News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by lkrubner on Saturday April 05, 2014 @05:18PM (#7538496)
Interesting:

"By 27 years of age, 32 percent of women had received a bachelor's degree, compared with 24 percent of men. "

This is a rather strong antidote to the idea that everyone gets a college degree:

"At 27 years of age, 28 percent of individuals had received their bachelor's degree while 38 percent had attended some college or received an associate's degree."

Also interesting:

"At 27 years of age, 34 percent of young adults were married, 20 percent were unmarried and living with a partner, and 47 percent were single, that is, not married or living with a partner."

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by cheez on Saturday April 05, 2014 @05:40PM (#7538562)
These stats are amazing for me to read as it reminds me of the bubble I live in.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by sliverstorm on Saturday April 05, 2014 @07:37PM (#7538906)
HN itself is a bubble. Who comes here? Techies. Tech is not representative of other industries at all.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by Camillo on Saturday April 05, 2014 @06:59PM (#7538806)
> "By 27 years of age, 32 percent of women had received a bachelor's degree, compared with 24 percent of men. "

And because of the huge inertia in political discourse, the gap will have to reach something like 50% vs 20% before it even becomes acceptable to raise this as an issue.

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by scarmig on Saturday April 05, 2014 @08:58PM (#7539149)
Although that sentence doesn't refer to it, something to keep in mind: there are the race and class variables lurking in there. IIRC if you're upper-middle class and white (and Asian, I'm guessing), the gender gap disappears.

That doesn't mean that we're not failing our young boys; we certainly are. But it's always useful to break it down by race and class, especially in the States.

A deeper question is why? If our culture is biased against boys, you might expect the gap to appear in all racial and economic classifications. My hypothesis is that we're in the midst of a giant pauperization: technology is eating most real jobs. In recent decades, however, there's still been a relative abundance of salaried jobs that require stability and organizational and interpersonal skills, which women, either by genes or socialization, are better at. So there's a real difference in investment payoff for a woman to go to college than a man, given their existing skill sets [1]. So more women go to college [2].

For now, at least. Give it a decade or two and I'm predicting an even lower proportion of men and women both going to college, particularly those in marginalized communities whose labor wouldn't be improved to the point that capital needs them to to make more real profits.

[1] One way to confirm that would be whether a man with a college degree makes less money than a woman with an equivalent degree. Which I think is the case but want to find a real cite for it.

[2] Another hypothesis: traditional male archetypes are falling by the wayside. Discarding those is a strategy people are using, consciously or no, to try to build up the interpersonal skills of men. I don't know how to test this, however.

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by bbanyc on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:09PM (#7539369)
A simpler explanation: people who spend their 20s in the military or in prison can't attend college until later in life. These are two large populations that are predominantly male and from lower classes.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by cpwright on Sunday April 06, 2014 @12:04AM (#7539661)
>In recent decades, however, there's still been a relative abundance of salaried jobs that require stability and organizational and interpersonal skills, which women, either by genes or socialization, are better at.

Another choice is that there are more attractive opportunities for a non-college educated male than a non-college educated female. Working construction, landscaping, or other dirty physical jobs is a way for a young male to work and make money without the necessity of college.

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by s_q_b on Sunday April 06, 2014 @01:23AM (#7539884)
Some of those jobs pay very well. Technical skill jobs such as plumbers, or blue collar public sector jobs such as police officers, earn 100K or more. And contractors who start their own businesses can become outright rich.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by ll123 on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:52PM (#7539324)
If you're comparing all males and all females isn't that already disregarding race and class variables?
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by sliverstorm on Sunday April 06, 2014 @01:48AM (#7539947)
Err... yes? He's saying, don't disregard race & class. Considering all women vs. all men certainly does not eliminate race & class as impactful factors.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by ll123 on Sunday April 06, 2014 @04:02AM (#7540218)
OK, I was confused because it seems to make the most sense to me to eliminate race and class as factors. So if you were to take into account race and class, what conclusions could you make considering that overall men are less likely to be college graduates than women? If say upper class white men are equally likely to be graduates compared to upper class white women, then that would mean, for example, lower class black men would be egregiously disadvantaged compared to lower class black women. So your point would be that male privilege only applies to rich white men and that privilege is reversed for poor black people and for that group women are privileged over men?

Let's look at the gender wage gap. Assume someone looks at the statistics that say that overall women earn less than men and says, why aren't race and class considered as factors? Why would someone say that, and what possible conclusions could they reach if they were to slice up the data for those demographics? They could say that some demographics are equal or in favor of women, but overall it would still be in favor of men, so what sort of point could they make there?

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by sliverstorm on Sunday April 06, 2014 @04:06AM (#7540227)
So your point would be that male privilege only applies to rich white men and that privilege is reversed for poor black people and for that group women are privileged over men?

Sort of. At least, that's the net result. But it isn't because gender privilige is truly reversed- it is because they are weighted down by things like incarceration, which impacts men more than women, and gang violence, which also impacts men more as more men join gangs!

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by ll123 on Sunday April 06, 2014 @04:26AM (#7540273)
If incarceration and gang violence impact black men moreso than black women then it sounds like they are disadvantaged because of their gender. It sounds like you're trying to point to their race or class as the source of their problems but it doesn't make sense when you are directly comparing them with people of the same race and class but different gender.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by deciplex on Monday April 07, 2014 @12:00AM (#7544566)
Wouldn't they be disadvantaged by the combination of both? If you have to be both male and black to be impacted by this, it doesn't make any sense to me to say it's only due to gender.

That is, suppose white men and women (for the sake of argument I'm excluding other races) are on a completely level playing field. But, black men are going to college far less than black women, because of incarceration or gang violence and whatever other factors. How can that be purely an issue of gender and not race?

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by ChrisNorstrom on Saturday April 05, 2014 @07:36PM (#7538899)
I doubt it. In America "victim culture", "David vs Goliath", "hatred of the rich", "_____ privilage" and "the haves and have nots" mindset controls who gets sympathy and who does not. If women have less degrees or make less than men guess who gets the blame? Where as if men have less degrees or make less than women in the household it's automatically assumed it's men's own fault and no one is to blame. Why? Because only the squeaky wheel gets the grease, if you don't squeak you don't get grease.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by Fomite on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:31PM (#7539449)
"And because of the huge inertia in political discourse, the gap will have to reach something like 50% vs 20% before it even becomes acceptable to raise this as an issue."

The gap in achievement at later levels of schooling on an aggregate basis has been an active discussion for years already - we don't yet understand why, but it's an active area of interest, discussion and research.

As has the fact that the recession hitting those with lower levels of education harder are hitting men disproportionately.

Because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by Camillo on Monday April 07, 2014 @01:07AM (#7544740)
I am aware that it has been considered as a research issue, but I was talking about political discourse.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by sliverstorm on Saturday April 05, 2014 @07:14PM (#7538844)
I'm sure to some groups it will never be acceptable. 100% vs 20%? We like those numbers, but let's see if we can't lower the second one!

Thankfully while real, those are fringe groups. So I guess my point is that there will probably always be resistance/people who reject bringing it up out-of-hand.

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by anaphor on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:28PM (#7539430)
Or in other words "You can't just extrapolate random variables into the future, unless it's clearly discrimination"
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by mgkimsal on Saturday April 05, 2014 @05:55PM (#7538609)
Agreed on the college thing. If you were to believe media reports, > 70% of young adults have college degrees (and large loans accompanying those degrees).
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by randomdata on Sunday April 06, 2014 @08:36AM (#7540748)
That's interesting. I've never heard anyone claim above 30%. Though I've read the enrolment rate is in the 60% range, which could make your loan part true (within some margin of error).

Canada, considered the most educated nation, has, if I recall correctly, 64% of the population with some post-secondary achievement. But note that includes university, community college, trades, etc.

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by mgkimsal on Sunday April 06, 2014 @10:15AM (#7541003)
I'm not saying media reports claim those numbers, but, at least in the media I read/watch, the student loan debt problem is presented as something affect a large majority of young people. Really, it's affecting a large majority of young college-going students (which is probably self-evident) but it's generally not clarified as such.
Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by eldavido on Saturday April 05, 2014 @08:22PM (#7539032)
28% is about the national average in the US, interesting that this isn't changing much in young vs old. [1].

Also, the distribution is quite bimodal, a small number of US MSAs have tons of college grads (Boston, SF, NYC) vs. huge tracts of the US with few graduates at all.

[1] "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray, highly recommended.

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by rwc on Saturday April 05, 2014 @06:23PM (#7538691)
Contrast the 34% married figure and 47% single figure with this fact:

"Nearly 41 percent of young adults had their own or their partner's child in the household at age 27."

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by pedrosorio on Sunday April 06, 2014 @04:18AM (#7540253)
More than 50% were married or cohabiting. That would make it possible for every single child to be in a household being raised by a couple. This is probably the figure you are looking for:

"Sixty-five percent of married individuals had at least one child in the home, compared with 21 percent of single individuals"

Re:America's Young Adults at 27: Results From a Longitudinal... by danjayh on Sunday April 06, 2014 @01:41AM (#7539926)
I really wish they'd broken that group down a little more to identify how many had obtained advanced degrees. I'm curious about whether there's truth to the idea that 'the master's degree is the new bachelor's degree.'