“Interestingly, the residential college environment, with its invisible selection processes, gives young people the mistaken impression that compatible relationships are more widely available and replaceable than they truly are.”
It is truly unfortunate that college life doesn’t lead to marriage because the youth aren’t quite ready for that stage of their life yet. The males are too immature and the females are promised unrealistic futures which include a high status career with lots of money. Student debt doesn’t help either. I was just told that my brilliant acquaintance with a masters in chemistry had to spend so many years in debt for that degree that is the reason she couldn’t have children. Now she’s too old.
Hahaha. Well at the 10 year reunion, that’s pretty good timing, for the guys. The women often have healthier pregnancies in their 20s but I totally see the value of a reunion. And good times we’re had by all..
Many years ago, when I was on a domestic flight, I fell into an interesting conversation with a seatmate who was originally from southern India. He was an engineering professor at a public university well-regarded for its STEM programs, and he discussed projects he was conducting for the U.S. military.
Talk turned to family, and I asked how he met his wife. His answer startled me: "Oh, our marriage was arranged by our families through an astrologer." By his accounting, the marriage was happy and fecund.
BTW, he also complained about affirmative action--in India. He was a Brahmin, and he moved to the United States because preferences for lower castes in school and hiring limited his opportunities.
We do tend to mirror-image until someone shatters the mirror.
Ages ago, (re internet, oh gosh) I was looking at colleges. One not too far away looked very interesting for a number of reasons. They sent me some literature which included SAT scores. Out of state women (which I was) had a median score (out of 1600) about 400 points higher than in-state men. I went elsewhere.
There are, of course, lots of ways to signal your elite status, but it does get harder after you leave college, unless you stay somehow connected.
The pattern of marrying someone with roughly the same educational background is pretty solid with everyone I know.
In the Silent Generation relatively few women got advanced degrees or became top professionals. So most of those marriages were hypergamous--their educational back ground was not equal. But were those marriages not as good as the more "equal" marriages of today where both partners are say, Ivy League attorneys?
That’s a complicated question. (Note, not SG myself) It was also true that the age of marriage was younger - often right after at least one graduated from college. From what little I know (and it is a little) , the college ‘boys’ would date slightly younger local ‘girls’, or ‘girls’ from nearby womens’ colleges.
I would not say that the marriages were better or worse either - merely that since then there has been more of an isolating affect. College grad marries college grad, raises kids who go to college. That’s also not necessarily good or bad.
Good moral training (reinforcement) can be found at some colleges, especially religious ones where fair amount of professors subscribe to a Higher Power.
The favoring of male college applicants over female applicants has been occurring for at least a couple of decades from what I've read. To try to keep the sex ratio even the applications of females have been underrated to allow some females to be excluded to insure more males secure a place at certain colleges.
Don't forget your own "confounding principles. Divorce may be more common among non-college graduates not because those individuals are inherently inferior partners, but because their non-degreed status--especially for the man--means statistically lower income--thus often putting critical financial pressure on the marriage which dissolves it.
1. That Pew Data is old (and omits a lot of statistical data). Marriage rates are currently down (especially among the non-college set). I'm also not sure it addresses those couples in which only one partner is college-educated. It definitely does not include those with graduate degrees.
2. Only about 38% of US citizens have college degrees (at last count), so the marriage pool is skewed as far as "far less common" among college grads compared with non-college grads. It's like saying "more blacks in jail than whites" (which is untrue).
3. A lot of people who attend Ivy Leagues are there on financial aid or because of diversity (not judging it, just pointing it out). I went to Penn (paid full tuition) but was surprised at the number of classmates who were there on aid, or who were international students. I did notice the people who paid full tuition sometimes took for granted the privilege of attending (I know I did) and did not always maximize the opportunities associated with attending the Ivy. Whereas non-full-tuition students took their education much more seriously, partied less, and were more interested in studying than dating. Anecdotal, yes.
4. I distinctly recall my mother telling me that in her generation (1960s) women attended college not to have careers, but to get their "MRS" degrees. Once married most stayed home to raise children. That is no longer the trend. My parents attended the same public university, and got married within weeks of graduating. My mother taught for a couple years while my father attended med school, but then they had me and she became a homemaker. While she often did things to increase her knowledge, she did not go to grad school until I was in high school and could drive. She graduated law school shortly before I graduated high school. She never practiced fulltime (she was in her forties and they did not "need" the income), and they have been married 60 years.
5. As someone who attended an Ivy, I can tell you that I was surrounded by brilliant people all the time. Does that mean the caliber of the dating/marrying pool was higher than if I had attended a public university? Maybe, at least proportionally. But I met and married my (ex-)husband in grad school (pseudo-Ivy) thinking we had same values/interests/backgrounds. I was married 21 years before getting divorced (so I fall into the statistic) but stayed married only because of children, and did ultimately get divorced. It was a very incompatible marriage overall. Now I'm in a serious (and wonderful) relationship with a man who is blue collar by upbringing, and who attended public college (which he paid for himself). But he is whip-smart and has a medical degree (which he also paid for). So our intellects are compatible, even if our backgrounds are vastly different. I am much more compatible with him, and he never would have entertained going to an elite college.
6. I am a divorce attorney in Wisconsin. The last data about college education showed that about 1/3 of all adults in this state obtained bachelor's degrees (higher for Associate degrees). That's close to the national percentage trend, maybe slightly lower. However, in my 30+ years of legal practice, the rate of divorce here in my client base has been more like 55/45, with 55%-60% of my clients being college grads (one or both spouses), and 40-45% being non-college grads. Also anecdotal, but I think it shows how the statistics vary from state to state.
7. I would be much more interested in knowing the national infidelity rate among college-educated spouses v. non-college-educated. That's where I think the conversation becomes more interesting. In keeping with the luxury beliefs philosophy, I think the privileged background lends itself to more narcissism and values of entitlement. Yes, anecdotal.
More colleges should give higher preferences to men who are a couple years older, especially those who have had work experience and are more mature.
Treating them a bit more different would likely reduce some of their differences.
Colleges have been discriminating against Republicans for decades, and it's now terrible. Congress should clarify the definitions of Diversity and Inclusion to specifically include Diverse political parties, R & D, with Inclusion to mean including both.
Those who get tax exemptions should be required to have at least 30% Rep professors, and 30% Dems. Plus 30% Reps as college Trustees -- who need to monitor that the Reps being counted are actually Reps. And D. of Ed tracking the Rep Trustees.
The secret discrimination must be fought, and stopped -- and quotas are quite effective, tho few Reps like the idea. Especially not the elite, college grad Reps, But nothing else would work as well as the imperfect 30% quotas.
What do we do about the fields in which 30% Republicans is not possible? I am in the social sciences and I can say with certainty a moderate democrat is a rare enough creature, before even searching for the mythic sociological republican.
Not possible is far too strong. You probably mean “not equally credentialed”, so a Rep social science grad from some low ranking school would get hired instead of a Dem from Harvard or Stanford—as has been happening in reverse for Blacks and women. Despite laws against racial or sexual discrimination or quotas.
Of course, NOT hiring any additional Women’s Studies professor is also possible, as is ending academic credits for “fields of indoctrination” where Dems have discriminated against Reps for decades.
That starts with intense scrutiny of the top 100 tax exempt college endowments. Those colleges who “can’t” hire Rep professors CAN, if such a law is made, lose their tax exempt status.
There are lots of Rep voters who think all colleges should already lose their unfair tax benefits.
I can say with relative certainty if you want to hire phd's in psychology and sociology so that even 30% of the field is republican, we have a serious downstream talent problem more than an up stream discrimination against conservatives.
Should these fields exist is a different question, but as currently constituted they could not meet this 30% threshold assuming the minimum requirement is a phd, regardless of the western institution they received the degree from.
“Interestingly, the residential college environment, with its invisible selection processes, gives young people the mistaken impression that compatible relationships are more widely available and replaceable than they truly are.”
Great point… don’t throw away a good relationship
It is truly unfortunate that college life doesn’t lead to marriage because the youth aren’t quite ready for that stage of their life yet. The males are too immature and the females are promised unrealistic futures which include a high status career with lots of money. Student debt doesn’t help either. I was just told that my brilliant acquaintance with a masters in chemistry had to spend so many years in debt for that degree that is the reason she couldn’t have children. Now she’s too old.
"It is truly unfortunate that college life doesn’t lead to marriage because the youth aren’t quite ready for that stage of their life yet. "
That's what college reunions are for.
Hahaha. Well at the 10 year reunion, that’s pretty good timing, for the guys. The women often have healthier pregnancies in their 20s but I totally see the value of a reunion. And good times we’re had by all..
It worked for me.
Many years ago, when I was on a domestic flight, I fell into an interesting conversation with a seatmate who was originally from southern India. He was an engineering professor at a public university well-regarded for its STEM programs, and he discussed projects he was conducting for the U.S. military.
Talk turned to family, and I asked how he met his wife. His answer startled me: "Oh, our marriage was arranged by our families through an astrologer." By his accounting, the marriage was happy and fecund.
BTW, he also complained about affirmative action--in India. He was a Brahmin, and he moved to the United States because preferences for lower castes in school and hiring limited his opportunities.
We do tend to mirror-image until someone shatters the mirror.
Ages ago, (re internet, oh gosh) I was looking at colleges. One not too far away looked very interesting for a number of reasons. They sent me some literature which included SAT scores. Out of state women (which I was) had a median score (out of 1600) about 400 points higher than in-state men. I went elsewhere.
There are, of course, lots of ways to signal your elite status, but it does get harder after you leave college, unless you stay somehow connected.
The pattern of marrying someone with roughly the same educational background is pretty solid with everyone I know.
In the Silent Generation relatively few women got advanced degrees or became top professionals. So most of those marriages were hypergamous--their educational back ground was not equal. But were those marriages not as good as the more "equal" marriages of today where both partners are say, Ivy League attorneys?
That’s a complicated question. (Note, not SG myself) It was also true that the age of marriage was younger - often right after at least one graduated from college. From what little I know (and it is a little) , the college ‘boys’ would date slightly younger local ‘girls’, or ‘girls’ from nearby womens’ colleges.
I would not say that the marriages were better or worse either - merely that since then there has been more of an isolating affect. College grad marries college grad, raises kids who go to college. That’s also not necessarily good or bad.
“The college degree is losing its signaling power not only for the labor market, but for assortative mating, too.”
Personally I think this is a GOOD thing. Moral training is more valuable than academic training, in life and in a marriage.
Good moral training (reinforcement) can be found at some colleges, especially religious ones where fair amount of professors subscribe to a Higher Power.
The favoring of male college applicants over female applicants has been occurring for at least a couple of decades from what I've read. To try to keep the sex ratio even the applications of females have been underrated to allow some females to be excluded to insure more males secure a place at certain colleges.
Good piece, my dear author. I learn anew thanks to you.
Please give us your take on the Trump assassination attempt. I know it’s tawdry and unscholarly but it seems likely to have an impact on our lives.
“The attributes that predict educational success also predict marital stability.”
Thought: then why, I wonder, are divorce rates are so high? Hmmm…
Divorce is far less common among college graduates compared with non-college graduates: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/
Don't forget your own "confounding principles. Divorce may be more common among non-college graduates not because those individuals are inherently inferior partners, but because their non-degreed status--especially for the man--means statistically lower income--thus often putting critical financial pressure on the marriage which dissolves it.
So many things to address here:
1. That Pew Data is old (and omits a lot of statistical data). Marriage rates are currently down (especially among the non-college set). I'm also not sure it addresses those couples in which only one partner is college-educated. It definitely does not include those with graduate degrees.
2. Only about 38% of US citizens have college degrees (at last count), so the marriage pool is skewed as far as "far less common" among college grads compared with non-college grads. It's like saying "more blacks in jail than whites" (which is untrue).
3. A lot of people who attend Ivy Leagues are there on financial aid or because of diversity (not judging it, just pointing it out). I went to Penn (paid full tuition) but was surprised at the number of classmates who were there on aid, or who were international students. I did notice the people who paid full tuition sometimes took for granted the privilege of attending (I know I did) and did not always maximize the opportunities associated with attending the Ivy. Whereas non-full-tuition students took their education much more seriously, partied less, and were more interested in studying than dating. Anecdotal, yes.
4. I distinctly recall my mother telling me that in her generation (1960s) women attended college not to have careers, but to get their "MRS" degrees. Once married most stayed home to raise children. That is no longer the trend. My parents attended the same public university, and got married within weeks of graduating. My mother taught for a couple years while my father attended med school, but then they had me and she became a homemaker. While she often did things to increase her knowledge, she did not go to grad school until I was in high school and could drive. She graduated law school shortly before I graduated high school. She never practiced fulltime (she was in her forties and they did not "need" the income), and they have been married 60 years.
5. As someone who attended an Ivy, I can tell you that I was surrounded by brilliant people all the time. Does that mean the caliber of the dating/marrying pool was higher than if I had attended a public university? Maybe, at least proportionally. But I met and married my (ex-)husband in grad school (pseudo-Ivy) thinking we had same values/interests/backgrounds. I was married 21 years before getting divorced (so I fall into the statistic) but stayed married only because of children, and did ultimately get divorced. It was a very incompatible marriage overall. Now I'm in a serious (and wonderful) relationship with a man who is blue collar by upbringing, and who attended public college (which he paid for himself). But he is whip-smart and has a medical degree (which he also paid for). So our intellects are compatible, even if our backgrounds are vastly different. I am much more compatible with him, and he never would have entertained going to an elite college.
6. I am a divorce attorney in Wisconsin. The last data about college education showed that about 1/3 of all adults in this state obtained bachelor's degrees (higher for Associate degrees). That's close to the national percentage trend, maybe slightly lower. However, in my 30+ years of legal practice, the rate of divorce here in my client base has been more like 55/45, with 55%-60% of my clients being college grads (one or both spouses), and 40-45% being non-college grads. Also anecdotal, but I think it shows how the statistics vary from state to state.
7. I would be much more interested in knowing the national infidelity rate among college-educated spouses v. non-college-educated. That's where I think the conversation becomes more interesting. In keeping with the luxury beliefs philosophy, I think the privileged background lends itself to more narcissism and values of entitlement. Yes, anecdotal.
Right, it’s in proportion…I’ve read this…
And probably heard you say this as well…
haha. "It's just lunch" and "Eharmony" just turned into:
"It's just 100k" and "Edegree"
More colleges should give higher preferences to men who are a couple years older, especially those who have had work experience and are more mature.
Treating them a bit more different would likely reduce some of their differences.
Colleges have been discriminating against Republicans for decades, and it's now terrible. Congress should clarify the definitions of Diversity and Inclusion to specifically include Diverse political parties, R & D, with Inclusion to mean including both.
Those who get tax exemptions should be required to have at least 30% Rep professors, and 30% Dems. Plus 30% Reps as college Trustees -- who need to monitor that the Reps being counted are actually Reps. And D. of Ed tracking the Rep Trustees.
The secret discrimination must be fought, and stopped -- and quotas are quite effective, tho few Reps like the idea. Especially not the elite, college grad Reps, But nothing else would work as well as the imperfect 30% quotas.
What do we do about the fields in which 30% Republicans is not possible? I am in the social sciences and I can say with certainty a moderate democrat is a rare enough creature, before even searching for the mythic sociological republican.
Not possible is far too strong. You probably mean “not equally credentialed”, so a Rep social science grad from some low ranking school would get hired instead of a Dem from Harvard or Stanford—as has been happening in reverse for Blacks and women. Despite laws against racial or sexual discrimination or quotas.
Of course, NOT hiring any additional Women’s Studies professor is also possible, as is ending academic credits for “fields of indoctrination” where Dems have discriminated against Reps for decades.
That starts with intense scrutiny of the top 100 tax exempt college endowments. Those colleges who “can’t” hire Rep professors CAN, if such a law is made, lose their tax exempt status.
There are lots of Rep voters who think all colleges should already lose their unfair tax benefits.
I can say with relative certainty if you want to hire phd's in psychology and sociology so that even 30% of the field is republican, we have a serious downstream talent problem more than an up stream discrimination against conservatives.
Should these fields exist is a different question, but as currently constituted they could not meet this 30% threshold assuming the minimum requirement is a phd, regardless of the western institution they received the degree from.