Best Degrees in Australia by Field: Business, Engineering and Nursing Compared
“Best Degrees in Australia by Field: Business, Engineering and Nursing Compared” is a comparison of graduate outcomes, not a basis for naming one universally best field. The QILT 2025 Graduate Outcomes Survey shows that engineering, nursing and business and management each have a different outcome profile. Some fields lead on salary or full-time employment, while others lead on overall employment or the professional share of full-time workers. Those measures describe different aspects of graduate outcomes and should not be collapsed into a single verdict.
The results also need a clear boundary. They are short-term outcomes for domestic Australian undergraduate graduates, not predictions of what an international student will earn or find in the labour market.
What the 2025 survey actually measures
The QILT Graduate Outcomes Survey, or GOS, follows graduates rather than examining them only while they are studying. The timing is important: the 2025 survey was conducted roughly four to six months after course completion. It therefore describes outcomes soon after graduation, not lifetime earnings, long-term career progression or the eventual value of a degree.
The 2025 GOS included more than 120,000 responses from recent graduates. The figures discussed here come from the national Table 5 results for undergraduate graduates in Australia. Postgraduate coursework and postgraduate research outcomes are reported in separate supplementary tables and are not included in this comparison.
These are domestic Australian graduate outcomes. They do not describe international-student employment, salaries or labour-market outcomes and should not be presented as expected results for a student who may later apply for Australian migration or work rights.
Six columns are relevant to this comparison:
- Full-time employment rate
- Overall employment rate
- Labour-force participation
- Median annual full-time salary
- Share in further full-time study
- Share employed in a managerial or professional occupation
The professional-occupation measure has a particularly important denominator. It is a share of graduates employed full-time, not a share of all graduates. A field can have a comparatively low full-time employment rate and still show a high professional-occupation share because only full-time employed graduates enter that calculation.
The table also has rules for missing and combined degrees. A blank cell means there is no data, while n/a means the result is suppressed because n<25. Combined degrees are counted in both relevant study areas. By contrast, the all-study-areas figure counts each graduate once. These counting rules matter when comparing fields or interpreting apparently unusual results.
Variation across the study-area table is substantial on some measures. The published standard deviation is 11.3 for full-time employment, 4.7 for overall employment, 3.4 for labour-force participation and 8,700 for salary. These figures describe dispersion across study areas. They are a reason to examine the full profile of each field rather than treating modest differences on one measure as a comprehensive hierarchy.
The three fields side by side
Business and management records a full-time employment rate of 79.2%, an overall employment rate of 89.5% and labour-force participation of 92.1%. Its median annual full-time salary is A$74,000. A further 11.6% are in full-time further study, while 65.9% of full-time employed graduates are in a managerial or professional occupation.
Engineering records a full-time employment rate of 83.4%, an overall employment rate of 90.1% and labour-force participation of 92.8%. Its median annual full-time salary is A$82,500, A$7,400 more than nursing. Its further full-time study rate is 12.7%, and 84.6% of full-time employed graduates are in a managerial or professional occupation.
Nursing records a full-time employment rate of 80.8%, the highest overall employment rate of the three at 92.7%, and labour-force participation of 92.6%. Its median annual full-time salary is A$75,100. Its further full-time study rate is 4.9%, while 87.3% of full-time employed graduates are in a managerial or professional occupation.
These results do not produce a simple order across the fields. Engineering has both the highest full-time employment rate and the highest median salary among the three. Nursing has the highest overall employment rate and the highest managerial or professional share. Business and management sits between engineering and nursing on median salary, but its professional-occupation share is lower than both.
The all-study-areas comparison adds context. Across all fields, the full-time employment rate is 75.4%, overall employment is 89.2% and labour-force participation is 88.0%. The median annual full-time salary is A$77,000. A further 19.3% are in full-time study, and 67.3% of full-time employed graduates are in a managerial or professional occupation.
All three focal fields have full-time employment and overall employment rates above the all-study-areas figures. Business and management, engineering and nursing also have labour-force participation above the all-study-areas rate. Their median salaries are below A$77,000 except for engineering.
The professional-occupation column produces another split. Business and management records 65.9%, below the all-study-areas figure of 67.3%. Engineering and nursing are above it at 84.6% and 87.3%. Again, those percentages describe the occupational composition of full-time employed graduates, not the proportion of every graduate who obtained a managerial or professional job.
Reading the further-study column correctly
Nursing has a further full-time study rate of 4.9%, less than a third of the all-study-areas figure of 19.3%. Business and management and engineering record much closer rates at 11.6% and 12.7%.
A low further-study rate is not automatically evidence of a better outcome. QILT’s commentary on dentistry and veterinary science explains that professions requiring additional training can have low labour-force participation and high further-study rates. A graduate who enters professional training after the first degree may look different in a short-term survey from a graduate who moves more directly into employment.
The same principle applies when reading the 4.9% nursing figure. It shows that further full-time study was less common in the survey than it was across all study areas. It does not, by itself, establish that nursing graduates are more employable, more successful or better placed than graduates in professions with higher participation in additional study.
Further study also needs to be separated from employment. The columns describe outcomes measured at a particular point after course completion; they do not provide a complete account of later study, professional registration, specialist training or career entry. The most defensible interpretation is contextual: rates differ across fields, and some differences may reflect the structure of professional entry rather than the quality of a degree.
How the three sit against the rest of the table
Business, engineering and nursing are not isolated from the wider set of study areas. Dentistry records a full-time employment rate of 84.6% and a median salary of A$103,100. Medicine records 93.2% and A$85,900. Teacher education records 86.2% and A$82,100. Rehabilitation records 94.0% and A$75,300.
Each of those full-time employment rates is above the rates for business and management, engineering and nursing. Dentistry, medicine and teacher education also have median salaries above all three focal fields. Rehabilitation’s A$75,300 is above the business and nursing medians but below engineering.
Other fields sit below the focal group on full-time employment. Science and mathematics records 65.4% and a median salary of A$73,100. Communications records 59.2% and A$66,000. Psychology records 69.9% and A$75,300.
Their salary positions require more precision. Science and mathematics and communications are below all three focal fields on both of these measures. Psychology is below all three on full-time employment, but its A$75,300 median is above business and management and nursing while remaining below engineering.
These comparisons show why one or two columns cannot define a field’s standing. Engineering is not the highest field on every graduate-outcome measure, and business and management is not below the wider table on every measure. The broader distribution also reinforces the need to consider professional structure, further study, labour-force participation and employment type together.
What one university's numbers look like
The site’s institution-level dataset covers 42 Australian universities. Coverage is not the same for every field. On full-time employment, business and management is reported by 40 of the 42 universities, engineering by 31 and nursing by 34. Those counts describe full-time-employment coverage; they should not be treated as proof that every other column is available for the same institutions.
UNSW provides a useful illustration because its business and engineering results move in different directions from the national salary figures. Its business and management full-time employment rate is 88.5%, compared with the national field figure of 79.2%. Its median salary is A$72,000, compared with A$74,000 nationally, while its overall employment rate is 88.7%, compared with 89.5%.
For engineering, UNSW records a full-time employment rate of 89.8%, against the national figure of 83.4%. Its median salary is A$75,000, compared with A$82,500 for engineering nationally. Its overall employment rate is 90.7%, compared with 90.1%.
The pattern is mixed within both fields. At UNSW, business and management combines a higher full-time employment rate with a lower salary and a lower overall employment rate than the national field figure. Engineering also combines higher full-time and overall employment rates with a lower median salary. Treating an institution-field result as a simple improvement or deterioration would therefore discard as much information as it conveys.
No UNSW nursing value is available in the figures used for this illustration, so the comparison cannot be completed with an invented nursing result. The dataset-wide nursing coverage of 34 universities does not identify UNSW’s own nursing outcome. That distinction is essential: a national field rate, a field coverage count and an institution-level result are different data points.
What these numbers do not tell you
The first limitation is time. Surveying graduates roughly four to six months after course completion captures an early outcome. It does not show the full distribution of earnings across a career, later promotion, occupational changes or the long-term value of professional experience.
The salary figures are medians, not a salary guarantee for every graduate. They do not state what each person will earn, whether a graduate will enter the occupation associated with the degree or how employment conditions vary between employers and locations.
The professional-occupation percentages also do not apply to all graduates. Nursing’s 87.3% and engineering’s 84.6% refer to graduates employed full-time. The corresponding business and management figure is 65.9%. A field with a lower full-time employment rate can still have a high professional share, so the denominator must remain visible whenever the measure is discussed.
The survey also does not isolate why a field has a particular result. A national study-area aggregate does not by itself separate field effects from institution mix, graduate characteristics, professional structure, labour-market conditions or the timing of employment. It is descriptive evidence rather than a causal finding that studying one field produces a specified outcome.
For international students, the geographic and graduate population boundary is decisive. These are domestic Australian outcomes, not international-student outcomes. The figures do not establish what an international student will earn, whether a provider will admit them, what occupation they will enter or what visa or work pathway they may have.
Frequently asked questions
Is engineering the best field for graduate outcomes?
The survey does not support that verdict. Engineering has the highest full-time employment rate and median salary among business, engineering and nursing, but nursing leads on overall employment and professional-occupation share. Each field presents a different combination of outcomes.
Does nursing’s 4.9% further-study rate prove that nursing graduates have better employment outcomes?
No. The figure shows the share in further full-time study, not the quality of employment or later career prospects. QILT notes that fields requiring additional professional training can have low participation and high further-study rates, so further study must be interpreted within the structure of each profession.
Can international students treat A$82,500 or A$75,100 as an expected salary?
No. Those are national medians for full-time employed domestic Australian graduates in the relevant field. They are not predicted salaries for international students and do not guarantee an individual graduate’s earnings.
Does 87.3% mean that 87.3% of all nursing graduates entered professional occupations?
No. The professional-occupation share applies only to nursing graduates employed full-time. It is not calculated across all nursing graduates, including those who are not in full-time employment.
Can the figures be used to compare an institution with its national field?
They can provide context, as the UNSW business and engineering figures do, but they are not a complete institutional rating. Full-time employment, overall employment and salary may move in different directions, and missing or suppressed values mean that comparisons must be limited to the measures actually reported.