chapter earned the moniker “Rape Factory.” All Wesleyan fraternities must “become fully co-educational over the next three years.” Failure to comply will result in disaffiliation from the university. Yet Wesleyan does have sororities. Their female students have options.

I suppose the administration’s idea of the best possible version of a fraternity involves guys and girls living together. But why? How? They don’t really say. Girls will soon sleep under the same roof as guys, they will be at the same parties, and they will soon get drunk and high with them—basically, nothing will change. The reasoning seems thin. How, exactly, does becoming co-ed help fraternities solve, or even mitigate, the bigger issues?

It won’t.

Fraternities—and sororities, for that matter—are seclusive by nature. They aim to accept like-minded people of similar interests and backgrounds. The fabric of a fraternity, as cliché as it may be, is the bond of brotherhood. The relationships forged in these houses are far from casual. These young men will live, fight, mourn, laugh, and trade sexual tales with each other. Each chapter is so much more than dues, chapter meetings, and parties. Lifelong bonds are taking place.

These organizations have been bringing guys together for over 150 years in many cases. Oh yeah, tradition is typically a pretty big deal to these guys. Irrelevant changes such as this mandated by school officials will undoubtedly be ill-received. And it will not work, because very few people will actually want it to.

Dillon Cheverere is Vice President of Media and a writer at Grandex, Inc., an Austin, TX-based media and apparel company that publishes TotalFratMove.com and TotalSororityMove.com.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Education

The Reason College Costs More Than You Think

The Lyceum, oldest building on the campus of the University of Mississippi on April 12, 2008 in Oxford, Mississippi.
The Lyceum, the oldest building on the campus of the University of Mississippi Wesley Hitt—Getty Images

Freshmen say they’ll finish in four years, but most will be paying tuition for five or six years

When Alex Nichols started as a freshman at the University of Mississippi, he felt sure he’d earn his bachelor’s degree in four years. Five years later, and Nichols is back on the Oxford, Miss. campus for what he hopes is truly his final semester.

“There are a lot more students staying another semester or another year than I thought there would be when I got here,” Nichols says. “I meet people once a week who say, ‘Yes, I’m a second-year senior,’ or, ‘I’ve been here for five years.’”

They’re likely as surprised as Nichols still to be toiling away in school.

Nearly nine out of 10 freshmen think they’ll earn their bachelor’s degrees within the traditional four years, according to a nationwide survey conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. But the U.S. Department of Education reports that fewer than half that many actually will. And about 45 percent won’t have finished even after six years.

That means the annual cost of college, a source of so much anxiety for families and students, often overlooks the enormous additional expense of the extra time it will actually take to graduate.

“It’s a huge inconvenience,” says Nichols, whose college career has been prolonged for the common reason that he changed majors and took courses he ended up not needing. His athletic scholarship — Nichols was a middle-distance runner on the cross-country team — ran out after four years. “I had to get some financial help from my parents.”

The average added cost of just one extra year at a four-year public university is $63,718 in tuition, fees, books, and living expenses, plus lost wages each of those many students could have been earning had they finished on time, according to the advocacy group Complete College America.

A separate report by the Los Angeles-based Campaign for College Opportunity finds that the average student at a California State University campus who takes six years instead of four to earn a bachelor’s degree will spend an additional $58,000 and earn $52,900 less over their lifetimes than a student who graduates on time, for a total loss of $110,900.

“The cost of college isn’t just what students and their families pay in tuition or fees,” says Michele Siqueiros, the organization’s executive director. “It’s also about time. That’s the hidden cost of a college education.”

So hidden that most families still unknowingly plan on four years for a bachelor’s degree, says Sylvia Hurtado, director of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.

Although the institute does not poll parents in its annual survey, “that high percentage of freshmen [who are confident they’ll finish in four years] is probably reflecting their parents’ expectation — ‘This is costing me a lot, so you’re going to be out in four years.’ So the students think, ‘Sure, why not?’ I don’t think the parents even initially entertain or plan for six years or some possible outcome like that.”

Yet many students almost immediately doom themselves to taking longer, since they register for fewer courses than they need to stay on track. Surveys of incoming freshmen in California and Indiana who said they expected to graduate in four years found that half signed up for fewer courses than they’d needed to meet that goal, according to a new report by the higher-education consulting firm HCM Strategists.

It’s not entirely the students’ fault.

More than half of community-college students are slowed down by having to retake subjects such as math and reading that they should have learned in high school, says Complete College America. And at some schools, budget cuts have made it difficult to register for the courses students do need to take. Two-thirds of students at one California State University campus weren’t able to get into their required courses, according to a 2010 study by the University of California’s Civil Rights Project.

Most state financial-aid programs, meanwhile, cover only four years. “They do not fund a fifth or sixth year,” says Stan Jones, president of Complete College America and a former Indiana commissioner of higher education. “And by that time the parents’ resources and the students’ resources have run out. So that fifth year is where you borrow.”

Students at the most elite colleges and universities tend not to have this problem, which means that schools with some of the highest annual tuition can turn out to be relative bargains. These schools “would have a revolt if their students had to go a fifth year,” Jones says. “But that recognition has really not hit the public sector yet, about the hidden cost of that extra year.”

Policymakers urge speeding students through remedial classes more quickly, adding more sections of required courses so students can get in when they need them, and encouraging students to take 15 credits per semester instead of the typical 12.

Change won’t come soon enough for Nichols, who is determined that it won’t take more than one extra semester to finish his degree in integrated marketing communications.

“That’s time you’re wasting,” he says, “that you could be out making money.”

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education-news outlet affiliated with Teachers College, Columbia University.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: September 17

1. Islamic State’s sexual violence is a war crime and U.S. leaders should call it out, seek ways to track it, and hold the terrorists to account. Instead, policymakers are ignoring it.

By Aki Peritz and Tara Maller in Foreign Policy

2. When the rich get richer, states get poorer. Income inequality is eating away at state tax revenue.

By Gabriel J. Petek at Standard and Poor’s Ratings Service

3. Does big philanthropy have too much power over policy?

By Gara LaMarche in Democracy

4. An innovative program is connecting high-performing low-income students with scholarship dollars and guiding them through the daunting financial aid process.

By David Leonhardt in the Upshot

5. Can a major redesign transform Union Station into the commercial and cultural heart of Washington?

By Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: September 16

1. America can offset China’s rising power and Russia’s influence in Asia by strengthening its relationship with India.

By Paul J. Leaf in the National Interest

2. MIT moms challenge engineers and students to pitch ways to improve breast pumps in a ‘hackathon.’

By Katie Levingston in Boston.com

3. College is disproportionately off limits to poor and minority students. Here are some critical steps to close that gap.

By Antoinette Flores at the Center for American Progress

4. State governments should stop paying off businesses to ‘create jobs.’ The tax incentives and other giveaways are a waste.

By Richard Florida in the Los Angeles Times

5. One way the NFL can address the mishandling of domestic violence by its players: paying to rebuild our nation’s depleted support system for survivors of abuse.

By Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Education

Princeton Approves Revisions to Sexual Misconduct and Assault Policy

The changes will bring the institution into full compliance with Title IX

Princeton University faculty members approved recommended revisions to the university’s policies for addressing sexual misconduct and assault on Monday, the university announced.

The changes will bring the institution into full compliance with Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination at schools that receive federal funding. Princeton is one of 76 institutions being investigated for possible violations of Title IX, which also has requirements about how educational institutions handle sexual assault claims.

One of the changes Princeton faculty approved shifts the burden of proof from the “clear and persuasive” standard, which mandates that three-quarters of evidence must indicate guilt, to the “preponderance of evidence” standard, which is less rigid. The Department of Education recommended the “preponderance” standard in a 2011 guide to how colleges could comply with Title IX.

Other changes include allowing rights to appeal a case afforded equally to both the alleged offender and the victim; allowing both sides to appoint advisers outside of the university; and the removal of students from adjudication panels, the Daily Princetonian reports.

Princeton’s Faculty Advisory Committee on Policy first recommended the revisions, which were drafted over the summer, earlier this month. The changes will be brought to the Council of the Princeton University Community for incorporation into Princeton’s rules on Sept 29.

MONEY Jobs

The 15 Highest-Paying Jobs That Don’t Require a College Degree

A bush plane performs take off in Alaska with Chugach Mountains in the Background.
You don't need a college degree to make this your workplace. Chris Boswell—Alamy

Not every lucrative job demands years of study. For these, a high school diploma (and some training) will do.

Conventional wisdom holds that earning a bachelor’s degree is the best path to a stable job that provides a livable income, but not every high-paying job requires a four-year college education.

In fact, 345 out of the 787 occupations listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their 2012 to 2022 employment projections report require only a high school diploma. In 45 of the fields, the median wage is above the national median of $51,058 a year, according to an analysis by the research engine FindTheBest.

However, while many jobs don’t demand a bachelor’s degree, a number of the best-paying ones call for additional training. Elevator installers and repairers, for example, earn a median income of $76,650 a year but have to complete an apprenticeship before entering the field full-time. Commercial pilots who handle charters, rescue operations, and aerial photography flights need a license from the Federal Aviation Administration. Nuclear power reactor operators must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

What’s more, many of the best-paid positions are growing more slowly than the average 11% growth rate for all occupations for 2012 to 2022—or even shrinking. Postal workers, for example, earn a median of $53,100 a year, but the number of mail carriers, mail sorters, and clerks is forecast to decline by 28% by 2022.

But for a handful of these professions, the outlook is healthy. That includes elevator installers and repairers, who are expected to increase their numbers by nearly 25% by 2022, and transportation inspectors and construction and building inspectors, all fields that are forecast to grow at double-digit rates.

Here are 15 professions you can enter with a high school diploma and still earn above the median U.S. income. You can use FindTheBest’s tool to sort through more jobs by projected growth, median pay, and education required.

Rank Job Category Median Annual Pay Projected Job Growth, 2012 to 2022
1 Supervisors/Managers of Police and Detectives $78,270 4.9%
2 Elevator Installers and Repairers $76,650 24.6%
3 Nuclear Power Reactor Operators $74,990 0.5%
4 Detectives and Criminal Investigators $74,300 2.0%
5 Commercial Pilots $73,280 9.4%
6 Power Distributors and Dispatchers $71,690 -0.9%
7 Supervisors/Managers of Non-Retail Sales Workers $70,060 -0.8%
8 Media and Communication Equipment Workers $68,810 -1.5%
9 Power Plant Operators $66,130 -10.8%
10 Business Operations Specialists $65,120 7.4%
11 Transportation Inspectors $63,680 11.2%
12 Electrical Power Line Installers and Repairers $63,250 8.9%
13 Subway and Streetcar Operators $62,730 6.5%
14 Petroleum, Refinery and Pump System Operators and Gaugers $61,850 -5.1%
15 Gas Plant Operators $61,140 -8.8%

 

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser