Which Indiana college has the best value?
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV) — Indiana has multiple colleges and universities that help young Hoosiers excel in the career path they desire, but which one has the best educational value?
A new study conducted by SmartAsset compared schools in Indiana based on a variety of financial factors and data sets, including tuition, living expenses, student retention rate, median starting salary and scholarships awarded. Based on those factors, SmartAsset then gives each university a 'College Education Value Score' out of 100.
Indiana colleges make capital project requests ahead of contentious budget session
According to the study, Purdue University (Main Campus) is ranked as the number one Indiana college or university with a score of 87.54, while Purdue University (Northwest) is ranked number three with a score of 70.5.
The study also ranked Indiana State University in Terre Haute at number five with a value score of 69.4.
The study also found that out of the top five universities in Indiana, Purdue University (Main and Norhtwest Campus), Ball State University, Indiana State University and University of Southern Indiana, Indiana State has the highest cost of living with an average cost of $7,525.
Below is a list of the top five colleges or universities in Indiana, based on SmartAsset's study:
Purdue University (Main Campus) — 87.54
Ball State University — 77.73
Purdue University (Northwest) — 70.57
University of Southern Indiana — 70.04
Indiana State University — 67.3
Top 10 private Indiana colleges according to US News and World Report
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Trump may want to wait to name a new Fed chair
President Trump has called Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell a "stupid person" and a "numbskull," so it wouldn't surprise many on Wall Street if Trump chose to pick someone else to lead the Fed. But as former St. Louis Fed president Jim Bullard, who now serves as the dean of the Mitch Daniels School of Business at Purdue University, explains, Trump may not want to name a replacement too early. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination here. As you know, Jay Powell has been very forceful in pushing back against the idea that there would be any influence here. It has been suggested that possibly the president could name a successor for Powell early, not actually replace them early but name the successor early. Do you think that could happen? And what effect does that then have on the decision-making process? Uh, you could do that. Uh, usually it's been viewed as uh uh something you maybe don't want to do too early because you do have to get this person through the US Senate and um, a lot of times that's a silent period for the person who's been nominated. So, uh, I'm not sure how far ahead you'd really want to uh go ahead with something like that. I will say, if you look at uh, for instance, when Janet Yellen became uh Fed chair, she was essentially in the lead position or essentially named by about September of that year for a February appointment, and that eventually was approved by the Senate and she eventually did become uh chair. So, I think it's not unprecedented that you would go uh some months early, but um, but to go many months early uh usually would be considered too long uh for the Senate review process.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Tax law might be coming for your free office snacks
A change in tax law may make companies rethink a popular workplace perk: food and drink. Starting in 2026, companies will no longer be able to deduct the cost of on-site cafeterias or takeout for workers who stay late. And accountants say the change probably applies to office snacks and coffee, too. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. Though the cost of such staff freebies is relatively small in the grand scheme of employee benefits, the potential change in tax law comes as many businesses are trimming expenses in the face of tariffs and economic uncertainty. 'Companies are in cost-cutting mode, and if they don't have some incentives, they will continue to cut back,' said Ellen Kossek, an emerita professor of management at Purdue University. 'We've seen this in Silicon Valley,' she added, referencing the onetime center of such upmarket perks as unlimited vacation time, on-site hair stylists, deluxe cafeterias and coffee bars. Because food can be a powerful motivator - especially at a time when many companies are abandoning remote and hybrid work - Kossek said companies' ratcheting down of staff offerings could affect the broader corporate culture and return-to-office initiatives. 'If you have to pay for your food, it's one less reason to come to the office.' U.S. tax law allow companies to deduct certain business costs, such as insurance, rent and office supplies, from their income before they pay taxes. But meals are treated differently, depending on the category. For instance, a company can deduct 50 percent of the restaurant bill for taking a client or a job candidate to lunch under current law. But a provision that allows companies to deduct cafeteria costs or any meals they provide in the workplace 'for the convenience of the employer' is poised to sunset in 2026. If it does, U.S. businesses would be looking at an additional $300 million a year in taxes, based on estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation. With congressional Republicans racing to advance President Donald Trump's tax and immigration bill and extend his 2017 tax cuts, some accountants had expected lawmakers to retain the workplace meal deduction. But the House version made an exception only for the restaurant industry, according to Christa Bierma, vice chair of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' committee on employee benefits. Unless the Senate makes further changes to the legislation, which tax experts say is unlikely, restaurants will continue to get the write-off. 'For some industries, it is culturally demanded,' Bierma noted of the exception. 'Nobody would want to be the first one to say we're not going to do this anymore.' Ending the tax advantage makes philosophical sense for conservatives, said Tax Foundation analyst Alex Muresianu. Under current rules, a company-paid lunch is essentially a form of tax-free income. And if the employee isn't paying tax, the company should, Muresianu said. 'We want to tax all employee compensation the same,' he said. 'And instead of wages, having employer-provided meals in various contexts is a form of nonwage compensation.' That thinking, though, doesn't align with other provisions in the Republican bill, which treats overtime wages and tips as tax-free. Trump is pushing senators to pass his tax bill by July 4 despite warnings from many economists and some lawmakers about the projected price tag; the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects it to expand the deficit by $2.4 trillion over a decade. In 2017, when lawmakers opted to sunset the in-house meal deduction in eight years, the coronavirus pandemic had not yet driven millions of workers home from their desks. Today, some management experts question the wisdom of removing a business incentive at a time when many workers are chafing at RTO mandates. 'I think the corporate culture will change in several ways,' said University of Manchester professor Cary Cooper, who has researched hybrid work arrangements. Free food can be a powerful motivator, he said. 'If they're taking that away … or minimizing the quality of the food being provided - and there will be companies that will do that - you're not going to motivate people to return to the office.' Cooper suggested that senators consider extending the deduction as they reshape the tax bill. Without a delay, he foresees repercussions for businesses that need employees on-site, such as hospitals. 'In our day and age, I think it's just silly. I don't know why you would want to change the law in that direction at all.' Last summer, Bierma's committee of CPAs submitted a long list of questions and suggestions to the IRS seeking guidance on how companies should plan for the change. It hasn't received an answer. The law clearly removes tax advantages for company cafeterias - businesses can no longer deduct the cost of food, beverages or operations, which are now fully or partly deductible. Also out are meals that employers might provide in the workplace, such as dinner for staffers who stay beyond their shifts. But that leaves questions about more modest niceties. Accountant Richard Pon, who counts law firms and retailers among his clients, is convinced that the deduction will also go away for break-room staples such as coffee, fruit, chips and granola bars. 'Just having a small kitchen … some people will take the position that's not an eating facility. That's not a cafeteria,' he said. 'I think the position of the IRS might say that's an eating facility, no matter how small it is.' Related Content Trump is as unpredictable as ever, even when faced with war Field notes from the end of life: My thoughts on living while dying He's dying. She's pregnant. His one last wish is to fight his cancer long enough to see his baby. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Indianapolis Star
2 days ago
- Indianapolis Star
Diego Morales: 'I will not apologize' for overseas trips, no-bid contracts for campaign donors
A defiant Secretary of State Diego Morales is defending himself to lawmakers against criticism after Morales' no-bid contracts to campaign donors, spot bonuses to a relative, overseas trips, absence at a crucial legislative budget hearing, alleged election law violation, and $90,000 taxpayer-paid luxury SUV. Morales, who appeared before the State Budget Committee on June 18 to request budget augmentations totaling more than $10 million from various state funds, faced a grilling — and criticism — from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. "I will not apologize to anyone because my work ethic is unmatched," Morales told lawmakers. "I'm going above and beyond the call of duty." Morales said he's been "criss-crossing the state" in record time by visiting all 92 counties, as well as arriving at the Statehouse daily around 5 a.m. He also asserted he's never used taxpayer money to fund any of his overseas travel, and that he purchased a new luxury SUV because he had put too many miles on his previous vehicle. He defended missing a legislative budget hearing earlier this year to go on an overseas trip by saying he was "not the first secretary of state who has missed one of these." Those explanations didn't appear to satisfy lawmakers on both the left and right. In fact, some of the most pointed questions and comments came from Republican state Sen. Chris Garten, R-Charlestown. "I just want to be on the record as saying you have a vehicle that cost almost twice as much as the average salary of a Hoosier," Garten said. Garten then pressed Morales about whether any of the expenses slated to be funded by the budget augmentations were to financial contributors to Morales' campaign. The biggest augmentation request was for $8.1 million to fund IT upgrades and personnel, subject to sufficient revenue from the Electronic and Enhanced Access fund. "A lot of people contribute to my campaign," Morales responded to Garten. "It's a yes or no," Garten said. "I think Indiana Hoosiers deserve to know that. ... I would like them to be identified." Morales acknowledged that some firms with contracts were campaign donors, including contractor MTX, which donated at least $80,000 to Morales and has been paid more than $2.5 million in the 2025 fiscal year, according to secretary of state records. But he defended the deals to companies as experts who are "getting the job done." Meanwhile, state Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis, criticized Morales for failing to meet his basic duties or being transparent with taxpayers. "I'm disappointed in your leadership," Qaddoura said. "I'm disappointed in the way you're leading your office. Please do better for the state of Indiana."
