[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Trends in Educational Equity
posted by Scott on Tuesday December 04, @12:04PM
from the education dept.
Education Tony writes "You might find this interesting. The educational Statistics Quarterly did a study looking at trends in educational equity of girls and women. The quote I found most interesting is," Data show that in school an in college, females are now doing as well as or better than males in many of the indicators of educational attainment, and that the large gaps in educational attainment that once existed between men and women have significantly decreased or been eliminated altogether." I find it interesting that a study on women and girls mentions this fact."

More Women Face Charges in Domestic Disputes | Hefty Responds to Trash Bag Commercial Complaint  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
bias
by plumber on Tuesday December 04, @06:40PM EST (#1)
(User #301 Info)
Consider:

"In 1970, 42 percent of all undergraduates were women, increasing to 56 percent in 1996."

Why the figure for 1996, rather than more recent? My sense is that a figure closer to 60% is a more credible description of the current situation. I'll do some research if I get the time.

Consider as well the last sentence:

"Women tend to earn less than men with similar educational attainment."

Married women generally have the choice of withdrawing from the labor market and relying on a man to earn money for them and their children, if any. Because of cultural biases, men generally don't have this choice. Thus men tend to have more work experience than women. Work experience is a key determinate of earnings. Thus limited life choices for men largely explains the above discrepancy. When is gov't going to do something to expand men's opportunities and choices?

Probably not until folks learn to discriminate between analysis and BS ideology.
Re:bias
by Tony on Tuesday December 04, @11:41PM EST (#2)
(User #363 Info)
I agree. The reason for the 1996 statistic is probably that the research was printed in 1999 and it takes sometime to gather info, get it reviewed and print it. As for the other statistics such as women earning less most of us are quite familar with the facts that women earn statitically the same once ALL variables are considered.
The reason I found this research interesting was that a study focusing on and funded for research on women actually recognizes the problem occuring with boys and men in our school. It is the only article I have found that states this explicitly. The bias sexist research by the AAUW won't do this.


Tony H
Re:bias
by Claire4Liberty on Wednesday December 05, @05:40PM EST (#3)
(User #239 Info)
>When is gov't going to do something to expand men's opportunities and choices?

How? Via the government telling parents who is allowed to stay at home with the children, and instituting criminal and civil penalties for couples who disobey the government's edict? I don't even want kids, but I am completely against that. That's government intervention in what should be a private family matter, a very personal decision made by an individual couple.

I agree that mothers dropping out of the workforce does account for the earnings discrepancy, but government intrusion into private family matters is not a solution to a problem that is entirely social in nature.

It's statements like this that really make me believe childfree couples are happier overall than couples with kids. For one thing, there is *no* earnings gap between childfree women and men, because childfree women don't just up and leave the workforce. We have no reason to. We don't need to stay up all night with a sick kid, pick up a kid from school, help it with its homework, attend its school functions, and so on.

There are couples who pay a live-in nanny to do all that stuff while both of them work full-time, but I personally don't see the point in even having a kid if you're just going to pay an employee to raise it. You should just get a pet instead; you can leave that home alone all day.

Can there ever be true equality in a relationship that includes children? My opinion is no, because if you want to raise the kid right, one of the parents is going to have to sacrifice their job for the kid(s). This means a drop in income, perhaps complete or dramatic, for the primary caregiver, which also means the breadwinner now has to work 90 hours a week to pay the bills.
Women Earn Less
by frank h on Wednesday December 05, @08:19PM EST (#4)
(User #141 Info)
Women earn less than men, even with "similar educational attainment" because of what they choose to study: education, economics, psychology, business administration. More men seek education in programs that have higher inome prospects: engineering, the sciences, and the like.

When comparing a degree in economics to a degree in engineering one should not regard them as "similar educational attainment." They are not, simply because of the income prospects. This is another fallacy offered by the pay equity folks.
Re:bias
by plumber on Wednesday December 05, @10:07PM EST (#5)
(User #301 Info)
I agree that both men and women should be free to have or not have kids, and that both men and women should be free to choose whether or not to work outside the home.

But you should recognize the social context of these choices. Many women in the US today feel that they have to work for money outside the home to get respect from their peers. That's terrible. Many men also feel that they will be regarded as less than a man if they don't earn money. That's terrible too. And it's not good either when a husband and wife both have to work for money just in order for their family to survive. That's a lousy economy. A good economy and a population that recognizes values other than earning money are important for full human freedom.

So what reasonable steps could a properly limited gov't take to expand freedom in the US today?

Well, given the historical pattern of male labor force participation, a special tax credit for stay-at-home fathers might help to foster recognition of valued life alternatives. Confronting the institutional sexism in the child custody system would also help to emphasize the value of men spending time with children. Similarly, requiring unmarried men to make some affirmative commitment to fatherhood (other than having sex) before incurring legal rights and responsibilities of fatherhood would underscore that fatherhood is about caring for children, rather than just about having sex and paying money.

Do you think these are unreasonable proposals?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]