"Women don’t because they know that men have different priorities, and because they want to quit the rat-race at some point and have kids, making their tolerance for high debt levels rationally lower."
Says Glenn Reynolds, reacting to this Inside the Law School Scam post about how law school — with its high tuition and iffy job market — is a worse deal for women than for men.
This is getting strangely close to the argument that used to be made for discriminating against women in law school admissions (or for excluding them altogether): Since women are less likely to fully use their legal education, we shouldn't give what could be a man's seat to a woman. Women were suspected of going to law school for ulterior reasons, such as to find a good husband or — crazy ladies! — because they are interested in the topic... intellectually.
१९ जानेवारी, २०१३
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
because they are interested in the topic ... intellectually
That conflates two arguments.
The question here is who's paying.
The argument would be that a man finds it a worthwhile investment - a loan would work, whereas for a woman a loan wouldn't work.
The interestedness argument is another one altogether.
THis was also the argument for excluding women (except ugly ones) from medical school. In fact, the admission committees were right about the reason, women will not work the number of hours or years that men do, but it doesn't matter. After I graduated, my medical school, as part of Lyndon Johnson's program, tripled the enrollment from 66 to 200 and we still have a doctor shortage. Why? Nobody, male or female, works the hours we did because they know they won't get paid enough to justify it.
This is getting strangely close to the argument that used to be made for discriminating against women in law school admissions...
It gets strangely close to making sense in accordance human nature.
If you drop the pinheaded discrimination bullshit and regard it as pointless intellectual crapola (which it is), then you don't have to worry about it.
You've got a bad habit, Althouse, that you need to junk, which is demanding that human tradition make intellectual sense.
The discrimination argument was original meant to apply only to ending Jim Crow's harm to blacks. When feminists started trying to transfer that argument to women, they stuck their heads up their asses and have not been able to pull them out ever since.
This is getting strangely close to the argument that used to be made for discriminating against women
Consider the possibility that, radical feminist rhetoric notwithstanding, it was never about "discriminating" against women per se, at least not near as much as it always was about the practical realities of life, the biological clock, the time-value of money, etc.
But it's so much more fun to be a victim.
See, you are coming back to the true feminist argument (not the liberal BS) -- that women deserved to do what they want because they are intellectually capable, period. No other social considerations should interfere with that fundamental point of view.
The reality of human nature and physiology is:
1. Women have healthier children when they have children when they are young.
2. Women drop out of the workforce to have children.
3. Women want a husband who makes more money than they do.
Why let abstract crap interfere with this reality?
Re: "It gets strangely close to making sense in accordance human nature."
I rest "my" case.
Thomas - Each of those statements is false unless you add the words "An average" or "As a group" to the beginning. They don't apply to all women and certainly not to all women who want to go to law school. You're not in favor of admitting groups of people based on average characteristics, are you?
Yes, Bob_R, in fact I am in favor of refusing to turn the traditions of human existence upside down because a tiny percentage of women (maybe 5% max) want something.
Just as I'm perplexed about why the traditions of human existence should be turned upside down so that the teeny-tiny percentage of homosexuals who actually want to get married can get "married."
I think it's time to go back to majority rule. We've gotten carried away in our religious devotion to absolute perfection in terms of minority rights.
Since women are less likely to fully use their legal education, we shouldn't give what could be a man's seat to a woman.
It sounds true. Surely there are statistics on this.
FWIW the only woman I knew that became a lawyer did indeed drop her career after a few years for being a housewife once she had a kid and her husband was established as a doctor.
For admissions schools base favor and disfavor groups on non-merit issues, this makes as much sense as others.
This is getting strangely close to the argument that used to be made for discriminating against women in law school admissions...
Hardly, or "strangely" as in not really.
It's about women ordering their own preferences, not about societal agents limiting their options based upon perceived societal optimums.
The only societal constraint imposed here is the artificial, non-market pricing of a law school education.
Since I botched the line, let me repeat with the fix:
It gets strangely close to making sense in accordance with human nature.
I'd be interested to know if and how often the timbre of the comments here genuinely shocks Ann.
I'd be interested to know if and how often the timbre of the comments here genuinely shocks Ann.
Don't understand this.
Althouse is an extreme outlier. She's probably got an IQ in excess of 140.
So, she's in favor of restructuring society to fix the problems of women who have IQs in excess of 140.
She's kind of dense about the reality that the great average herd of women is concentrated in the rage from 80 to 110, and thus has no fucking interest in becoming a corporate lawyer or a law professor.
"I think it's time to go back to majority rule."
It's odd that you refer to ... What you seem to want to return to ... As "majority rule".
Bearing and raising small children only takes a portion of a woman's life. There's nothing wrong in studying a profession that she intends to get back to later and/or to practice part time while the kids are in school. The opportunity structure is less rigid than ever before.
Ha!
My Dad med school class of '39 had same view for med school. Now he has 2 MD granddaughters.
It's odd that you refer to ... What you seem to want to return to ... As "majority rule".
Why?
Why shouldn't a society's first concern be what serves 95% of people, instead of a tiny minority?
That, I'll add, since I can see it coming, doesn't necessarily indicate any hostility toward that 5% or less minority.
Damn these people and their biologically hardwired preferences. Don't they know how hard they're making it for our benevolent social engineers to build an egalitarian utopia?
"I'd be interested to know if and how often the timbre of the comments here genuinely shocks Ann."
Maybe she's shocked but I don't think that this is at all shocking or what anyone said is shocking.
It seems evidently true that the reasoning of the old dudes who didn't want to let women into law schools was correct. It also seems to me that Althouse is rational enough to immediately realize that the reasoning can be correct and the conclusions can be wrong.
It's a weird thing, really, how we're not supposed to be rational and look at facts because someone might come to the wrong conclusions.
"So, she's in favor of restructuring society to fix the problems of women who have IQs in excess of 140."
I think you're viewing the status quo as something from a 1950's TV show. But we're not in 1950. We're in 2013 and the status quo IS... Equal (or even "affirmative") treatment. The restructuring was yesterday. It's baked into the cake. Do you think we're going back to that?
I'd be more inclined to believe that there is a serious oversupply of lawyers, male or female, if I saw hourly rates dropping.
Is the work of a moderately intelligent, somewhat experienced law school grad in handling a relatively simple legal issue that anyone who has been through the experience a couple of times could handle on his own truly worth $250/hour plus expenses in a mid-sized city ?
No, not in a free market. But, lawyers have the strongest union in the country, so they use the same protectionist strategies as the Teamsters to manipulate that market. Very effective, they are.
Men, as a group, pay more into social security and get less out of social security than women.
Yet somehow this blatant sex discrimination does not seem to bother feminists at all.
I thought that we had a problem of too many lawyers. It seems ideal for law schools if there is a lot of voluntary turnover.
How precious is housing in New York? It must be very hard to get if someone is willing to sublet from someone her friends call crazy.
But we're not in 1950.
Jesus, what complete fucking bullshit.
I was born in 1950. My mother and father both worked at low paying, dangerous, hard labor jobs. So did everybody else in my little home town.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
You've absorbed a bullshit history lesson, as is commonplace.
"It seems evidently true that the reasoning of the old dudes who didn't want to let women into law schools was correct."
Which reasoning? That some women will have children?
Sounds like many women are making a smart choice WRT the cost-benefit of law school and practice. I also see many millennials (incl blue and white collar classes) don't care so much about women earning, gays marrying, or skin color. It's shocking to me how more prejudiced the enlightened boomer era actually was. It makes sense if you believe in evolution, however.
"What in the fuck are you talking about?"
You're stating that Althouse wants a restructuring of society to accommodate (gasp) women who want to go to law school. We accommodated that demographic long long ago. Its not new or radical. It's a done deal.
She's kind of dense about the reality that the great average herd of women is concentrated in the rage from 80 to 110, and thus has no fucking interest in becoming a corporate lawyer or a law professor.
You realize, of course, that having an IQ "in excess of 140" does not necessarily make one less likely to want to stay home.
Being an MD seems to be one of the more flexible careers that adapts easily to part time. Some friends and I were discussing recently that it would have been nice if they'd talked about which careers were flexible and which were not in school. We were told it was easy to do it all, so one should pursue anything. That was irrational and untrue.
"My Dad med school class of '39 had same view for med school. Now he has 2 MD granddaughters."
I'd heard that medical schools were majority female these days.
But the "same view" is still true. Women doctors, it seems, tend to pick from a list of general practitioner, pediatrics or ob/gyn, and then work fewer hours than men.
That's what *most* women do. So the old dudes were right.
OTOH, the old dudes were wrong. Because what is wrong with becoming a doctor (or lawyer) and then refusing to let it eat you alive? Why not have more doctors who work fewer hours?
Instapundit was addressing the financial reasoning where women might, because they realize their own ambitions, decide that it costs too much for them personally to go into that much debt.
(And this should inform (but likely won't) those people who think that doctors make too much money and that the money doctors make for "cutting off legs" can be reduced without reducing doctors to the point of shortage.)
I think we can square the circle by focusing on who makes the decision. It may not be wise for as many women to pursue a legal career, or socially optimal with respect "taking a man's seat", but it's not for the Admissions group to decide. It's up to the attendee to decide, based on pricing information. A woman who wants to make a "serious" legal career shouldn't be second-guessed by the school itself, and if she wants it more, or has an interest in a field that us needed more by society and will be able to pay her loans, she deserves that "man's seat". The boundary case if a poor man who will make a good lawyer the daughter or wealth looking for a husband is, I think, rare enough to be an acceptable inefficiency.
This is what makes distortion of the pricing system by government loans or minority scholarships so dangerous, in my opinion. It masks this kind of information from people's mostly rational decisions.
That not what I asked you.
I asked you where you got this bullshit history of the 50s.
The feminist movement was initiated and led by wealthy women, most of them wealthy NYC Jewish women with big pockets husbands.
The story of the 50s you're reiterating is the life of those people, not the remainder of America.
I stand one more time on the subject, and relate a true story:
Years ago I was managing a small business (45 employees) where the women would from time to time complain amongst themselves about my management style. Eventually their apparent grievances were overheard by the owners of the business, who took it as a sign and/or excuse to get rid of me (they had their own grievances, all of them petty and personal).
So they, the owners, staged a confrontation wherein they infringed upon my responsibilities. And their plan worked; I quit on the spot.
Two days later virtually all the female employees went on strike - demanding my return. Which surprised me, but stunned the owners. And there they were on local TV with the woman marching behind them carrying placards and chanting slogans, trying to explain to the media what was going on.
There's a bit more to the story, which had a happy ending (I returned and the owners went back to minding their own business). But more importantly are the two immutable lessons that were learned:
1) Women are never "happy" - especially in groups.
2) Don't take everything a woman says literally.
"Which reasoning? That some women will have children?"
Yes.
And stay home with them. And want a more flexible workplace because of the expectation that they won't have to support a family. And that women are less likely to let themselves be abused at work in pursuit of social status conferred by being very wealthy.
At my office four dda's share two jobs
all women who have young children
it was the only practical way that these otherwise talented attorneys could be retained (one is even ex-FBI).
"The feminist movement was initiated and led by wealthy women, most of them wealthy NYC Jewish women with big pockets husbands."
Yes, with the maid washing clothes in the background.
When I was first in the Philippines before I enlisted even poor (American) women were in that situation and it really is horrible. It's stupid not to hire a maid if you can afford one (and you're *expected* to, and until you can say "I've hired someone" you won't have any peace) so you don't have tasks to keep you busy and the rules kept you from getting a job yourself. It's mind-killing. There were a few "volunteer" things you could do, but ugh!
But that's only to say that, yes, it was a unique situation and didn't apply to women who weren't married to men with deep pockets.
"The story of the 50s you're reiterating is the life of those people, not the remainder of America."
Actually I'm specifically referencing 1950's TV shows.
You realize, of course, that having an IQ "in excess of 140" does not necessarily make one less likely to want to stay home.
Eldest daughter, measured IQ 142, is ICU RN specifically opting out of being med doctor because she wanted a profession she could tailor to her family's needs. She is now pregnant with second child and looking to go per diem after maternity leave.
Freeman Hunt wrote:
Being an MD seems to be one of the more flexible careers that adapts easily to part time. Some friends and I were discussing recently that it would have been nice if they'd talked about which careers were flexible and which were not in school.
And Synova wrote:
But the "same view" is still true. Women doctors, it seems, tend to pick from a list of general practitioner, pediatrics or ob/gyn, and then work fewer hours than men.
The field of high-powered surgeons and researchers -- where the real money and prestige is at -- seems to be dominated by men. Is this unfair? Is it a problem the law and government should address?
Jonathan Card wrote:
It's up to the attendee to decide, based on pricing information. A woman who wants to make a "serious" legal career shouldn't be second-guessed by the school itself, and if she wants it more, or has an interest in a field that us needed more by society and will be able to pay her loans, she deserves that "man's seat".
You need to be consistent about treating people as individuals, with ambitions and interests of their own, outside of a class and gender context.
It's silly for a law school to make a special effort to recruit and admit minorities, and then insist that that only their interest and talents as an individual should determine their career choice. Their career choice has already been 'socialized'. Other parties have a stake in it.
Re: The feminist movement was initiated and led by wealthy women, most of them wealthy NYC Jewish women with big pockets husbands.
Which was truly ironic since the Jewish-women liberators were already the most liberated group on the planet. And probably the smartest. So it seems they took the shiksas for a ride.
I'd be more inclined to believe that there is a serious oversupply of lawyers, male or female, if I saw hourly rates dropping.
They are. The blogger Althouse is linking to, Glenn Reynolds, is a law professor and his blog is filled with stories about the declining fortunes of both lawyers and law schools.
As for the point of this post, I'm not sure exactly where Althouse is coming from--I don't think Instapundit is calling for restricting female law school candidates. But it's a very well-established, non-controversial finding in the social sciences that the vast of majority of women seek men who make more money than they do. That's across all economic classes. Your typical female millionaire is more comfortable marrying a male multi-millionaire.
Hopefully this isn't too shocking. At the primal level most men want sex with with beautiful women, and women look for men with money. When we're being polite, we say men seek fertility and women want security.
Okay I'm a very open minded boss and completely believe in equality regardless of gender, race, etc. Call me a bit naive, but this is the way I've operated. I have two women who work in my department and one in another department who I worked very closely with. All three kicked ass for their first few years. Then the one in another department started a family with her husband. The 10-12 hour days quickly ended. Stuff didn't get done. And eventually, she left the company to go back to school so she could work less and take care of her family. Now the two women in my department have been pregnant for the last year. One had her baby last month and will be off for another 3 weeks. The other is due in a couple of weeks. Both as kicked ass the last several years. But both have already approached me about working less hours. Plus, I'm picking up for both of them while they are out of the office. I deeply appreciate and support all of them making the best choice for their families (why else are we working?). At the sametime, reality is kicking my idealistic ass.
Last semester I had to do a project with a "pre-law" student who was graduating. She was the highly ambitious sort who took a heavy class load, worked full time, got certified as a personal trainer, and did "fitness modeling", and either drank a lot of milk as a kid or had breast implants... and got her bachelor's degree in four years.
When I talked to her she'd pretty much decided to dump law and go into marketing because lawyers at the level she'd naturally aspire to, had no lives at all until they made partner. Which, it seemed obvious to me, she would do.
If she decided not to switch to marketing and have a life.
Dear Professor: Glenn is saying that you are the exception that proves his rule. That is a complement to you.
Where else would anyone find a brilliant woman with a child like charm posting 8 times a day for 9 years straight.
Clearly Ann used her education to get a better job, but also was in it for the intellectual aspect.
But the contention women were in it for their MRS degree is certainly true. And, yes, most women, push comes to shove, want their man to be the mainstay of the house - which is probably why the Man Cave generation doesn't interest them much.
Kchiker said...
The story of the 50s you're reiterating is the life of those people, not the remainder of America.
Actually I'm specifically referencing 1950's TV shows.
Which, Wagon Train or 77 Sunset Strip?
"It seems evidently true that the reasoning of the old dudes who didn't want to let women into law schools was correct. "
I didn't mean to imply that it was a matter of discrimination for no good reason when women had a harder time getting into medical school in the 50s. There was a perceived doctor shortage and women, at least attractive ones, were perceived as likely to marry and drop out of active practice for years. All that was true. Based on my own experience, ugly girls had an advantage, just as homely Catholic girls were preferred as babysitters since they were usually available on Friday and Saturday night.
Johnson and his HEW secretary thought they would solve the shortage and force down costs by flooding the market with doctors. It didn't work. In fact, it probably raised costs as an excess of new doctors found new niches to make a living. The demand is infinite. Make health care free and see what happens.
"Since women are less likely to fully use their legal education, we shouldn't give what could be a man's seat to a woman."
You can avoid this conflict if you stop "giving" away things.
If you insist on giving things away, and a man is expected to both want it, and make good use of it, why would the standard be different for a woman?
"Being an MD seems to be one of the more flexible careers that adapts easily to part time. Some friends and I were discussing recently that it would have been nice if they'd talked about which careers were flexible and which were not in school. We were told it was easy to do it all, so one should pursue anything. That was irrational and untrue."
This wasn't true when I started. The part time specialties are recent. They are Emergency Medicine, started as a specialty by a friend of mine and anesthesia. As more and more doctors work for salaries, now probably 70%, it becomes easier to work "shift work" and not be responsible for patients when you are "off." When I started, you were never off unless you had a partner you could trust to take as good care of your patients as you did. This is one reason why small town solo practice was so tough.
If women have nice rack with large nipples they can do anything.
tits.
Women with small or really saggy tits are sad.
tits.
I always thought that Ole Perfessor genocide apologist was a misogynist jerk. Now I know it.
Bearing and raising small children only takes a portion of a woman's life.
*****
This. I hope I see the day when this discussion includes information from longevity studies. What if living to 100, and working until 80, becomes the norm? If our working lives become longer, then the years a woman spends at home is a smaller percentage of her work life overall.
Women could return to having children when they are young - and THEN embark on a demanding career.
The trustees at my alma mater rationalized keeping the percentage of women down (went coed in 1972) because women alumnae historically donated less to their schools. That was when the trustees were largely single-sex grads. Eventually, new trustees enlarged enrollment to get them to ~50/50, which required a lot of donations for new dorms, etc.
It was somewhat obvious to me the administration was PC 30 years ago, now it just drips off the pages of the alumni magazine. Same for my formerly all boys high school, which the bishop forced to merge with the girls school to keep it going. Their biggest benefactor asked for his recent $1 million back, which to their credit, they coughed up.
The issue is two-fold. First, there is a biological imperative that men and women reproduce. Women have the unique responsibility of caring for a new human life from conception to birth. Men have the unique responsibility of providing for the mother and their baby in the interim. Second, there is an ego imperative that some men and women desire to preserve their child-like state of existence. These people reject or defer reproduction in favor of fulfilling their dreams of material, physical, and ego gratification.
Since we, as modern, "enlightened" individuals, now understand the principles of evolution, we can use reason to appreciate that the latter behavior cannot be normalized without terminal consequences. In the best case, ignoring or delaying fulfillment of our biological imperative, significantly increases the risk of producing a human life which suffers from physical and mental impairments, which then becomes a progressive burden to the parents and society, and to itself.
Another problem, of course, is that as we seek to satiate our sentient desires, women will choose to commit premeditated murder of their child in order to preserve their political, economic, and social standing.
The normalization of elective abortion, along with the physical and mental impairments of children born to mature women (and men), has been one of the greatest violation of human rights in history. It is even greater than involuntary exploitation and constrained liberty practiced under slavery. The human life developing in the mother's womb has no voice to protest nor arms to prevent its premature death.
Women, and men, need to curb their egos, and material obsessions, and reconsider their priorities. They can have everything, eventually, but rarely in the same time and space.
We need to distinguish and classify behaviors for normalization, tolerance, and rejection. We cannot normalize dysfunctional behaviors to accommodate a minority interest. We cannot normalize dysfunctional behaviors and hope to survive. We can tolerate dysfunctional behaviors which do not impede viability and quality of life. At least until it reaches some critical mass in a population.
And, of course all these arguments (and then some) can/may be made about why women should not be allowed in the armed services as well..
PS: Especially the tail wagging the dog argument--and especially re: homosexuals.
That is an american thing. Here, in venezuela, 90 % of students are women. 99% of the honor class are women. Even is first of the class has been almost always a man.
Thomas - The traditions of elite academia are snobbery, bigotry, and the old boy network. (Not as catchy as rum, sodomy, and the lash, but it was the best I could do on a Saturday.) OF course, we always SAY that our tradition is the nurturing of individual merit, but we lie a lot. So while our traditions are really excluding women because they are all just going to have babies anyway, and excluding Jews because they are so pushy, and excluding Asians because they are just so obsessed it would be a damned good thing if we overturned those traditions and tried to hold to the one that we pretend to honor.
Remember the earlier topic where certain female students are looking for sugard daddies to help pay for their education?
Men try harder because they know that (some) women want men that earn more.
The women who must have those $350 Manolo Blahniks NOW, often must have a whole closet of them, are the same women who, according to Instapundit, don't try harder to obtain a law degree because of a rational decision not to incur high debt obligations in a future where they foresee themselves dropping out of the rat race to have children? I realize Instapundit has to keep the domestic peace with his wife, Dr. Helen, but c'mon.
If women don't have a great set of tits hey are not equal. Saggy sad tits have no place in this country. Saggy Sad tits are depressed. Big bountiful bouncy tits are happy.
My advice to all women is get some nice tits.
Otherwise, your life is worthless and you are invisible.
tits.
I think there is getting to be good arguments for no more taxpayer contributions to "higher" education.
"Women could return to having children when they are young - and THEN embark on a demanding career.
"
One of the women in my class was a nice looking older woman about 35 with a 9 year old daughter. She was such a good type that my medical fraternity made her a member. She became a good ophthalmologist, a good career for a female doc, but died several years ago. She was feminine but managed to be "one of the guys" anyway. She had a nice boyfriend that she married several years later. I think the admissions committee may have seen her as an exception since she already had a child.
Just before I retired, I hired a woman vascular surgeon to take my place who was very good looking, sort of like a TV anchorwoman, who had had four kids while doing the Columbia Press surgery residency. I thought she'd be a superstar but she got weird and flamed out. Too bad.
As usual ST cuts to the chase and sweeps away all the pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Woman wants her man to be a provider, to bring home the bacon, to be a MAN.
Gosh, Prof. Althouse has attracted a lot of soi-disant social engineers to this post!
Some demi-gods in the Admissions Office are supposed to decide who to "give" law school or medical school or whatever seats to? Based on some supposed statistical likelihood of who will practice full time the longest?
Why not admit the best qualified applicants? A radical notion, I know, but like capitalism it could be worth trying.
For profit law schools would not care whether or not their students actually practice law, only that they pay their tuition, and recommend them to new students (which implies a level of success, or at least satisfaction).
Synova: OTOH, the old dudes were wrong. Because what is wrong with becoming a doctor (or lawyer) and then refusing to let it eat you alive? Why not have more doctors who work fewer hours?
That could possibly be true for some specialties (though I doubt it), but "flex time" certainly doesn't work for all. Surgery, for example. is highly skill-intensive and you don't get good at it without continuous, hard-core experience. To say otherwise would be like arguing that you could be a first-class musician by only putting in half the time at practice as the rest of the symphony. It's ludicrous.
I doubt one can be any good at any serious career and be "part time".
The huge problem here is bras.
Women should allow their tits to hang freely.
Bras are communist.
Tits
Born Free.
As the great Sophie Tucker once said 'its just as easy to call in love with a rich man as with a poor man.'
Take a fat, balding middle aged male shlubb and turn him loose in a very high end mall. Not one single hottie sales clerk will notice him. That is until he pulls out his black AMEX card. It's all in the context of the situation.
My wife is an MD. It is a flexible career. When I was on active duty, she could always count on getting a job wherever I was assigned, with almost any workload she wanted. However, delivering babies in the middle of the night got pretty old, so she changed jobs after that. Now I am retired and she is not. I don’t mind her making beaucoup bucks because we are both going to spend them when she retires.
Women were suspected of going to law school for ulterior reasons, such as to find a good husband or — crazy ladies! — because they are interested in the topic... intellectually.
Anyone who goes to law school for any reason other than to become a lawyer is, at best, making a huge mistake with their money and time. If you want to get a degree just for the sake of intellectual curiosity, get a master's degree in something interesting. It will be a lot less expensive per credit hour and won't turn off potential employers when they see you aren't "using your degree". And if you want a high-income spouse, go to art gallery openings, philanthropic events, services at affluent churches or other places where such people hang out.
I doubt one can be any good at any serious career and be "part time".
As I understand it, in careers like medicine or law, 40 hours a week is "part time."
Soi-disant social engineers, their hole card is panache;
"In God We Trust" they loud proclaim, "all others bring cash."
When the government owns everything, then it would make sense to select those who have the highest chance adding value to society.
Oh wait, that's wrong. They should select those who are most likely to increase the chance of re-election and party supremacy.
"My Dad med school class of '39 had same view for med school. Now he has 2 MD granddaughters."
...
I'd heard that medical schools were majority female these days.
More and more women entering a vocational field is a sure sign that the prestige and income of that vocation is on the way down.
Consider the status and pay of medical doctors, many of the them women, in the former USSR.
Women, and men, need to curb their egos, and material obsessions
I don't know. It's become a self fulfilling prophesy. Women need to work these days. The social infrastructure is gone. The neighbors used to hang out, raise the kids together (Hillary was right: it takes a village, but she was wrong, it does not take a government).
Now the problem is there, getting worse. What are you going to do?
Guys doing math and physics even on weekends weren't looking for women.
It's an interest that displaces an interest in women, if anything.
The journalism major at Arkansas Tech would rationally have a lower tolerance for debt than the mathematics major at Caltech. The future social worker rationally has a lower tolerance for debt that the future computer programmer. I don't see the problem. People make rational choices based on future plans. Why when you separate women out in an equation do normal things become problems?
What Freeman said.
And what David Davenport said. I was thinking it, but I couldn't find an online cite so I didn't say it.
The future social worker rationally has a lower tolerance for debt that the future computer programmer. I don't see the problem. People make rational choices based on future plans.
Can you cite any evidence for those assertions?
//////////////////////////////////
Prof. Althouse, your colleague over at Instapoundit or instapundit.com posts over and over about too many law students in American law schools -- too aspiring lawyers, both male and female.
What is your comment on Prof. Reynold's claim that American law schools are cranking out too many lawyers?
David, I specified rationally. Whether they do in practice, I don't know.
OK, FreeMan.
Meanwhile, at today's Instapundit:
DO PLUMMETING LAW SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS portend massive faculty layoffs? Depends on how far they plummet. But the decline has certainly been dramatic over the past few years.
Posted at 1:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
From Sunday afternoon's Instapundit:
HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Robber Needed Money To Pay Student Loan Debt.
A man who wore a three-dimensional Bucky Badger hat when he allegedly robbed an East Side credit union last week told police that he wants to go to prison and needed the money because he has $250,000 in student debt. . . .
An online UW-Madison directory lists Hubatch as a lead custodian at Union South on the UW-Madison campus. University spokesman John Lucas said Hubatch is not a current student but earned a bachelor’s in English in 1998 and a law degree in 2004.
Can’t say I’m surprised to see stories like this.
Posted at 2:01 pm by Glenn Reynolds
The poor fellow wanted to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, don't you see?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा