What share of four-year degree graduates from each UH campus is associated with programs producing both living-wage earnings and high retention five years after graduation?
Workforce Understory Episode: Episode Two — Understanding Underemployment
Geography: Statewide
Topic: Graduate wages, retention, campus outcomes, and geographic equity
The takeaway
Five years after graduation, UH Mānoa is the only campus shown with a meaningful share of graduates in the High Wage / High Retention category, at approximately 14.9%.
Mānoa also has the most varied distribution. Approximately 54.2% of graduates are associated with programs in the Low Wage / High Retention category, while 30.7% fall into Low Wage / Low Retention. The remaining small share reflects rounding and other matrix placement.
UH Hilo has no graduates represented in the High Wage / High Retention category. Instead, approximately 81.2% are associated with programs in Low Wage / Low Retention—the most challenging distribution among the three campuses shown.
UH West Oʻahu presents an almost opposite pattern. Approximately 97.2% of graduates are concentrated in Low Wage / High Retention, while 2.8% fall into High Wage / Low Retention.
UH Hilo and UH West Oʻahu face different problems: one struggles with both wages and retention, while the other retains graduates in programs that largely remain below a living wage.
What this visualization shows
This visualization shifts the analysis from individual degree programs to the distribution of graduates across four wage-and-retention categories at each campus:
High Wage / High Retention
High Wage / Low Retention
Low Wage / High Retention
Low Wage / Low Retention
Rather than counting how many programs fall into each quadrant, the comparison reflects the share of graduates associated with those programs. Large programs therefore contribute more heavily to a campus’s overall distribution than programs serving relatively few students.
UH Mānoa has the most balanced profile. Although only about 15% of graduates are connected to programs achieving both living-wage earnings and high retention, it is the only campus shown with a meaningful presence in that category.
More than half of Mānoa graduates are associated with programs that retain people in Hawaiʻi but remain below the living-wage threshold. Nearly one-third fall into programs with both low wages and low retention.
UH Hilo’s distribution is heavily concentrated in Low Wage / Low Retention. This suggests that the programs serving most of its graduates are struggling to produce either of the two outcomes measured five years after graduation.
UH West Oʻahu retains graduates at a much higher rate. Nearly all graduates are associated with programs in Low Wage / High Retention. Its central challenge is therefore less about losing graduates and more about the economic quality of the jobs they enter.
The comparison shows why campuses cannot be evaluated through retention or wages alone. Each campus has a distinct pattern requiring a different response.
Why this matters
A campus may appear successful when graduates remain in Hawaiʻi, yet still fall short if those graduates cannot earn enough to support themselves. Another campus may offer useful education while losing graduates because local employers and career pathways cannot absorb their skills.
This visualization makes those distinctions visible.
At UH Hilo, the large Low Wage / Low Retention share may indicate a combination of limited local employer demand, weak connections between programs and careers, lower regional wages, and outmigration. Addressing that pattern could require stronger employer partnerships, clearer career navigation, program redesign, and broader economic-development efforts on Hawaiʻi Island.
UH West Oʻahu’s challenge is different. Its graduates largely remain in Hawaiʻi, suggesting that the campus is serving students with strong connections to local communities and preparing them for locally available work. But those pathways do not consistently provide living-wage earnings.
That points toward job quality, compensation, and advancement—not simply education or retention—as the central concern.
UH Mānoa performs better on the combined measure, but its 14.9% High Wage / High Retention share remains modest. Even at the campus with the strongest distribution, relatively few graduates are connected to programs delivering both outcomes after five years.
None of these patterns is fully successful. They represent different ways in which the education-to-career system falls short of providing graduates with both economic security and a viable future in Hawaiʻi.
This evidence invites Hawaiʻi to ask:
What would each campus need to change so that living-wage employment and long-term retention become common outcomes rather than exceptions?
Evidence:
Questions this visualization helps answer
Which campus has the largest High Wage / High Retention share?
How are graduates distributed across the four opportunity categories at each campus?
Which campus has the greatest concentration in Low Wage / Low Retention?
Which campus retains graduates at high rates but largely below a living wage?
How do campus patterns change when graduate volume is considered instead of simply counting programs?
Do UH campuses face the same wage-and-retention challenges, or distinct ones?
Curiosity:
Questions this visualization raises
Why does UH Mānoa have a High Wage / High Retention share that the other campuses shown do not?
Which Mānoa programs account for most of its 14.9% dual-outcome share?
Why does nearly one-third of Mānoa’s graduate distribution still fall into Low Wage / Low Retention?
What causes 81.2% of UH Hilo graduates to be associated with programs producing both low wages and low retention?
How much of UH Hilo’s pattern reflects the structure of Hawaiʻi Island’s labor market?
Are UH Hilo graduates moving elsewhere within Hawaiʻi or leaving the state entirely?
Do UH Hilo’s largest programs align with sufficient regional employer demand?
Why does UH West Oʻahu retain graduates so successfully while producing relatively few living-wage outcomes?
Which large West Oʻahu programs drive the 97.2% Low Wage / High Retention share?
Are West Oʻahu graduates concentrated in public-service, education, behavioral-health, or community-serving occupations?
What wage policies, salary schedules, or employer practices would improve those jobs?
Which campus pattern is more difficult to change: Low Wage / Low Retention or Low Wage / High Retention?
Can a campus improve graduate outcomes through program redesign alone, or are broader labor-market changes necessary?
How much do differences in student population, campus mission, program mix, and regional economy explain the results?
How do small program cohorts and suppressed data affect the campus distributions?
Why is UH Maui College not represented in this three-campus comparison?
How would the results change if retention were measured by island or county rather than statewide?
How do the distributions vary by race, gender, income, age, island of origin, or first-generation status?
Are campuses improving their distributions over time?
What mix of education, employer, economic-development, and job-quality interventions would move more graduates into High Wage / High Retention?
Youth Perspective
Contributor:
Role:
Responding to:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer placerat leo sit amet efficitur lobortis. Nulla sagittis orci in orci fermentum, id ornare urna dictum. Donec dapibus suscipit tortor, et ornare velit dictum id. Mauris libero quam, eleifend a lobortis in, facilisis at odio. Praesent sit amet ullamcorper purus, a pellentesque augue. Nullam enim purus, accumsan ut lobortis ut, venenatis id nisi. Mauris leo nunc, cursus vitae dui nec, porttitor gravida sem. Nunc varius metus sit amet mi porta blandit. Nam a lectus enim. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Mauris leo erat.
