A Rate Is a Snapshot, Not a Career Verdict

For workers with bachelor’s degrees, the meaning of an underemployment rate depends not only on the definition but also on when and how the worker is observed. This chapter follows the graduate–occupation relationship from early entry into the labor market to prime-age work, then examines how survey design and occupational coding limit what the estimate can say. The practical judgment is simple to state and important to preserve: a rate can describe a population at a moment without predicting an individual graduate’s career.

A graduate’s stage changes the question

The Georgetown report separates workers ages 22–23 from workers ages 25–54 for a reason. The younger group approximates people within one year of completing a bachelor’s degree. The older group represents prime-age workers whose labor-market outcomes include more time for job changes, experience, and movement into roles that may use their education differently. These are not merely two convenient age bands. They represent different stages of the relationship between education and work.

A recent graduate may accept the first available position while searching for a more suitable role. The job may provide income, experience, contacts, or a bridge into an occupation whose more demanding positions are not open to a new entrant. Another graduate may remain in the first job because the work is a good fit, even if the occupation’s entry assignment is below a bachelor’s degree. A third may remain because the labor market is weak or because geographic and personal constraints limit alternatives. The same occupational classification can therefore describe a transition, a choice, or a persistent mismatch.

The report’s earnings evidence changes across the prime-age lifecycle. The median bachelor’s-degree-to-high-school earnings premium is 65 percent for workers ages 25–34, 80 percent for those ages 35–44, and 85 percent for those ages 45–54. These figures cover all occupations, regardless of entry-level education assignment. They do not show that every graduate’s pay rises in a fixed sequence, or that experience alone causes the increase. They do show that the economic return associated with a bachelor’s degree can look different at different career stages.

That difference affects the interpretation of a method that uses earnings to refine underemployment. A premium measured among older workers may reflect accumulated experience, seniority, role changes, and selective movement through the labor market, not only the value of the degree at entry. A premium measured among recent graduates may understate the value that becomes visible after workers gain experience. Neither age group is simply a more accurate version of the other. Each answers a different question about when the degree–occupation relationship is being observed.

The report discusses another cohort comparison from Talent Disrupted: 52 percent of that report’s graduates were classified as underemployed one year after graduation, compared with 45 percent five years after and 45 percent ten years after. Those figures are reported secondhand in the Georgetown analysis and come from a different cohort and method; they are not interchangeable with the Georgetown rates. Their value here is illustrative. A measurement taken soon after graduation can capture the difficulty of entering a career-track role, while a later measurement can reflect settling and movement.