MORE women are in school than in the workforce, according to Catherine Rampell of The New York Times. The recently reported drop in the number of women in the labor force has been caused in part by women going back to school, where they are racking up debt and becoming oh-so-smart.

Let’s face it, dear sisters, we are the dumber sex. Women, more so than men, are taken in by $200,000 degrees in things like “strategic communications.” This is a bonanza for the higher education industry, which will someday employ many of these hard-working students as in-house indentured servants.

Early marriage and homemaking are so utterly disreputable, comparable to prostitution in Victorian times, that women in their early twenties go to school to make it look like they are doing something important. They will need rich husbands to help them pay off their loans someday.

Notice how Rampell contends that the large number of women in school is a result of the discrimination women face: “The decks are stacked against them,” and women need more credentials to get ahead. Then she says that the large number of women in the workforce is evidence that women will be outperforming men once they graduate. These are contradictory statements. If there is discrimination and antipathy toward women as women, credentials are not going to make it go away. The “decks” are not stacked against women. Their own contradictory desires are.

                                                          — Comments —

Jesse Powell writes:

I’d like to point out some statistics cited in the article: 

“And in the two and a half years since the recovery officially began, men age 16 to 24 have gained 178,000 jobs, while their female counterparts have lost 255,000 positions, according to the Labor Department. 

Apparently discouraged by scant openings, 412,000 young women have dropped out of the labor force entirely in the last two and a half years, meaning they are not looking for work.” 

And in addition: 

“In the last two years, the number of women ages 18 to 24 in school rose by 130,000, compared with a gain of 53,000 for young men.” 

Looking at the 16 to 24 age group in the past two and a half years, the relative change in the number of jobs held by men compared to women is positive 433,000 (a 178,000 gain for men versus a 255,000 loss for women). Looking at college enrollment in the past two years for the age group 18 to 24 the relative increase of women compared to men is 77,000 (a 130,000 gain for women versus a 53,000 gain for men). The relative gain in male employment among young adults (at 433,000) is much greater than the relative gain in female college attendance among young adults (at 77,000). This means it is not reasonable to say that the reason for the drop in women’s labor force participation in the young adult ages is due to them going to college instead. 

I offer a more hopeful explanation; that a real cultural shift against women working and towards men being breadwinners is happening among the young adult population to a significant enough extent to show up in the labor force data.

Laura writes:

Thank you for pointing out this obvious discrepancy.

These number render the entire piece flatly misleading.Where have those women drop-outs gone? The New York Times can’t process it any other way than to conclude that they are going to school.

Pan Dora writes:

I must disagree with your title here, namely that we are miseducating women. We are, in fact, miseducating everyone that they need a $200,000 education. Everone does not belong in college. My daughter is learning automotive maintenance at a technical high school. I guess some would probably think I’m speaking ill of her, but she is not (at least at this point) college material.

Laura writes:

The heading was in response to the article, which was about women. I agree, both men and women are being miseducated.

Mr. Powell writes:

After doing some more research on the subject of young women’s participation in the labor force compared to men I came up with the following table (LFPR Women / Men is the Labor Force Participation Rate of Women divided by that of Men for the age group 16 to 24 years old): 

Women’s Labor Force Participation Rate compared to Men for the age group 16-24

From the above table what I get is that young women’s participation in the labor force compared to men reached a high at the official end of the recession in June 2009 and has since fallen to a more normal level as of the most recent month available, November 2011. This ratio grew very rapidly from January 2007 to June 2009 (from 92.2% to 94.9%) and then fell rapidly from June 2009 to November 2011 (from 94.9% to 92.9%). I can’t see any strong evidence that anything more has happened than a return to the norm for the ratio. 

From December 2007 to June 2009, the official beginning and end of the recession, total male employment dropped 5.9% while total female employment dropped 2.5%. From June 2009 to November 2011 total male employment increased 1.7% while total female employment decreased 1.0%. For the entire period from December 2007 to November 2011 total male employment declined 4.3% while total female employment declined 3.4%. Basically, it’s misleading to compare male and female employment after June 2009 since in the recession period before June 2009 the comparison of male and female employment was radically different than for after June 2009.

Please follow and like us: