How we rank education programs
Transparency is the whole point. Here is exactly how the Hakia Score is built, what data goes into it, and what we deliberately leave out.
Every ranking on this site is generated from the same composite, the Hakia Score, a 0 to 100 number computed entirely from publicly reported federal data. No program pays for placement. No reputation surveys, peer assessments, or editorial opinions factor into the score. If a program disputes its data, the dispute is with the federal dataset, not with us.
How the score works, by degree level
Each program is scored only against its own peer group, the other programs in the same specialty at the same degree level, so a bachelor's is only ever compared to other bachelor's. Because the federal data supports different signals at each level, the exact factors differ:
Associate's degrees
Each program is scored 0 to 100 against the other associate's programs in its specialty: graduation rate (55%) and affordability by in-state tuition (45%). Scores are percentile-based within the specialty, so they compare like with like, and a program missing a field gets the neutral median. Because an associate's in elementary education is a two-year transfer degree offered almost entirely by open-admission community colleges, selectivity is not used. Earnings are excluded because they depend on transferring and finishing a bachelor's degree. Every associate's program in the specialty is ranked and shown, with no per-state cap.
Bachelor's degrees
Each program is scored 0 to 100 against the other programs in its specialty: graduation rate (50%), selectivity by admission rate (30%), and affordability by in-state tuition (20%). Scores are percentile-based within the specialty, so they compare like with like. A program missing a field gets the neutral median for it, so it is neither rewarded nor punished. Earnings are intentionally excluded: federal per-school earnings are not yet published for education programs, and the field-level salary figure is identical for every school, so ranking on it would be meaningless. To keep the overall list from being dominated by a single state's public-university system, it shows at most 2 programs per state; the value, affordability, graduation-rate, and selectivity pages rank every program without that limit.
Master's degrees
Each master's program is scored 0 to 100 against the other master's programs in its specialty on the measures the federal data actually supports at the graduate level: the number of master's degrees it awards each year (30%), counted as a sign that the program is established rather than rewarding sheer size: a program reaches full credit at about fifty degrees a year and awarding thousands more adds nothing, so a high-volume online degree factory earns no advantage here; the median wage for elementary teachers in the program's local area (30%), from the BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. The wage is the metropolitan-area figure where the school sits in a metro (about 85% of programs) and the state figure otherwise, and it is adjusted for the local cost of living using the Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parities, so a high nominal salary in an expensive metro does not outrank a lower salary that goes further. It is a measure of local earning potential in the field, not the earnings of this program's graduates, which are not published. The third and largest measure is a program-strength score (40%), 0 to 100, led by the institution's Carnegie research classification, so a very-high-research university outranks a small teaching college on institutional standing. It adds a bonus where the program names a national programmatic accreditor like CAEP or AAQEP, but does not lean on it, because several states approve educator preparation through their own boards rather than CAEP, and a strong flagship should not be marked down for its state's accreditation choice. A clearly identified degree and licensure pathway adds a little more, and private for-profit programs, whose graduate outcomes are documented as weaker, take a deduction. Graduation rate, admission rate, and tuition are deliberately NOT scored: the first two are institution-wide undergraduate figures that describe the wrong population, and verified graduate tuition exists for too few programs to rank on fairly. Cost is shown on each card where we have it, but it does not affect the ranking. Every master's program is ranked and shown, with no per-state cap.
Doctorate degrees
Doctoral programs specifically in elementary education are rare, most educators earn a doctorate in curriculum and instruction or educational leadership, so this is a short, complete list rather than a deep ranking. The few programs are ordered by graduate tuition affordability (50%), the university's acceptance rate (30%), and the university's graduation rate (20%). Graduate tuition is researched from each program's official page. Because the federal data does not publish graduation or admission rates for individual doctoral programs, those rates are the university's institution-wide figures, used only as rough context. Every program is shown, with no per-state cap.
Data sources
Every number is publicly verifiable, and we link to the source on each ranking page:
- IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, U.S. Department of Education): graduation rates, admissions, enrollment, tuition, and degrees awarded.
- BLS OEWS (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics): national, state, and metro-area wages by occupation, currently the May 2025 release.
- BEA Regional Price Parities: to adjust local wages for cost of living so a high nominal salary in an expensive metro does not outrank one that goes further.
- The Carnegie Classification: institutional research standing, used in the master's program-strength score.
- The CAEP and AAQEP directories: to note programmatic accreditation where a program leads to a teaching license.
What we exclude
- Per-school earnings. Federal per-school earnings are not yet published for education programs, and the field-level salary figure is identical for every school, so ranking undergraduate programs on it would be meaningless. We show wage data as context, and use local, cost-of-living-adjusted wages only where the data supports it.
- Programs no longer accepting applicants. A program teaching out a degree can still show strong historical data, but you cannot enroll in it, so we remove it even when its metrics would otherwise rank it highly.
- Programs with insufficient data. When a program reports some metrics but not others, we never impute the missing values; instead its score is pulled toward the middle of its peer group in proportion to how much data is missing, so no program can top a ranking on a thin record or on enrollment size alone.
- Mismatched credentials. Associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programs are ranked on separate pages, because comparing them on one scale would be meaningless.
What we do not use
We do not use U.S. News-style reputation surveys, paid or sponsored placements, program self-reported data, or subjective factors like faculty prestige. None of those measure the thing a prospective education student actually needs to know: whether a program is affordable, gets its students to the finish line, and leads to the credential and career they are after.
How often we update
Rankings are refreshed as new federal data is released and as program statuses change. Every page displays its last-updated date. If you spot an error, tell us at help@hakia.com and we will check it against the source.