Education ROI: Compare Two Trajectories
Stack degrees on either path (e.g. Bachelor vs. Bachelor + Master, or work now vs. one degree) and weigh the opportunity cost of lost wages against the compounding effect of a higher salary floor.
All figures are in today's money: every rate on this page is real, i.e. above inflation. Why?
Path A
Optionally stack degrees before working; they run end-to-end. Leave empty to enter the workforce immediately.
Path B
Add degrees one after another; they stack end-to-end (e.g. Bachelor then Master).
After all degrees (5 yrs total)
General Assumptions
Living Costs
Path A
Applied in any year not covered by a living-cost phase below.
Stack calendar-year phases (e.g. lean student years, then a pricier city); the entered amount is used as-is inside a phase.
Grows the base living cost each year beyond the last phase (or from year 1 when there are no phases). May be negative.
Path B
Path B uses the same living costs as Path A.
| Metric | P10 | P50 | P90 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Path A Net Worth After 35 years | €1,381,548 | €2,689,489 | €6,096,528 |
| Path B Net Worth After 35 years | €2,547,277 | €4,515,875 | €9,066,338 |
| Break-Even Year Path B overtakes | – | Yr 14 | – |
| Advantage Path B minus Path A | – | €1,826,386 | – |
What each choice actually pays
Where your net worth after 35 yrs lands under each path: Path B in the upper panel, Path A in the lower one. Both panels use exactly the same buckets, x axis and y axis, so a bar compares directly with the bar below it. Read the shapes, not the overlap: both paths ride the same market in any one scenario, so the distance between these two peaks is not the odds of one beating the other. The Advantage row above settles that.
- Upper panel (Path B): The share of scenarios in which path b finishes in each range.
- Lower panel (Path A): The share of the same scenarios in which path a finishes in each range. Both panels use exactly the same buckets, x axis and y axis, so a bar here compares directly with the bar above it.
- point at the chart: Hovering or tapping anywhere on the chart names the bucket under the pointer and, for each side, the share of scenarios that finish inside it, below it and above it (the three add to 100%). Dragging across the chart with the mouse zooms to what you selected.
- clipped tail: The ‹ and › percentages at the ends of the axis are the scenarios finishing outside the drawn range, each after a ■ in its side's colour. Up to 1.0% of one side's scenarios sit outside it; they are counted in every number on this page, just not drawn here.
Net Worth Trajectory
Solid lines are the median (P50) paths, with surplus compounding at 5%/yr. The shaded fans are the P10–P90 range of each path's net worth under a modelled return with volatility σ = 15% (set in the header); both paths ride the same modelled return each scenario. Either path dips negative during its study years before recovering on a higher salary.
Wealth at Key Milestones
| Milestone | Path A | Path B | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Path B: Degree 1 end (Yr 3) | €79,884 | -€34,983 | -€114,867 |
| Path B: Degree 2 end (Yr 5) | €141,861 | -€74,138 | -€216,000 |
| Year 10 | €333,027 | €221,494 | -€111,533 |
| Year 20 | €924,067 | €1,222,287 | €298,219 |
| Final Year (Yr 35) | €2,689,489 | €4,515,875 | €1,826,386 |
- Opportunity Cost of Study: a study-year surplus can go negative and compounds against that path.
- Stacked Degrees on Either Path: Each degree runs end-to-end (Bachelor → Master → PhD, etc.). A path's starting salary only begins after its final degree completes. Path A with no degrees enters the workforce from year 1.
- Living Costs by Year: Set per path. Living-cost phases (if any) run end-to-end from year 1 at their entered amount; outside phases the base amount grows per L(y) above. Path B can mirror Path A's living costs with the "Use Path A's living costs" checkbox.
- Break-Even: the first year Path B's cumulative wealth exceeds Path A's, after which Path B holds a permanent financial advantage.
- How the scenarios work: the median lines pretend the market grows at a smooth 5%/yr, but reality is bumpy. The fans and the per-path histograms instead model both paths' wealth pots as compounding at a lognormal annual return with median 5%/yr and volatility σ = 15% (set in the header). The same modelled return compounds both paths' wealth pots each scenario, so both choices see identical returns; only each path's surplus stream (income − tuition − living costs) stays fixed. Because the two paths front-load their surplus differently (Path B sacrifices early to earn more later), a bumpy market can flip the winner, which is why the fans overlap. Figures marked P50 come from the smooth median-return path.
Living cost in year y (outside a living-cost phase)
L(y) = 20,000 × (1 + c)^k
- L(y): living cost in year y
- y: calendar year, 1-based
- B: base annual living cost
- c: consumption growth, as a fraction = consumptionGrowthA/100
- k: years past the last living-cost phase end (0 in the first uncovered year)
In-study annual surplus
- Surplus: net cash added to the wealth pot in year y
- I: that degree phase's annual income (stipend/part-time)
- X: that degree phase's annual tuition
- L(y): living cost in year y (see above)
Post-study annual surplus
Surplus(y) = 45,000 × (1 + g)^max(0, y − T − 1) − L(y)
- S: starting salary once all degrees on this path are complete
- g: annual salary growth, as a fraction = pathAGrowth/100
- T: total years spent in study (sum of this path's degree durations)
- L(y): living cost in year y (see above)
Wealth accumulation
- W: cumulative net worth
- r: annual market return, as a fraction = marketReturn/100
- Surplus: that year's net cash added (see above)
Lifetime advantage
Advantage = W_B(35) − W_A(35)
- Advantage: lifetime wealth advantage of Path B over Path A
- W_B: Path B's net worth after H years
- W_A: Path A's net worth after H years
- H: career horizon, in years
Assumptions behind every figure: how this site models the market →
Every model leaves things out. Here is what this one does not see:
- Tuition is treated as a straight cash cost paid the year it's owed, with no student-loan terms. A path that runs into the red simply carries a negative balance that compounds at the Market Return, as if borrowing cost exactly what investing earns. Real student loans are often cheaper (subsidised) or dearer (private), so a debt-financed path's cost can differ from what's charted.
- Only the market's return is randomised. Neither path carries any career-specific risk (job loss, a stalled promotion, an industry downturn, or simply not landing the assumed starting salary), so the smooth, fixed growth rate for each path understates how uncertain real income actually is.
- Prestige, job satisfaction, networking and the skills a degree signals to employers beyond its wage effect are entirely unpriced. A path can win here on pure wealth and still be the worse life choice, or vice versa.
- Salaries are entered net of tax and used as entered: no tax code is applied, so a higher salary's larger bracket share, and any tax deductibility of tuition or student-loan interest, are left out. Which way this cuts depends on the tax code in force, but either path's real-world gap can be meaningfully bigger or smaller than what's charted.