The 2026 NCAA women’s tournament, combining a mix of expected winners and up-and-coming programs, has provided an exciting month of basketball for millions of fans across the nation. In the last few years, thanks to the athleticism and on and off the court charisma of powerhouse stars in both pro and college teams, women’s basketball is now front and center and more thrilling than ever. 

Witness, for instance, the Vanderbilt Commodores’ Mikayla Blakes, the nation’s leading scorer, perform a near triple-double with 25 points against Illinois. Or the outstanding performance of UCLA’s Lauren Betts and Gabriela Jaquez as the Bruins stomped the Gamecocks of South Carolina to win the school’s first NCAA national title. The list that highlighted the Madness this March could go on, but the point is clear: Women’s basketball is a treat to watch.

But how well do these competitive schools, whose ability on the court has been rewarded with bids to the Big Dance, do when it comes to helping their students reach financial security? 

To find out, I have applied a methodology detailed in my recent analysis of the men’s tournament. 

The formula used ranks each college on an Economic Mobility Index (EMI), based on how many years graduates need to pay down the total net cost of their degree; how much more than a high school graduate the college’s bachelor’s degree recipients earn after 10 years; and how broadly the school’s effort applies to its low- and moderate-income students, using the percentage of students eligible for Pell grants as a proxy for low family income. 

Consequently, the EMI ranks 1,320 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its most disadvantaged students. 

One way to grasp the value of the EMI is by comparing the two colleges that made it to the NCAA Tournament’s championship game. Although both schools are mighty on the court, there are wide differences in the statistics they provide for the tournament and for the index. To get to the championship game, the No. 1 seeded Bruins of University of California-Los Angeles had to overcome 23 turnovers and survive a late surge from the Texas Longhorns to manage a 51-44 win against the only team that beat them this season. Meanwhile, the South Carolina Gamecocks made it by breezing past the Horned Frogs of Texas Christian University. 

More significantly, in the Social Mobility Tournament, the University of South Carolina got only as far as the second round because the school’s total price tag is $43,300, but the earning premium for its graduates — compared with someone with only a high school diploma — averages just $28,600. Therefore, it takes 1.5 years on average to pay down the cost of its degrees. Compare this to UCLA, where a degree costs $34,500 and the earning premium is a whopping $45,000, making it possible to pay back the amount spent on a degree in less than one year. 

What’s more, South Carolina’s student body is made up of only 19.9% Pell-eligible students, compared with 31.9% for UCLA. The result: South Carolina ranks 501 in our index with a 17.6 EMI score, whereas UCLA, which went on to play in the championship game in both our bracket and the NCAA tournament, is ranked 115 with an EMI score of 30.4. 

Given the challenges colleges face today, as more and more people question whether they are worth the cost, the EMI calculations provide an important service. Not only do they help to identify which colleges are associated with the highest return on the educational investment made, but also which ones are doing so for the greatest numbers of underresourced students.

From a wider perspective, the 2026 NCAA teams in the Sweet Sixteen were a formidable lot. The No. 1 seeded University of Connecticut Huskies crushed the Syracuse Orange. The No. 1 seeded Gamecocks of South Carolina did the same to the embattled Trojans of USC. Meanwhile, the Louisiana State University Tigers, on their way to a fourth consecutive Sweet Sixteen appearance, battered the unfortunate Lady Raiders of Texas Tech by a punishing 101-47 score. 

Still, not every game leading to the Sweet Sixteen was lopsided. In one of the most thrilling games of the tournament, the Gophers of Minnesota sneaked by the Ole Miss Rebels by a mere 2 points, and it took two overtime periods for the University of Virginia Cavaliers to best the Hawkeyes of Iowa. 

But no matter which team you rooted for, this is exhilarating basketball right through to the Final Four matches between four No. 1 seeds. Still, as I have noted in the past, what should be no less thrilling is observing how well some of the tournament’s schools succeed in putting their students on the path to economic security.

After all, with college costs a major concern for most parents and students, an examination of the total net price to earn a degree at the participating schools is worth undertaking. For example, on average, an undergraduate degree at the Sweet Sixteen colleges in our Social Mobility Tournament costs approximately $40,900 but provides an earning premium beyond a high school graduate of about $32,200. It is data like these that make possible an earning premium that permits a graduate to pay down the cost of their degree in less than two years. This type of information is important for anyone considering a college education.

Also important is knowing how wide the door is open at any institution. For instance, when it comes to access, the colleges in our Sweet Sixteen differ greatly from their counterparts in the NCAA tournament. The Social Mobility Sweet Sixteen enroll nearly twice as many Pell-eligible students — 138,000 out of 461,600 — than those in the NCAA Sweet Sixteen, where only 74,200 out of 342,000 students qualify for Pell grants. 

While the winners in the NCAA tournament receive much praise, and their schools enjoy both bragging rights and potential increases in applications and donations, there is much reason to also celebrate this year’s Social Mobility Tournament champion, the University of California at San Diego. 

Not only did the Tritons win the Big West Tournament, but they also enjoy a 34.8 EMI score, putting them in 68th place out of 1,320 schools in the index. This means their approximately 11,100 lower-income graduates can pay back the cost of their education in less than one year and go on to earn on average more than $43,600 than a high school graduate in California.

I look forward to seeing powerhouse teams like the NCAA’s Final Four win games, but more than that, I am pleased that policymakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in state legislatures are now paying close attention to which schools are putting their students on the road to financial well-being. These are the schools most worthy of our praise and most deserving of the admiration that comes with success, whatever their fate on the court.

March Madness, that anxious, exciting and promising time for players and fans alike, is upon us. Like millions of others, I have been really enjoying these three weeks of competitive games full of surprises and awesome athletic feats. However, beyond the thrills, this moment highlights the stakes not just for the players, but also for colleges and their broader missions. While loyal students and alumni have experienced moments of joy and grief as they followed their schools’ progress, and administrators hoped for wins that will increase applications and donations, even more important for the nation is how these colleges enable upward economic mobility for their graduates. 

American higher education is experiencing one of the most challenging times in its history. Since 2017, when ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÊÓ began publishing a Social Mobility Tournament bracket composed of colleges participating in the Big Dance, the percentage of surveyed adults who believe a four-year degree is not worth the cost has risen from 40% to 63%. 

This loss in public support that colleges previously took for granted has made them targets of both left- and right-leaning critics and policymakers. They are demanding that schools take greater responsibility not only for educating students, but for ensuring that the education they receive leads to employment with meaningful earnings.

With this in mind, our bracket aims to shift the focus to the broader mission of higher education: advancing economic mobility. Beginning in 2017, each year we have taken the schools competing in the NCAA Division 1 basketball tournament and plotted them in a parallel bracket, where winners and losers are determined not by their prowess on the court, but by how well the colleges put students on the road to financial security.

To do this, we employ Third Way’s Economic Mobility Index (EMI), created by the former director of the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, Michael Itzkowitz. This index uses information from the department and the Census Bureau to rank 1,320 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students. Taking into account the key concerns of students, parents and policymakers, the EMI first assesses the return on investment for lower- and moderate-income students at each college by calculating the out-of-pocket costs required to earn a four-year degree. 

The index then considers the added financial benefits students gain from attending one of these schools. This earnings premium is the additional income graduates accrue compared to someone with only a high school diploma. In effect, the lower the out-of-pocket costs and the higher the earnings premium, the quicker a student will receive a return on the investment needed to obtain the degree. Lastly, the index rewards schools for the proportion of financially challenged students they enroll and for the return on investment they deliver. (Click on each school in the bracket to see its Social Mobility score, total net price, earning premium and how long it takes graduates to pay off the cost of their education.)

To make this clearer, consider the following: While the Wolverines of the and the Wildcats of the faced each other in this year’s NCAA Final Four, neither school went further than the second round in our Social Mobility Tournament bracket. After all, Michigan had a lowly score of 16.9 in the EMI and Arizona only a slightly higher ranking at 25.1. Digging into the data, this disparity shows the importance of each data point that composes the index’s score.

As a EMI breakdown shows, the University of Arizona, a public institution, has a total price of $41,000 but an earning premium of a mere $23,700 for graduates when compared with someone holding only a high school diploma. This translates into a price-to-earnings premium that allows Wildcat graduates to pay off the cost of their education in 1.7 years. But the University of Michigan enjoys a net price of just $15,850 and a handsome earning premium of $48,800, making it possible for grads to pay down the total cost of their degree in only 0.3 years.

While winning games in a tournament made up of proven champions is a difficult achievement for any college, helping students move up the economic ladder is no less a challenge, especially for schools serving a high percentage of low- and moderate-income undergraduates. That’s why we believe colleges should be honored not only for victories on the court, but also for earning a high ranking in the Economic Mobility Index.

So, which teams deserve the highest praise this year? Of the 68 teams in the Social Mobility Tournament bracket, only 16 are private universities, and just six of them advanced past the first round. Moreover, by the end of Round 2, just a single private school, , managed not only to reach our Sweet 16, but, as it did last year, to go on to win our Social Mobility Tournament.

The main surprise here is that any private school could go that far, considering that the EMI is based primarily on affordability — how quickly the cost of a degree can be repaid — and the percentage of students enrolled who require financial aid. Therefore, beyond producing winning teams that can be invited to the NCAA tournament, private colleges must be inexpensive and serve a wide range of students to move up the Social Mobility Bracket. 

Given these requirements, how did BYU win it all? Though the Cougars were beaten by the in the first round of the NCAA Tournament, they earned their 33rd straight bid by having a 23-12 season in which they defeated eight teams ranked among the Associated Press’ Top 25. In addition, have a price-to-earnings premium that permits them to pay down the cost of their degree in less than a year, a feat made possible through low tuition and generous financial aid. Meanwhile, the school serves a student body in which nearly 37% of students receive Pell Grants.

How about the other three teams that make up our Final Four? How did they get there? The , and all have high EMI scores of at least 35%, giving them rankings that place them in the top 104 out of 1,320 colleges in the index. This translates into graduates who on average can pay down the cost of their degrees in fewer than four years, and all while having student bodies made up of at least 36% Pell Grant recipients. These, then, are excellent examples of schools working to increase the social mobility of their students.

In this highly polarized time, it is good to know that a bipartisan consensus exists around policies that require colleges to do more to help students gain employment with reasonable earnings. This state of affairs supports our nearly decade-long call to praise colleges like those in our Final Four. After all, few athletes will ever make the pros, but all students need to make a decent, family-sustaining living.

Clarification: The Economic Mobility Index is the property of Third Way.

Since 2017, we have taken this opportunity, when Americans are debating which are the best college teams on the court, to examine which are best at helping their students succeed after they leave school. 

Our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket plots the tournament’s colleges by how well — or how poorly — they put their students on a path leading to the American Dream of upward mobility. 

This may not matter to the lucky players talented enough to be drafted by the NBA (a mere one in 75 of those playing in the tournament). But their not-so-fortunate classmates will likely face an uncharted trajectory of adult responsibilities after graduation.

While all colleges are supposed to instill in their students the skills, habits and knowledge they will need to have rewarding careers, those serving large numbers of low- and moderate-income students have a special obligation to make sure they are doing the right thing. That’s why our parallel bracket of winners and losers celebrates success in fostering economic mobility for all rather than the athletic prowess of a few.

From 2017 to 2022, our Social Mobility Tournament Bracket used the Harvard-based Opportunity Insights dataset to spotlight the extent to which disadvantaged students enrolled in the tournament’s colleges managed to reach family-sustaining earnings by their early 30s. That dataset, based on the percentage of students born to parents in the bottom 40% of income distribution who reached earnings in the upper 40% of household income, is now too limited for our purpose. 

Growing concerns about college access, affordability and post-graduation earnings demand more comprehensive tools by which to understand the value of higher education. Consequently, beyond how effectively schools help make intergenerational advancement possible, it is important to know which colleges are worth the cost of tuition in time and money; how long a student will have to work to pay off that debt; and what proportion of each college’s underresourced students is being placed on the path to financial security.

With that in mind, since last year we have used a dataset developed and analyzed by Michael Itzkowitz, former director of the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard. His Economic Mobility Index (EMI) ranks 1,320 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions by how well each provides economic mobility for its students.

Using publicly available information from the U.S. Department of Education and the Census Bureau, he first determined the return on investment that lower-income students obtain at each school by calculating the out-of-pocket costs required to obtain a four-year degree. He then considered the additional financial benefits students obtain by attending one of these schools — an earnings premium representing the extra income these graduates make in comparison with someone with only a high school diploma. The lower the out-of-pocket costs and the higher the earnings premium, the faster a student will receive a return on the investment needed to obtain the degree.

The EMI also considers the proportion of lower- and moderate-income students enrolled. If a college provides a very strong return on investment to lower-income students but most come from upper-class backgrounds, it cannot be said to provide meaningful economic mobility. Therefore, the EMI rewards schools for the proportion of lower- and moderate-income students it enrolls in addition to the return on investment it provides.

Most colleges that help provide social mobility for significant numbers of low- and middle-income students tend to be public. So it’s no surprise that 23 of the 32 in the second round are public. Given their focus on access to a high percentage of Pell Grant-eligible students and their relatively low tuition, these schools make it possible for their graduates to pay down the total net cost of their education in less than two years, on average.

That said, this year’s Sweet Sixteen includes three private universities: , and . The Sweet Sixteen were all ranked on the EMI above 371 (out of 1,320) and enjoyed an EMI average of 28.6% (on a range of 0 to 66.7%). These are exceptional numbers when one considers that these colleges are educating nearly 454,000 undergraduates, over 34% of whom are in households with gross adjusted incomes rarely higher than 225% of their state’s poverty guideline.

But to reach the social mobility Elite Eight, a high order of accomplishments was required. With the exception of the Michigan State Spartans, whose school ranked 332^nd on the index, the rest of the pack came in above 165th in rank, all while serving an undergraduate population that on average is 40% eligible for Pell Grants.  Which brings us to the 2024 social mobility Final Four: the Owls of (last year’s winner), the Cougars of , the Beach of and this year’s Social Mobility Tournament Champion, the Peacocks of . All were ranked above 66^th in the index, had EMI scores above 48% and served student bodies with over 48% Pell recipients.

St. Peter’s is a winner on and off the court. Two years ago, the team defeated mighty Kentucky on its way to the NCAA tournament‘s Elite Eight. This year, the 15th-seeded Peacocks return to the Big Dance having won the MAAC Tournament. Meanwhile, all 2,640 undergraduates receive financial aid and over 62% have Pell Grants. That, coupled with low tuition ($36,900 per degree) and an earnings premium of nearly $16,000 beyond what a high school grad would earn, makes it possible for St. Peters students to pay down the cost of their degree in just 2.3 years.

At 17th in the index and with a 49% EMI rank, St. Peter’s is a most deserving champion of our 2024 Social Mobility Tournament.