How Azimuth Measures Value

Turning complex data into clear guidance

The College Azimuth is built on a simple idea: every student should be able to see whether a college delivers on its promise. We translate public data into four pillars that describe how well a school turns access into progress. The result is a score that captures both what students get and what it takes to get there.

Our Approach

We draw from the U.S. Department of Education's College Scorecard, Opportunity Insights, and other verified datasets that together cover every accredited four‑year institution in the country. Each variable is normalized and grouped into one of four pillars—Return, Affordability, Access, and Mobility—so schools can be compared on a level field. We don't reward selectivity or endowment size. We reward evidence of value.

The Four Pillars

1) Return

Return asks the practical question: What do students earn for the time and money they invest? We examine not just median earnings six to ten years after entry, but also the full distribution of incomes—how graduates at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles fare. Percentiles matter because averages can hide inequality: a handful of very high earners can inflate a school's “typical” salary, masking outcomes for everyone else. By weighting medians and lower‑quartile earnings more heavily, we reward institutions that produce broad‑based success, not just elite outcomes.

We also include loan‑repayment rates and default rates to test whether graduates can sustain their debt with the incomes they earn. A strong Return score means graduates across the distribution are achieving stability relative to what their degree cost.

2) Affordability

Affordability measures what students and their families actually pay, and how manageable that cost remains over time. Sticker price is only the start; we look at net price by income level, cumulative debt at graduation, and repayment trajectories—how long it takes typical borrowers to pay down their loans.

Repayment timelines matter because a degree that takes decades to pay off can't credibly be called affordable. We also include Parent PLUS loan data, which captures the growing share of debt parents take on for their children. Many families over‑extend themselves to cover tuition gaps; including parent debt ensures the ranking reflects the true household cost of higher education.

3) Access

Access evaluates who colleges choose to serve and how much risk they're willing to take in doing so. We intentionally moved away from using first‑generation status alone. Instead, we look at indicators that reflect institutional courage—the willingness to enroll students who may not have the same financial or academic advantages but succeed when given support.

This includes Pell Grant share and selectivity proxies that capture the balance between openness and success. Schools that enroll a broader, more economically diverse population and still achieve strong outcomes earn higher Access scores.

4) Mobility

Mobility examines how far students move up economically after college—the heart of the social‑mobility conversation. We draw heavily on the work of the Carnegie Foundation's Classification for Social and Economic Mobility (https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/classifications/mobility/), which connects pre‑college family income to post‑college earnings. Using data from Opportunity Insights, we estimate the share of students who rise two or more income quintiles after attending a given institution.

Together, these four dimensions form your Azimuth—a single, interpretable score that balances opportunity, cost, and outcomes.

Weights and Lenses

While the default Azimuth Mix balances all four pillars, students and policymakers often approach the question from different angles. To reflect that, we provide multiple lenses—alternative weightings that emphasize specific priorities while keeping the underlying data consistent.

Lens guidance

Default (Azimuth Mix): right for most, but can dilute extremes if a school excels in one pillar and lags in another.

Outcome Lens: ideal when job-driven earnings and payoff speed matter most; can under-value access/affordability leaders.

Affordability Lens: emphasizes out-of-pocket cost and debt load; may under-weight long-term payoff.

Mobility Lens: highlights institutions moving students up the income ladder; may downplay near-term earnings.