To quantify the many facets of the 200 jobs included in our report, we determined and reviewed various critical aspects of all of the jobs, categorizing them into four “Core Criteria:” Environment, Income, Outlook, and Stress. Each job’s physical demands are taken into account in the environment scores.

A significant portion of the data used to evaluate each job comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a part of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Below is an explanation of how we determined the rankings in each of these four Core Criteria. After each of these Core Criteria was scored and ranked individually, we computed the Overall Rankings, explained at the end of this methodology.

1. ENVIRONMENT

The environment ranking system is designed so that the higher point totals reflect lower quality environments.

Environment Factors

The ranking system considers two primary components of every work environment: the physical and the emotional environments. Each occupation was assigned points for adverse working conditions typically encountered. Higher points indicate worse environments, while fewer points reflect better rankings.

EMOTIONAL FACTORS:

  • Degree of competitiveness (0-15)
  • Degree of hazards personally faced (0-10)
  • Degree of peril faced by others working alongside (0-8)
  • Degree of public contact (0-8)
  • Total Maximum Points: 41

PHYSICAL FACTORS:

  • Necessary energy component (0-5)
  • Physical demands (crawling, stooping, bending, etc.) (0-12)
  • Work conditions (toxic fumes, noise, etc.) (0-13)
  • Stamina required (0-5)
  • Degree of confinement (0-5)
  • Total Maximum Points: 40

The physical demands of a job were assessed based on data from the Department of Labor. Lifting requirements were categorized into five levels, from sedentary (10 lbs.) to very heavy work (over 100 lbs.). Additional points were added based on work conditions such as exposure to hazards and extreme weather conditions.

The final environment score also factored in the average workweek hours, adjusting upward for longer working hours.

2. INCOME

Income scores in the ranking tables are derivatives of mid-level incomes rather than the average income. Since incomes are rounded to the nearest $1,000, they might appear as averages but include additional scoring factors such as growth potential.

Growth Potential: This represents the difference between a starting salary and a top-level salary. For example, an actuary starting at $57,000 and reaching $176,000 results in a growth potential of 209%. This figure is added to the midlevel income to generate the final score.

Income Levels Considered:

  • Beginning income: 10th percentile of workers
  • Midlevel income: 50th percentile of workers
  • Top-level income: 90th percentile of workers

3. OUTLOOK

Higher scores indicate promising job futures, while lower scores suggest weaker outlooks.

Outlook Factors:

  1. Employment Growth: Based on BLS projections from 2012 to 2022.
  2. Income Growth Potential: Growth in income over a career span.
  3. Unemployment Rate: Ranked in quintiles from very low (1) to very high (5). Adjustments were made to account for underemployment and discouraged workers.

4. STRESS

Stress levels are calculated based on 11 job demands known to induce stress. Each demand was assigned points, with higher scores for more stressful conditions:

  • Travel (0-10)
  • Growth Potential (income divided by 100)
  • Deadlines (0-9)
  • Working in the public eye (0-5)
  • Competitiveness (0-15)
  • Physical demands (stooping, climbing, etc.) (0-14)
  • Environmental conditions (0-13)
  • Hazards encountered (0-5)
  • Own life at risk (0-8)
  • Life of another at risk (0-10)
  • Meeting the public (0-8)

Ties were broken using income growth potential, as higher-income potential jobs often correlate with higher stress.

5. OVERALL RANKINGS

The overall rankings are calculated by summing the rankings in the four Core Criteria. Each criterion is equally weighted, meaning jobs with lower point totals rank higher, and those with higher scores rank lower.

In case of ties, ranks were assigned identically, leading to potential jumps in rank numbers. This methodology ensures an objective comparison of various careers based on data-driven metrics.