A new study indicates a dramatic shift in the marrying habits of educated women, and what it is that’s driving those choices later in life.

The long-term study, entitled “Women’s Education and Their Likelihood of Marriage: A Historic Reversal,” was conducted by New York University sociology professor Paula England, and examined the marriage traits of women born between 1958 and 1964.

Generally, the results revealed that educated women did not marry as early in life as their lesser-educated counterparts, but soon caught up and surpassed their numbers following pursuits in higher education. Reasons for this vary, but one primary theory is that educated women in the past were not viewed as “marriageable” by men who were threatened by a partner as smart – or smarter than – themselves.

This is not a new concept, and ongoing studies have shown a noticeable shift among men’s perceptions of importance and attractiveness of education in a woman over the years. Near the start of England’s research in 1956, men ranked education and intelligence 11th on an 18-point scale of preferences in a mate. It has taken 52 years (last recorded in 2008) for those qualities to climb to 4th place on that scale.

Men’s perceptions aside, many educated women have grown to view marriage as a thing to be achieved rather than as a necessity or an obligation, which arguably imbues the act with more (and not less, as some have posited) reverence. The study indicates this may contribute to more successful marriages as well, given that the choice to marry is being made more carefully and with better knowledge of the self and the world.

The picture may not be so rosy, though, for college-educated people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The conflicting study conducted by sociologists at Cornell University and the University of California, Los Angeles, show that educated people who come from poor, less educated families are viewed as less marriageable by their more fortunate peers, despite any equality established in their respective intelligence.

A new study that explores the dynamics of gender differences and participation in college classrooms is opening up a broader dialogue about stereotypes, societal expectations and student-instructor relationships.

Student group Yale Law Women replicated a 2002 study to explore gender dynamics in Yale Law School classrooms and discovered that women do not speak up in class as much as their male counterparts. Their research revealed that men were 16% more likely to speak in class than women, and that women’s participation rates improved only 1.5% in the last ten years.

Earlier studies indicate that instructors may be to blame. One study from the University of Virginia on sexism in the classroom demonstrated it has been historically proven through observation that it is often the case that teachers call on male students more, wait longer for male students to answer questions, give male students more encouraging eye contact and even remember male students’ names better.

Going back further, a Harvard study on gender dynamics in the classroom in 1985 revealed that the gender of the instructor had a significant effect on participation rates of students. Notably, female students appeared to be more encouraged to speak in classes taught by female instructors.

Unfortunately, it would appear that bias is not a thing of the past and starts early on in a child’s educational career. A similar study by the University of Austin in Texas that focused on high school math classes published in 2012 showed that teachers rated white female students’ math abilities more poorly in class than white male students even when their grades and test scores were comparable.

Taken together, it is apparent that gender bias in the classroom persists and is having a real and damaging effect on the female educational experience. Ironically, the answer to the problem will in part have to be solved in the classroom, where future educators must learn how to eliminate this inequality from US schools at every level.

Stock photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

A new study reveals that conservatives’ trust in science is at a record low, although it could be assumed that most conservatives are unlikely to agree with the results.

Data collected from the General Social Survey and analyzed by sociology professors at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill show that conservative faith in science is at its lowest since 1974.

Survey results indicate conservative belief in science has dropped from 48% in 1974 (then a virtual tie with their liberal counterparts) to a meager 35% in 2010, and that these sentiments are a long-term phenomenon rather than an abrupt shift in position.

UNC sociology professor Gordon Gauchat, who published his findings in the American Sociological Review, blames the decline on the politicization of science and conservatives’ desire to rebel against organizations established by a perceived elite class that includes educators, scientists and a biased liberal media. Since science is often used as a weapon in political debates, conservatives often align themselves with party leaders which subsequently results in a stance opposed to leading scientific findings.

Conservatives argue, however, that it is not science that is the problem – it is scientists who suffer from “expectation bias” and are not rigorously applying the scientific method to get to the core of controversial issues like global warming and biological research. In other words, it is the scientists themselves who lean to the left, and that is subjectively informing their application of the method and skewing results.

Perhaps more telling was that the study revealed distrust was more focused among educated conservatives, suggesting a disconnect between bipartisan peers rather than a class struggle. Even so, Gauchat contends that educated conservatives are simply more capable of arguing their way around sound science, and that the conservative enterprise of challenging accepted scientific conclusions is just as biased as they claim the liberal science community to be.

The high-minded mudslinging seems like fitting proof that science is in fact being politicized, including the results of the survey designed to research it. It would come as no surprise to find that Gauchat’s research and commentary surrounding it being used to undermine either candidate (depending on the spin) as the nation moves closer to the presidential election.

New research reveals that what was once an American rite of passage is fast becoming passé, and sociologists are curious what is “driving” the change.

Results of studies conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute in Ann Arbor indicate the percentage of young adults arriving at driving age between 1983 and 2008 who obtained their driver’s licenses dropped significantly. The research was broken down by several different groups for people aged 16 to 39 in the 25-year span.

In yet more research conducted by the US Public Interest Research Group, it was found that members of Generation Y (loosely defined as Americans now aged 16 to 34) who do drive are driving less, dropping from an average of 10,300 miles per year to 7,900 from 2001 to 2009.

Conclusions drawn from the latter study are that young adults are driving less because of the increased cost of driving (specifically, the rising price of gasoline) and a greater interest in environmental stewardship and personal fitness.

While these are laudable reasons to not drive a car, some argue that the waning interest in transportation may be a comment on a corresponding interest of personal exploration and freedom. Some have gone so far as to draw a link between countries with higher Internet and social media usage and the teen imperative to get a driver’s license.

In other words, the argument is that kids are too busy Facebooking to take the time to complete the process of getting driver’s licenses; however, there is also evidence that bike sales and the use of public transportation among the younger generation is on the rise, suggesting that the desire to move is still intact.

What the studies seemed to neglect was the consideration of what will happen when technology becomes even more portable than it is now and how that will impact the travel habits of the country’s youth. Although studies also show more Gen Yers are staying close to home, it’s hardly enough evidence to suggest Americans are losing their lust for exploring the unknown – even if everything they might want to know is a Google search away.

What is it about girls that make them so darn smart?

Sociology experts may have a harder time answering that question, but a new study conducted at The Ohio State University (OSU) is going to make it easier to justify the claim, much to the consternation of competitive boys, no doubt.

Research shows girls have long outshined boys in academics in pre-college courses, but this new study indicates that female academic superiority is translating into better college performance in terms of both scholastic achievement and recruitment when compared to their male counterparts.

Claudia Buchmann, associate professor of sociology at OSU, conducted the study at the university and is a reaffirmation of similar research conducted by Buchmann and Columbia University sociology professor Thomas DiPrete that was published in 2006 by American Sociological Review and Demography.

In both studies Buchmann explores the various reasons why girls are better at school than boys and has pinpointed several factors. According to Buchmann and other colleagues, girls are less likely to be diagnosed with behavioral problems that hamper school performance. She also suggests race and financial status may play a role.

While likely, statistics collected by the Department of Education in 2006 show that men are less likely to earn bachelor’s degrees than women regardless of race, which lends some uncertainty to that aspect of Buchmannm’s research. Even so, there is no gainsaying the fact that the new study reflects a trend that has been developing for quite some time.

Women may be enjoying even more success thanks to growing equality between men and women in the workplace that are fueling more job opportunities, as well as a strong commitment by public and private organizations to provide financial and program incentives to women who are interested in pursuing college degrees.

It should not be forgotten, though, that girls were doing better at school than boys well before these improvements were made, which suggests girl power will continue to be a force to be reckoned with on American campuses for some time to come, if not forever.

March is a month that has many observances, from the importance of umbrellas to brain injury awareness, but for US social workers it is arguably best known as National Social Work Month – and the news is spreading.

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is working overtime to promote the monthly observance as a way to draw attention to a career field in which professionals often go unrecognized. The reasons for this are many, despite the fact that social workers take on a wide variety of vital roles in numerous sectors and industries.

As the US Congressional Social Work Caucus (CSWC) celebrated its one-year anniversary this month, it brought the message of the NASW to the House of Representatives, and advocated for why social work is so important in this country and around the world.

The practice and philosophy of social work is rooted in the betterment of an entire society and as such it is a profession that demands continuity, coordination and collaboration across many areas of social service like child and family welfare, the healthcare industry, military and veterans’ services, community development and nonprofit management, to name just a few.

Much like emergency medical personnel or law enforcement specialists, social workers are rarely considered by the population that lives outside that professional community until they are needed. When a major life event occurs, however, it is often social workers who become pivotal players in peoples’ lives. They help navigate through local and federal legal/welfare programs, provide personal and career guidance, and help build community through organization.

A social worker may say they are the glue that holds society together, and in many ways that’s an accurate statement. Considering the gravity of that fact, it should be no wonder that the NASW and CSWC would want professionals in the field to receive some recognition for what can often be challenging and emotional work.

Learn more about a Social Work Degree

The latest US Census Bureau data shows that more members of Generation Y are living closer to home longer and researchers say this is just one of several indicators pointing to a sociological struggle for Millennials.

The same data also shows more Millennials (born in the 80s and 90s) are living in their parents’ homes longer, which sociologists say is having a cross-generational impact as fewer of today’s younger generation leave the nest to get jobs and live their own lives, and subsequently drain the resources of mom and dad.

Part of the problem is rooted in the country’s Great Recession, which has been declared at an end despite the persistence of high employment, a struggling housing market and the growing specter of runaway student loan debt. The other part, say experts, is the increasingly sedentary attitude of Gen Yers that is being stoked by distracting technologies and apprehension about a seemingly inhospitable job market.

It may sound like just another indictment of the “Why Bother” Generation, but some of the statistics are startling. One example is the growing lack of desire for teens to hit the open road. Research indicates that although the affordability of cars has increased since the 1980s, the number of kids trying to get their driver’s licenses dropped from 80% in the early 80s to 65% by 2008. This is not a superficial trend when considered from the sociological perspective that it was once considered a mark of status and achievement for kids to get driver’s licenses.

The counterargument is that Gen Yers are not lazier, but actually smarter by waiting longer to make big, costly decisions like getting married and buying cars and houses. One economist described the generation as “frighteningly calculating” when it comes to these choices, perhaps thanks to being better informed through so-called distracting technologies.

As in most cases, the real answer likely lies somewhere in the middle. It could be that Gen Yers are more closed off from society in a physical or geographical sense, but are nevertheless hyper-connected and educated through technology. The one thing that is clear is that they are not to be underestimated or pigeonholed, even though it is often the habit of older generations to do that very thing.

Emasculation and compensation are a psychological seesaw that many men ride every day, even if they don’t know it.

A new report published in the American Journal of Sociology entitled “Gender Deviance and Household Work: The Role of Occupation,” makes the argument that men who work in female-dominated career fields compensate by doing more male-oriented chores around the house. The study also says the same holds true for women who work in male-dominated fields.

The study indicated that men in “gender-atypical” careers put in an average of one extra hour of male-type housework a week than men who work in traditional male careers, although women in men’s work roles don’t compensate as much as men who do “women’s work.”

The takeaway from this aspect of the research is that men are more sensitive to threats to their masculinity than women are to threats to their femininity. This concept has been articulated in the past in the context of the decline of the “real man,” and while the study is a testament to growing equality in the workforce and at home there are those who are concerned American males are losing touch with what it means to be a man.

Some sociologists and anthropologists have commented on the effect of the growing tech and service industries, the transition away from industrialization and the impact of the Great Recession on men’s traditional roles and feelings of masculinity. That said, they point out that the powerful men of times past did not draw masculinity from the rigors of their jobs, but from their utility in society.

In other words, it may not be what a man does so much as how he feels about the value of what he does, and that is a worthwhile distinction. A male nurse who focuses on the value of his contribution rather than the cultural perception of his position may not fall within the expected parameters of the gender deviance study.

-> Learn more about a Sociology Degree

The effect of California’s “3 Strikes Law” as a deterrent, which imposes stiff penalties following a criminal’s third felony conviction, has long been debated – but the debate may finally be coming to an end.

Robert Nash Parker, sociologist and director of the Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies at University of California Riverside, offers his new research that shows California’s crime rates fluctuate similarly to other states that do not impose the 3-strikes rule in their criminal courts.

Parker has been careful to account for other factors that may have contributed to the correlation between California’s crime rates and those of other states, including the enactment of the law (1994), duration of the legislation, size of the state, and other contributing factors to criminal behavior, and has concluded that there is nothing special about California that would suggest the measures have had any significant impact on reduction in crime.

The professor’s research indicates California’s violent crime started to drop two years before the enactment of three-strikes legislation, and that the real drivers for the decline are lower alcohol consumption and unemployment.

Other research conducted prior to Parker’s study has resulted in similar conclusions regarding effectiveness although for different reasons, ranging from new policing tactics to the legalization of abortion. Controversial though they may be, these other studies help shed light on the fact that there are innumerable sociological factors to consider when measuring what drives criminal behavior.

It is hard to speculate upon the nature of criminals in society and what motivates them to act. It is easy to assume their consideration of the consequences of their actions may not even involve the politics and the machinations of the legal system, and that their decisions are based on more immediate concerns.

Parker is taking his research to legislators with the hopes that the California 3-strikes law will be eased in 2014. Opponents of change offer anecdotal evidence in support of the law, saying offenders seeking parole agree the laws work as a deterrent.

While one may wonder about the motivations of the average criminal, there’s little need to speculate on the motivations of a prospective parolee who is asked to agree with a parole chairman’s foregone conclusion.

-> Learn more about sociology degree programs

The case for affirmative action, once a hot-button issue in a country that strives for colorblindness, is back in the news as the US Supreme Court prepares a review of its application in university enrollment decisions.

Affirmative action has a storied sociological history in the world’s melting pot that continues to shape how Americans perceive race relations, civil rights and equality.

As an outgrowth of a movement to put minorities on equal footing with whites, it has been praised as a necessary protection against institutionalized prejudices and lambasted as a governmental intrusion into the hiring practices of businesses and recruitment criteria of the nation’s colleges – and a form of discrimination in and of itself.

Now, the Supreme Court is set to review the practice of affirmative action in universities as the result of a white Texas student’s pursuit to end “racial preference” in higher education in Fisher v. University of Texas. Fisher is arguing that affirmative action resulted in her failure to be admitted at the university, while other, less qualified minority candidates were accepted.

The review will take place in October, mere weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and the timing has legal pundits drawing distinctions between the social relevance of affirmative action and the political reality of changing the face of the country’s race relations with the stroke of a pen. While the issue is focused on university enrollment, the sociological impact is much wider and brings to mind the history of culture wars and racial justice in America.

Many suspect this may be the end of affirmative action in the United States, being that five of the nine Justices have voting records that reflect a negative opinion of the practice. Using the court’s own words, the consensus is that the benefit of guaranteeing school diversity is not a “compelling, otherwise unsatisfied, government interest” that warrants using race as a factor in judging a prospective student’s collegiate potential.

The decision is sure to cause a ripple effect that will be felt in every corner of the country, and could reshape perceptions about race for a nation that, no matter what its efforts, will continue to struggle with achieving racial harmony.