Nathan Harden - Fix Editor

A new study published in the Journal of Social, Evolutionary & Cultural Psychology has found that women derive more satisfaction than men from basic childcare duties such as changing diapers. In addition, the study found that men were far less likely than women to take advantage of paid paternity leave in order to stay home with newborn children.

Every once in a while you read about a new “study” that comes to conclusions that are so obvious, you can’t believe anyone thought they needed a study to figure it out. Likewise, I frequently encounter studies in which liberal academics appear to be shocked to learn that there are differences between men and women. The tone of these articles always seems to be: Differences between men and women? No! What evil in our society could have caused such a thing!

The latest such study tracked how male college professors use their “paternity leave.” (In the liberal utopia of higher-ed, fathers actually get paid leave just like new mothers, oftentimes.) However, only about one in ten fathers actually takes advantage of the leave time. And those who do tend to work on writing or research, rather than spending their time tending the new baby. Surprise conclusion? In other words, men don’t change as many diapers as women.

Most surprising of all, for the authors of the study, was their finding that women actually derive a high sense of “satisfaction” from taking care of new babies, and even doing rather less pleasant jobs, such as changing diapers. Bloomberg Businessweek reports details:

The writers, Steven Rhoads of the University of Virginia and his son, Christopher Rhoads, of the University of Connecticut, studied a sample of 181 married, heterosexual, tenure-track professors all of whom had children under two and taught at schools with parental-leave policies. While 69 percent of the women in the sample took post-birth parental leave, only 12 percent of the men took advantage of the available leave—even though it was paid. They also learned that the male professors who did so performed significantly less child care relative to their spouses. Worse yet, they report that male tenure-track professors may be abusing paternity leave by using the time to complete research or publish papers, an activity that enhances their careers while putting their female colleagues at a disadvantage. One female participant quoted in the study put it this way: “If women and men are both granted parental leaves and women recover/nurse/do primary care and men do some care and finish articles, there’s a problem.”

The Rhoads’ findings may come as a shock to supporters of gender equality. Although it is targeted at men, paternity leave is also thought to improve the lot of women… Steven Rhoads says he was interested in putting these notions to the test among university professors because he thought young men and women in academia “would be the most progressive on gender roles.”

Not quite. As the authors of the paper state: “Most of the academics in our study said they believe that husbands and wives should share equally, but almost none did so.” To be precise, only three men out of 109 reported that they performed half the child-care work. One possible explanation, according to the father-and-son duo, is that women derive a higher enjoyment of many of the activities involved in the care of small children. The Rhoads asked the men and women to report their level of enjoyment in performing 25 different tasks—everything from playing with the baby to washing his clothes. On almost every count, women said they experienced a higher level of satisfaction. Steven Rhoads admits the discovery that mothers enjoy changing diapers was, to his own mind, the most surprising aspect of his findings. “It shows you gender roles go pretty deep,” he says…

For most of us, it doesn’t come as any surprise that women, on average, experience “a higher level of satisfaction” than men when taking care of new babies. It’s just nature and common sense. And no matter how many social engineering projects the liberal elite undertake with a view toward eradicating this gender “problem”–no matter how many times they give little boys dolls to play with, or little girls trucks and legos–they aren’t going to be able to re-wire the human brain.

Nor are the liberal elite ever going to convince me that forcing men and women to be exactly the same would be a good thing for society–even if such a thing were possible.

By the way, why is it that liberals are so in love with “diversity”–except when it comes to the sexes? They don’t simply want men and women to have equal opportunity; they actually want men and women to be and behave exactly the same.

It’s sad that academic culture is so adversarial when it comes to gender issues. For example, consider the woman in this study who said “there’s a problem” if men are taking advantage of paternity leave to get ahead at work. Presumably, she means that it might give men a competitive edge over women in the workplace.

What these academic elites haven’t figured out is that men and women are designed to be cooperative and complimentary–not adversarial. In my own family, my wife and I split childcare and housework, sure. In addition, both of us do work outside the home. But I would never pretend that it’s an even split, or that either of us would want it to be. She focuses more on the home and the kids than I do; I focus more on earning a living. Every couple has to find what works for them, I suppose. But I think our elite professional culture sets ludicrous expectations for men when it comes to childcare. These are expectations that, for reasons that have to do with nature and economics, men are never ever going to meet.

For radical feminists, a woman’s happiness and satisfaction is less important than maintaining a competitive edge over men–her sexual “adversaries” in the workplace. Sounds like a recipe for misery to me. Wouldn’t it be better to acknowledge that men and women have natural differences and proclivities and that, on the balance, it’s best to let men and women simply be themselves? To let men and women focus more on what brings them “satisfaction”–whatever that may be?

Gender difference: that’s one kind of “diversity” worth celebrating.

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of the book SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden

(Image: An Egyptian Fellah Woman with her Baby, by Elisabeth Jerichau Baumann – photo by Daderot / Wikimedia Commons)

{ 0 comments }

Thomas Lindsay has an essay called “How to Survive the Higher-ed Meltdown” over at Real Clear Policy. He argues that smaller colleges are in better condition to respond to the changes in the economics of higher education that have come about in the wake of the recent recession. ” A recent study demonstrates that a third of colleges and universities are now financially unstable through overbuilding, over-borrowing, and over-diversifying. But the good news is there are schools not only surviving but prospering in these harsh times,” Lindsay writes. He goes on to explain that smaller colleges, which are more adaptable and quick to change, are better poised to reverse their financial fortunes.

He sites the small Misericordia University in Pennsylvania as one example of such “adaptability”:

Misericordia has capitalized on its smallness to pivot effectively. But size alone was not sufficient. It first had to recognize that no small private school can “compete with the homogeneous offerings” of state schools. Instead, Misericordia reinforced the service component of its mission through intensifying its focus on the service professions, especially health sciences. Refusing to be all things to all people simultaneously strengthened its identity, sharpened strategic planning, and hiked its competitiveness.

This strategy’s fruits are impressive. Almost half the school’s students today enroll in health-related professions. It now has a sparkling retention rate of 92 percent overall. High demand for professionals in these professions draws high-quality applicants with families willing to pay much of their tuition. Thereby, Misericordia has accomplished three goals: (1) increase enrollment from 1,050 to approximately 1,900 over 13 years; (2) increase the caliber of entering classes; and (3) maintain a tuition-discount rate five-six points below rival schools.

First of all, I must say, Misericordia is a great name for any school that wishes to be a model of frugality. But it seems to me that Misericordia is really still functioning on an economic model that relies on revenue growth rather than cost-cutting. In that sense, it serves only as an incomplete model for other colleges to follow. Most schools will not be able to double their enrollment, no matter what tactics of vocational specialization they utilize–this is especially true since the college-going population is expected to peak and begin to decline in coming decades, and as online education inevitably begins to suck away many of those tuition-paying students from the traditional residential system.

It may be that some smaller institutions can save themselves from financial ruin by going the route of Misericordia, and focusing on a vocational specialization–at least for a while. But if I’m right about the future of open-source online education, then the forces that are working to bring about the financial ruin of colleges and universities are more fundamental to the residential system itself. And specializing in one vocational area or another, in that case, will not be enough to save many lower-prestige institutions from ruin–not matter how small or nimble or specialized they may be.

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of the book SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden

{ 0 comments }

The Chronicle of Higher Education has published data on graduation rates at more than 1200 colleges nationwide. Below, I’ve compiled a list of the ten four-year public universities in the U.S. with the worst graduation rates. Some of these institutions have graduations rates that are so poor, it makes you wonder whether they serve any useful purpose at all. For example, at the University of Houston – Downtown, only 1% of the more than 12,000 students enrolled is able to graduate on time. Even after six years, only 12.4% are able to graduate. By way of comparison, the University of Virginia, a leading public 4-year institution, boasts a 4-year graduation rate of 84.5%, and a 6-year graduation rate of 92.7%.

The unfortunate reality is that many of these low-performing universities serve an overwhelmingly low-income and low-academic performance body of students. These are the very people who can least afford to borrow money for a degree they never will finish. It’s the dirty little secret of the “college is for everyone” racket. The one thing that is indisputably worse than having no college degree, is having no college degree plus tens of thousands of dollars in student loans.

Public universities have a special obligation to serve the public interest. They are financed with tax dollars, and therefore tax payers have a right to ask whether they are getting their money’s worth.

Note: Vincennes University appears to be incorrectly listed as the worst in the nation. It seems implausible that they have failed to graduate any students at all, as the data suggest. So I’d mark that one up to a data entry error. Peeking around elsewhere, I discovered that Vincennes’s graduation rate is listed elsewhere as 24%. Vincennes probably isn’t actually among the nation’s ten worst public universities, but it’s performance is dreadful nonetheless.

Ultimately, the list below represents only a fraction of the billions that are wasted each year by students who will never earn degrees.

To get a sense of the level of waste in dollars and cents, check out Central State University in Ohio on the table below with a whopping $197,534 spent per degree earned. And ask yourself: Who is benefiting from all that money? It certainly isn’t the students. After all, in six years, less than one out of five have completed a degree. In that part of the country, you could buy each graduate a comfortable three-bedroom home for that kind of money. How then could such an extravagant sum be, in any sense, in line with the public interest for the taxpayers of Ohio?

Graduation rates, 2010 (4-year Public Universities)

College
Location
Graduation rate (150%) Graduation rate (100%) Undergrad enrollment Pell grant recipients $ spent per degree Aid per recipient
Vincennes UniversityVincennes, Indiana 0.0% 0.0% 16,595 26.3% $47,741 $9,675
University of Houston-DowntownHouston, Texas 12.4% 1.0% 12,746 41.8% $35,690 $4,786
Texas Southern UniversityHouston, Texas 13.3% 5.9% 6,964 69.4% $135,930 $6,950
Chicago State UniversityChicago, Illinois 13.9% 3.0% 5,667 71.6% $112,141 $11,856
Cameron UniversityLawton, Oklahoma 14.1% 5.4% 5,860 38.9% $53,724 $4,998
Utah Valley UniversityOrem, Utah 15.0% 3.9% 32,573 32.8% $46,697 $4,247
Coppin State UniversityBaltimore, Maryland 16.3% 4.6% 3,298 58.3% $140,300 $8,027
Indiana University-NorthwestGary, Indiana 19.4% 5.5% 5,307 33.0% $55,326 $5,679
Central State UniversityWilberforce, Ohio 19.4% 7.9% 2,244 77.0% $197,534 $7,446
City University of New York York CollegeJamaica, New York 19.5% 3.7% 7,784 47.7% $124,532 $6,076

 

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of the book SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden

(Image by SLUMadridCampus / Flickr)

{ 2 comments }

The reliably brilliant Megan McArdle has a great article over at The Daily Beast on “The Many Cases for Getting Married Young”:

A college campus contains a very large number of single people with roughly the same life goals. For most people it is, indisputably, the last time you will be surrounded by such a large collection of eligible singles. What’s wrong with looking around to see if there’s one who might make a good husband? Or, for that matter, a good wife?

But somehow, we’re not supposed to say that, or even think it. These days, your 20s are not supposed to be for an “MRS degree” or starting a family; they’re for finishing your education and finding yourself. Marriage used to be the event that marked your passage into adulthood—the cornerstone of an adult life. Now it’s the capstone, the last thing you do after all the other foundations are in place…

For highly educated women who delay until they’re settled, the risk is that they will outrun their fertility—a small risk, but one that grows as education and career start consuming more and more of our youth. Anyone who has watched a friend struggle through rounds of fertility treatments will attest that when this small risk hits, it is emotionally catastrophic. For those who delay, it also means higher risks of birth defects, as well as the probability that couples will be sandwiched between the needs of infants and aged parents…

The full article is well worth a read. Check it out here.

Speaking from personal experience, as one who married at the young age of 22, I can say that it has worked out very well for me. And I’ve always felt fortunate that I avoided the long decade of singleness that so many of my friends have lived through during their twenties and early thirties. Didn’t hold my career back one bit. And, even if it had, it would have been worth it.

Unfortunately, our culture is making it harder and harder to marry young, even if you want to–as so many possible mates out there are single-mindedly pursuing degrees of questionable value and various aimless career paths, rather than looking to marry (a trend I wrote about recently.) It’s a problem exacerbated by credentialism and degree inflation, which forces people to go through more and more years of schooling to work the same kind of job that required less schooling years ago. All this comes at the expense of marriage. And, in fact, marriage rates are declining even among those who have no university education at all.

Well, my advice is–if you can–go ahead and buck that trend. Get married young. Odds are, you’ll be glad you did.

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of the book SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden

(Image by Alan Turkus / Wikimedia Commons)

{ 0 comments }

The tide of public opinion has turned against racial preferences in college admissions.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll out today, 76% of Americans oppose allowing universities to consider race as a factor in college admissions.

That’s good news, and shows that most Americans understand that reverse discrimination is not the path to greater racial equality.

Why is it then that so many universities continue to factor in race in their admissions decisions? Why is it that elite college administrators seem to be so out of step with the views of most Americans?

Martin Luther King famously longed for the day when men would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. It’s a shame so many in the left-wing academic establishment remain committed to racial preferences.

Although members of some ethnic minority groups do, on average, face various economic and cultural obstacles, it will only be after we embrace truly color-blind policies in college admissions that we can begin to acknowledge the real cause of minority educational under achievement, which is the catastrophic breakdown of the traditional two-parent family. This is a problem that is, increasingly, affecting all racial and ethnic groups, not just minorities.

The evolving views of the American public on the issue of racial preferences gives us reason to hope that the academic establishment cannot long continue their policies of reverse racial discrimination.

Justice requires equal treatment, regardless of race. That’s something a majority of Americans, in their hearts, understand.

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Follow Nathan on Facebook /  Twitter:@NathanHarden

{ 0 comments }

A University of North Carolina student who says she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student faced charges from the UNC Honor Court. Why? Because, according to the ‘Honor Court’ she was possibly guilty of “intimidating” the man whom she says assaulted her, despite the fact that she reportedly never named him publicly.

Sound strange? I thought so too.

Today, we can report that these so-called “honor court” charges against the alleged victim have been dropped.

After an external review, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill announced Thursday that it dropped a school honor court charge against Landen Gambill, a student who was accused of “intimidating” the man she says sexually assaulted her.

Gambill was one of five women who filed two federal complaints against UNC in January alleging that the school underreports sexual assaults and fails to properly adjudicate them. Gambill spoke out about what she said was a failure on the part of the UNC honor court, which found her ex-boyfriend not guilty of assault. She never identified him by name, but was nevertheless hit with an honor court charge brought against her by the ex-boyfriend in February, claiming Gambill created an “intimidating” and “hostile” environment for him.

Gambill believed the charge was actually retaliation from the school for her federal complaints, and after an intense backlash, UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Holden Thorp asked the honor court to suspend the charge in March. Thorp, who will leave office this summer, told the campus Thursday that the charge was being dropped.

But Gambill’s charge is only being dropped because the UNC administration has recommended that all students charged with “disruptive or intimidating behavior” should have those charges dismissed, pending an evaluation of that specific honor code provision by a campus committee…

Henry Clay Turner, Gambill’s attorney, said they still expect federal officials to “conduct a thorough, credible investigation” in response to a complaint they filed in March — the third against UNC — claiming the charge was retaliation.

Read the full story at The Huffington Post.

There’s a curious side note to this case for me, personally: Gambill’s attorney in her federal case, Henry Clay Turner, was a classmate of mine at Yale. (I knew him simply as “Clay Turner” back then.) It’s an interesting parallel because the allegations in this federal suit are so similar to those made by a group of Yale students a couple of years ago, which ultimately resulted in a $100,000 fine levied against Yale by the Department of Education. Not enough of a penalty, in my opinion, but I found it satisfying that at least some kind of punishment was levied against the university for a few of the outrages I wrote about in Sex & God at Yale.

I don’t know all the details in the Gambill case at UNC. But here’s hoping for a just outcome. I’m sure Clay will be doing his best to see to that.

Nathan Harden is editor of The College Fix and author of SEX & GOD AT YALE: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad.

Follow Nathan on Facebook /  Twitter:@NathanHarden

{ 1 comment }