wv-‘v'v

‘V

 

won'- .-“.0u ‘Ooh-..”4.u”«w"

_.-.--—

—- .o-..”

m... ~9-

 

....~" lwsv m... '

MARRIED WOMEN STUDENTS AT

' NIVER-SITY

MICHIGAN STATE U

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.

. UNIVERSITY

BEVERLY TURNER PURRINGTON

MICHIGAN STAT-E

1972

.. . to
.'550..-'.-

i. .
F4“! 9.7. . a... 9.9. .o

. .o .
. .
a
. . .
. .
. .. .
o. ._ .
_ ..
. .
c .
. .
_
4 _ o
..a .v. .
.A . .... v
. .. . .
_ . . . ..
y.
o
.
.'
. .
.
. ., .
...
.¢ . ...
a
. .. ..
. ._
o .p
. cu.
. o
. .
.
r .. .. .
_
.
.e
. .y .
. _
a
. . .
... ..-.
o .
. .
. . p.
_.
o.
e ..
. . ,..
u
n .
.a. c..
. o
o
.
.
.. -
.
u ..
a
..
_
.
7 u
. ...
.
u
. .. .
o
.
.
. .. .
..
.
_
..
p. .«Q. ....T.

I”. I....&r.$$6w....

 

     

( “6...”.-

ddfldanuo‘o

a . ..o o... .. o .
u n... . . . I o
.o. .I . ed ' .n
e o 4.. 0.. . __ .
../.. o0..,.... .
.y o... .e. ..D.
1.. . .v. v .c..

C. .._.O o .
V o.” cl... .
.-.lp!.a.. ..c , re.
._ J..‘v w...o.'. ..-or.
.o. . .

 

a4 0.. .0. .
.. _... .. . .
I .n. a.. n u... o
....I . .

 

vo“~ J“. '4..." D". ;.

 

.a. .. In: -. . .or ..
- .u. . . .21 a.".'~ . .—O .. .. .
.. . . ..,.. .. .. _
o . . o a. .:.C’- . .oo. .
. o4. . .w . ~. ...10 an... op
... . . c. .o..n. .. r.’
V . ¢ <.-r‘-O.sq.l . k
. . . . ..—"rvlo. . . . . .._p
. .. .. ¢.. ..n,.np . . .. co
. .io. . . ..o¢.o.'.u .... .’o
. e .. . ... . .
. . J . ... r .. C... .n.
o. . . ..... .(o—. u... a
. .. o . fa. . . .

 

.'
';O
o
o .
o l
o .
r -
' '
4
‘I
u
“i“ “

 

t .o .

..I I .t. .o .v.... ..

..oevo v. a. .:1.oov.- .
. I _. .. ..v.4..

. . .. .. 4.... .. _
V.l

 

 

‘ Q
- '4‘“ r‘ ¢3o\c-;«1fl'i¢ubl;u

 

. . . V... r
. ... . c... .
v a . 4 4
. .
. 4 I...r..
n.. r
y . 0 v,
. . . . o... g
u .— . 4 I. .o
. _ ...a- _. .
?. . .. .
.. . ¢.p . n
v a
..
.o. ..
,0. o. . ... 0. —¢
. . Co.r.¢
_ .0 . .
. . .. ,. ... u
. z I v u 1. .
.. ... . ...-v . .
.. 4 . u v
. .
. ..o n . . .
. . o . o . ‘
. r . up..'. n I
c . . .. .. ..
.p .n .c .
. .. r.. 0... .o.
o . p . . .
v . . . 1 . . .uv. .
n o I .
. o. .p n
. y . .a .
. V4 I 4
. .
. ._ .
1 .. .
. — 1 a
.. . I. o . I
. a ..
.
. . ..p . . n
' I
. . . . . . e
. I
. . .
. . o... I
. .
a . l .
. . n
o
.
. . U
. I
4.. a . . ‘
p . .
e o .
.
o
_ . . ..
. v o
.
_
~ 4 . .
.
..
o .
A
. ' . A
.
»
4
.
a J
o
u p
u D
a.
.. 1 Y1 ‘
I. R‘
.
. a
I i
u u
A
. n .
_
. r
k
. o
z
n I
. , . o
. . I
.o .o o
._o
o v o I
a. o . o n
’
.. A a

. o. . sun. .33? v.2. . .. n, .
w... “1.....flafl . 4—HT? 5%:Lknov

it. $555.” 2....

 

 

jrtr7~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

   
      
   

‘5’ BINDING av ?
HUM; & SUNS'
300K BINDERY WC.

LIBRARY BINDERS
salmon. meme»:

M.RRIED HOHZIA SWUDEAU

“everiy Tur

ABSTRACT

‘\-r

val/1

SH"

7\/'-
Pilv

AXTA H TE [EQAALRSITY

'
\
\A.

Aer Purrin Atcn

Pit fiAough scm- provress has been mace 1P0 e'uaAiz irg edu,ati(nai
opportunitie for nan and w.)nr n, it is quite 'car that women at this

point in time receA fene eA of the standard reward: o. academia tAsA
do men. Married he CH 5 ear to be even ices iikeiy tug“ We .n in
general to be getting the UA.iversity education they A'nt, need and/or
are capatie of, The purAAose 01 this stuAiy was to ex sun Ae the cireatirnai
echie- -nts end 7S51Yfili£215 of marrAed e'nen t HSU.

One hundred and fifty women were interviewed during Spring quarter

p

U .1.

10m1/3 weAe currentiJ stu

tents but thei r huSAands Were not, 1/3

were currentiy stuflents and their husiands were 3150, and 1/3 weAe rot
curre r;.iy at ( A.‘ s but their hAsbenoe here. Data was cot. est 3e tram
earn Rowen nn eerie}? azd Ger husband.

Difizrer'*< were found firth be'ween and with n the three grf'pi
wAth FESfGCV to “re f011:”iug rarieeies: age, number utfid ages at
an d CA, "AHZ'; ant, income, perents' education, husbands' reaatiCns
to wife’: attenuing :zneui. ann oniniens on the maria cf :"noigr;hip3.
On a “.mu r Ci «thir Ha iezzics the diiierZN'.es ienfled Censis'iriA; in
the air ‘iier it an en re ' Vina i2nur of the stands i reWQA9: er

,. .- '0‘...” 71.. 1. .° .~ .
BeveAly Auxner {airingtsn

of academia-ensing the following variables as indicators 0 those

rewards: degree attainment, amount of certainty regarding future

degree plans, number and duration of educational interruptions, GPA,
credit load, major field, full or part time status, and type of job

held while sopuse and/or self is in school. Of some note is the finding
that male students whose wives are also students obtain much fewer of

the standard rewards than do male students whose wives are not in schooi,
and, on some dimensions, even fewer than the female students in the

sample.

MARR ED HOHEH STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

By

Beveriy Turner Purringtor

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fuifiiiment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Socioiogy

1972

ACKHOULEDGEHEHTS

I wish to thank the members of my committee: Hiiliem Ewens: James
1ckee, and Vincent Saivo, first for their assiStance and encouragement
in the prepa‘ation of this thesis, but even more for what they have
shared of themseives with me over the past three year“. I aiso wish
to thank Barrie Thorne for reading and offering suggestions and parts

of this thesis.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TAD ES ....................
INTRODUCTION ....................
CHAPTER

I. REVIEW OF THE LITERARURE ...........

Part A ...................

Part D ...................

Part ...................

II NETHDDOLOCY ..................

III. RESULTS . . . . ................
Part I .......................

Summary of Part I ..............

Part II ...................

Sumnary of Part II .............

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............

APPENDIX .......................

REFERENCES ......................

iii

.....

00000

PAGE

iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1. Age by Group and Sex . ................... 23
2. Age at Marriage by Group and Sex . . . . .......... 24
3. Number of ChiIdren per Famin by Group ........... 25
4. Emponment Status by Group and Sex . . . .......... 25
5. AnnuaI Income by Group ................... 26
6. Number of C10$e FemaIe Friends New in SchooI by Group . . . 2
7. EducationaI LeveI of Parents by Group and Sex ....... 28
8. Husbands' Opinions on Nife Going to SchooI, by Group . . . . 29
9. Perceived VaIue of SchoIarships SpecificaIIy for Married

Nonen.by Group ...................... 30

10. Number how in PhD Program, by Sex and Group ......... 32

11. Number EnroIIed in Graduate Programs, by Group and Sex . . . 32

12. Number with PhD or in PhD Program, by Group and Sex . . . . 33
13. Tota1 Number Expecting to Have PhD Sometime or Who Have It

AIready, by Group and Sex ........ . ....... 34
14. Degree of Certainty Regarding Future Degree P1ans by Group

and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
15. Interruptions in Education, by Group ............ 38
16. Attrition Rates, by Group and Sex ........... . . 39
17. GPA, by Group and Sex ................... 39
18. Credit Load, by Group and Sex ............... 40
19. FieId, by Group and Sex .................. 42
20. FuII Vs. Part~Time EnroTIment, by Group and Sex ...... 42
21. Ages of FuII and Part-Time Students in Group I (women OnIy). 43
22. Type of Job, by Group and Sex ............... 44

iv

INTRODUCTION

The fifties and sixties have seen an increasing emphasis on equaT
rights for minorities, with educationaT eguaTity receiving much of the
attention. EarTy efforts at defining and soTving the inequaTity were
focused on bTacks and the poor, and. more recentTy, on Chicanos. Lagging
far behind was any concerted effort to provide equaT Opportunity for
another minority groups: women. The reasons for this are many and
varied-—not the Teast of which is the extreme difficuTty of pinpointing
and "proving" discrimination against women in education. ATthough the
voTume of protest and study has recentTy increased, the reSponse of
educationaT institutions has been Tess than adequate.

For various reascns women, exen in 1969, get far Tess university
education than do men. One reason why it is difficuTt to pinpoint
discrimination against women in academia, is the circuTarity of the
probTem. For exampTe, can graduate schooTs be bTamed for admitting
fewer women than men if (T) fewer women than men appTy (i.e. the women
seTf~seTect themseTves out), and (2) the schooTs have reason to beTieve
that woven are Tess TikeTy than men to “use" their education? Or, on
the other hard, can wonen be bTamed for low aspirations (i.e. for seTf~
seTocting thewseTves out) if they know that fewer members of their
own sex get into graduate scheoT and that job opportunities in academia
are much better for men than for women?

The assignment of responsibiTity for the differentiaT educationaT
attainments of the sexes is further compTicatod by the fact that women

1

{‘3

('s opposed to members of other minority groups) must Tive in cTose day-
to-day contact with the majority group: i.e. women are married to men.
This contributes to the widespread feeTing that each woman's education
(or, more correctTy, her Tack of it) is her own personaT troubTe rather
than a coTTectiveTy experienced structuraT probTem.

The present study is an attempt to Specify at Teast sone of the
dimensions of this probTem, using married women students in the
university as a speciaT case of the Targer issue. It is an attempt to
document some of the factors, both objective and subjective, which are
correTated with university attendance among married women. UnderTying
this study is the assumption that they are (as a group) getting fewer
of the more highTy vaTued rewards of the prevaiTing vaTue system in
a cuTture which puts strong emphasis on education. The intent of this
study is not to define any causaTity but to describe a popuTation and
suggest some reTationships which obtain at this point in time. The
context in which this is presented is that women are a minority group,
they occupy marginaT status in this society, that the assumption of
equaT ahiTity can be taken as given and need no Tonger be provcn, and
that the Tife chances of each individuaT woman are not her personaT

troubTes but rather “pubTic issues of sociaT structure." (MiTTs, T967:8)

CHR TE< I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The range of literature relevant to this study is broad; encompassing
general treatises on the status of women. to examinations of the place
of women in academia, to more specific studies concerning married women
students. All deal with the same general issues of cultural expectations
and institutionalized barriers which limit the life-chances of women.

If one thing stands out in an evaluation of the literature on women it
is the overemphasis placed on studying characteristics of women and the
dirth of studies examining the ability and/or willingness of the

system to reSpond. Even the present study unfortunately tends in the
former direction.

The following review will be divided into three categories: (3)
general writings on women, (8) examinations of the place of women in the
academic conwmnity, and, (C) more Specific SLUdlES on the education of

married women.

Belle

There is a wealth of literature from Mary Holstencraft (3967) to
Shulamith Firestone (1971), suggesting that the fact of being born
female results in getting fewer of this culture's more highly valued
rewards. Since much of this literature has recently gained wide circu-
lation, there is no need to review it extensively here, However, the

3

4

work of Bird (l§69), Dixon, (n.d.) Firestone (l97l), Hacker (l95l),
Hughes (1949), and Myrdal (l94i) warrants brief mention.

These works include (l) those concerned with denying the biological
inferiority of women, and, (2) the more theoretical works on women as
a minority group. The former involves ”a denial of biological inferi-
ority, indeed of biological determination of social behavior in women."
(Dixon, no date:l). This parallels a similar body of literature
concerning blacks. It attacks assumptions of inferior intellectual
ability as well as assumptions of 1’the proper place" of women-~as
for instance the assumption that women are persons to whom a certain
amount of drudgery is biologically appropriate. Writings in this
category also seek to expose some of the cultural expectations based on
the foregoing assumptions which act as self-fulfilling prophecies ”proving"
their truth.

But, as Carol Andreas points out:

The New Feminism takes the equality of the sexes for granted and

concentrates on uncovering and publicizing the systematic ways in

which the society prevents women from realizing their full
potential . . . The New Feminist does not see it as her task to
prove that her educational endowments are not inferior to those of
men. (Lndreas, l96818)

Much of the literature in this second category involves "more
theoretical treatments of women as somehow occupying marginal status,
representing a minority group, or showing strong parallels to the
position of blacks in the United States." (Dixon, no datezl). It
accounts for the observed differences between the sexes in terms of
socialization in a context of differential cultural expectations and

institutional barriers.

01

Most notable among the early works is Helen Hacker's article, ”Women
as a Minority Group" (l95l), which draws on Gunnar Hyrdal’s parallel
‘between women and blacks (Hyrdal, H9 1) and the marginality literature
(c.f. Hughes, l949). 0n the basis of her definition, she asserts that
women are a minority group:

A minority group is any group of people who because of their physical

or cultural charactei is tics, are singled Otzt from the others in the

society in vhich they live for differential and unequal treatment,
and who therefore regard thesiselves as objects of collective discrim«
ination. (.acker, l95l:60).
However, although women clearly meet the first criterion, it may be
claimed that they do not meet the second. For example it may be claimed
that women do not view themselves as objects of collective discrimination
or, if they do, that they feel such discrimination is justified. Since
"they feel no minority group consciousness. . ." (Hack er, l95l: 6l), ml ey

cannot properly be said to belong in a minority group. However, ". . .

the term 'minority group status' may be substituted. This term is used

 

1"It seems to me no accident that sociology did develOp an under—
ground concerning the status of women, even while dominated by such
patent celebration of the 'status due as natural law' as we find in Parson‘s.
The reason is not necessarily traced to the presence of women, but rather
upon the nature of psychological assumptions in sociology—~originally
these assumptions were subsumed order the axiomatic statement of people
as 'Blank tablets' who were then shaped and footed by culture and society
into fully socialized adults. While this early assumption has been
modified, sociology nonetheless emphasized (largely from George Head)
the processes of socialization, the develo.ment of a social self through
role—taking, in which social behavior, and indeed identity, springs from
interaction and from learning from significant others one's appropriate
roles in life. Once the biological determination of feminine behavior is
rejected, there exists a theoretical tradition most ccmpatille with the
notion of eouality between the sex. , since it wOLlld explain inequality
between the sexes as a result of social learning, and not of imputable
biological differences. lhe tradition is also radical, becaune_11 e>:plains
by the mechanism of social learning-~the pzohlem does not lie with women,
but with the szocial cred that condoms wozren to an inierior status. It
is the social orr‘er, not women, which mus t be changezi.” (Dixon, n d.:2)
(0n thi is last point, I disang-el with Dixon. hhile it is true that chances
must be made in the social order it is also true that changes must be made
in nonnln'c hondq--rnnis no toil e ' '

 

illl‘u'llfi'li "3 . i

J}

to categorize persons who are denied rights to whichthey'are entitled
according to the value system of the observer." (Hacker, lUSl: 6l). Here
she points out that blacks for many years by and large accepted the d ctrine
of their own inferiority and lived within the system. “An observer who
is a finn adherent of democratic ideology, will often consider persons
to occupy a minority group status who are well accomodated to their
subordinate roles.” (Hacker, l95lz61). Her paper:
is exploratory in suggesting the enhanced possibilities of fruitful
analysis, if women are included in the minority group corpus,
particularly with reference to such concepts and techniques as
group ,elongingness, socialization of the minority group child,
cultural differences, social distance tests,2 conflict between class
and cast status, race relations and marginality. (Hacker, l95l:69)
The minority group status of women established, other [such as
Caroline Bird (1969) and Marlene Dixon (n.d.)] have attempted to expose
some of the systematic ways in which women are kept down. In general,
both the tactics and the effects are similar to those used for many years
to keep blacks in their place. In addition, "women are disqualified from
many top jobs because they don't have wives." (Bird, l969z59). Marlene
Dixon points out that "the hypocritical insistance that things are really
equal is the cruelest form of discrimination, for it leads the individual

to blame himself or herself for personal failure when in fact the cards

are stacked against them." (Dixon, n.d.:l0).

 

2She also points to an interesting difference between women and
other minorities: ”Since inequalities of status are preserved in marriage,
a dominant group member may be willing to marry a member of a group which,

in general, ie would not wish admitted to his club.” (Hacker, l9Slz64).

Finally many writers make suggestions for the future, but warn that
change is not easy:

Vanru IaId couples lmav taken tUIns woriing and going to school, bui:

all pioneering requires tho ought and planning which tra adition an

habit settle with ess effort. (Bird, l969zl97)

Even so mingly successful adaptations are not without pain for those
involved, for it is those minority group members ”. . . whose values and
behavior most approximate those of the dominant majority who experience

the most severe personal crisis." (Hacker, l96lz68)

Part B

In addition to the general treatises on women, there have appeared
more recently a number of books and articles dealing specifically with
discrimination against women in academia. Host deal with the nechanisnm
and implications of institutionalized barriers and personal discrimination.
They differ, however, in two ways: (l) in which areas of concern they
treat, and, (2) in their varying degrees of radicalism-~some being frankly
adjustive, others calling for more radical change.

The former category, those works suggesting ways for women to adjust
to "their" problem, I will not review here. However, the work of Eli
Ginzberg deserves some mention. Basically he views the is sue of women 5
education as one of increasingly broader options for women-«broader than
before, ang_broader than those open to men:

Beyond their problems, or, as some writers put it, their conflicts,

these women face an even larger number of signi icant options.

Ginzberg,l966fl

. . this is an exoloratory study ain.ed at 'uncovering‘ the process
of decision maling followed by a group of educated woman who

confronted a wice raIige of Iortun1t1cs and sorre cons rain: 3.

(Ginzbe: g, l9o.. o,ICnotrl1nIng mine.] Society does not care so
much whether he ma1ries--although most men do—«but it expects him

CD

to hold d awn a job. . . . On the other hand women are free of this
rpQUIlCr Int Their Options are much broader. fheIe is consider bl,
nore Lnlel’I'3 in our society far wom1tn who remérin singm than lCI
men who remaan idle. (Ginzberg, l966zl6)
While he may be correct that women can more easily choose not to
work than can men, his line of reasoning ignores several things. First
it ignores the teken—for-granted subtle and not so subtle institutionalized
barriers and eI fecis of socialization that make it difficult for women to
take advantage of the ”much broader" options which he outlines. In fact
an “option“ is not even an option if a person cannot take advantage of it.
Secondly, he seems to fall into the fallacy of suggesting that since some
wonen have made it others can easily make it too. Granted, his books did
lay some of the ground worl for studying educational chances of women and
many of his points are well taken, but he leaves fundamentally unexamined
some of the systematic ways wdnen are denied equal access to educat tion
The second category of studies attack the problem from many different
angles, but all point to the same conclusion: it is no accident that women
get fewer of the standard rewards of the educational system. A genera1
View of the problem is presented by Elizabeth Cless:
Higher education in the U.S. was designed exclusively for the white,
upper-or-middle~class male. Its procedures, its rigid uninterrupted
timetalbe, and its cost all but prohibit its use by women desp1te
well-meaning. . . 20th century attempts. (Cless, l97l 310)
This viewpoint is shared by Bettina Huber, who extends it to women's

chances as faculty members:

Rather, it seems

t It a number of aspects of the academic
experieice which stack ' ' we
, _

1m uI in the promotions game.
c d thI ough time to routinely
acconoos.; the work needs oft lIe es ssional. 'Huber and
Patterson I, l97uz3). [ urthe~ m: :I. . . r"r1 coniunction wi th

university dema1ds (which ieIor min r t women) women aIe also

burdened with greater responsibility by the larger society—~esnecially
if they are married. (Huber and Patterson, l97C: 37)

9

Anne Davis ints out that “married career women have a whole set of

 

l r-.,
09.

U.)

disadvantages for which the uniVersity makes n provision.‘ (Davis, l

96) (Such as childbearing a roaring, responsibility for housework, the
expectation that she will help her husband with his work, etc.). In
addition to the objective disadvantages, women have been socialized to
feel they must not inconvenience anyone else in the process of getting a
degree or a job. Some suggest that:

It is wrong to deny individuals born female the right to inconvenience

their families to pursue art, science, power, money, or even self-

expression, in the way that men in the pursuit of these goals
inconvenience their families as a matter of co'rse. (Bird, l969zl9?)

Lack of career performance or high educational attainment on the part
of women is often cited as a reason for not hiring women or for not
admitting them to degree programs, which in turn is a reason why women
don't perfonn or attain. Jesse Bernard cites this circular causal
pattern as contributing to the difficulty in pinpointing discrimination:
"in view of these facts, often given as reasons for differential
treatment of woven, it is difficult to discern real areas of prejudice."
(Davis, 1969:97)

Others have documented specific and more subtle ways that academia
systematically disadvantages women. According to Reisman, women "remain
outside the informal communications systems that is deemed such an
essential in getting important job positions." (Davis, 1969:96). Women
are also systematically excluded from the protege -ystem, as Martha White
has outlined (l97014l3-4l6). She suggests three main reasons for this.

First, since women are not expected to make much 01 themselves intellecu

tually, and since a scholars prestiie is in 3 ma measure gauged by the

“a
:3

quality of his graduate students (protégés), then having a woman can be
risky for a professor since there may be no pay off. Secondly, sexual
entanglements (real or fantasied) can complicate and/or end the relation—
ship between a professor and his protége. Thirdly, even assuming that he
second eventuality does not come about, the professor's wife or the
protege's husband n1ay think it has or will and nIay exert pressure to end
the relationship. In summary, she suggests that:"

commitment and creativity in science are not merely a function of an

individual‘s competence or excellence, but are a product of the

social env1ronment as well. Acceptance and recogniticn from

Significant other people (one' peers and other professionals), and

opportunities for stimulating and challenging interaction are

essentia for developing a strong occupational or professional
identify, and for creating the inner sense of role competence which
can lead to grec eater commitment and productivity in professional
work. Unfortunately women, especially those who have experienced
interrupted or dis .ontinuous careers, find such opportunities and
acceptance difficult to obtain. (White, l970:4l6).

Refering to future employment opportunities,3 Huber documents her
charge of "systematic, albeit subtle, discrimination" facing women in
academia with the following observations. First, there is a "systematic
pattern of excluding women from tenure" (Huber, l97C:35). Married women
get tenure much later the n unmarried women, who in turn get it later
than men. (Huber, l970:25). Secondly, this results at least in part
from the following: (a) women are less likely than men to have
closely related primary and secondary specialities; (b) wonen are much
less likley than men to teach a course related to their speciality
[this type of teaching ex.erience would make it harder for the female
academic to establish herself as an authority in a specific fiel'"

(Huber, l970:3l)]; and (c) women aIe less likely than men to be teaching

graduate students.

‘— l-fl’ -——-

ole/wen opportunities is ncludel thI
1

i
'(in is inewtiu able from t.

':l
'-‘ i:

3Th€ dlSC (UE SlCfi 0f fLHt ll?
since the l3"t3 of womenis :duc:

ll

For male sociologists, then, teaching experience and speciality
area interact in a pos if.i e way, thee reby enhanc g the chances of
academic suzcess. lor women, in contIast, tliis salutary relation-
ship does not exist. In fact. . . a number of aspects. . . create
obstacles to he: success (Huber, l970: 34— 5;)
Again, citing some broader evidence of se :bias in higher education,
Elizabeth Cless points out that:
today more than 75% (some estimates are as high as 95%) of the
intellectually gifted youngsters who do not enter college are girls.
Approximately 50/ of all women who enter college drop out before
receiving their first degrees. All the sources recently examined
by Jencks and Riesman for lliE MC .DEEIC RE‘JCLUTIChs suggest that IIcmen
with BA; 3 are less than half as likely as men to earn a graduate
degre , despite tr Ie fact that, on the average, they have better
undergraduate records than men. (Cless, l97l: 3l2)
In an extreme case cited by HEAL (n.d.), "2l,000 women were turned down
for college entrance in the state of Virginia; during the same period of
tinIe NOT OiE application of a male student was rejected." At the graduate
level the same pattern exists:

According to a l9 68 we MII_ REPORT? In llO”Ell AND G? ADUATE STUD{. 72E
of all vomon receiving the bachelors degree in l961 planned to
attend graduate school and 7tE of them had high academic records.

By 1964, 42% had enrolled for graduate study but only 2/5 of those

were full-time students. (Cless, l97l:3l2)

On another level is the issue of what Universities have done to
correct sex biases. Daniel Zwerdling in The New Republic (l97l: ll-l3 )
reported that the thI ea t of blocked funds was necessary to force the
University of Hichiuan to institute reform to correct sex bias. The
same article also pointed to ways that universities can hide meaningful
statistics.

In sumnary, these works have pointed to the fallacy of viewing
the inferior educational attainnIc at as a pIoblem of indivIdual we Ien--a
line of reasoning that' 'has locked for inrzr traits when it should have

been looking at social contc,t. (Heisstein, l968z2).

h1: nters arc to1d they

-r 1'USQ EXEC
hUmGn h”1r-TJ10”

if rats run maze- te'fi
that the studx of

are bright then it is obv1ou
requires, first and foremost, a study 01 1the sacia1 contcyts within
which peop1e move, the e> pectations as to how they w111 be1ave .nd
the authorii.y which te11s them who they are anal vhat they are su1 “s d
to do. 1101ss1e n, 1968: 6)
A11 these works question “the assumption that peon1e more 1n n

1ndi~

context free ether, with on1y their innate dispositions anc the1r

" (Heisstein, 1958: 7)

vidua1 traits determining what they wi11 do.

Part C
A major portion of the studies on students who are married assune :ni
find that it is the husband on1y who is the student These studies

121ea1ing with S E.S., GPA's, marita1 adjustment, happiness, per cna11ty

19601 A11er, 1962; Fa1k, 1964;

I1ceds, etc. (Christopherson, et. a1,
iun t, 1967; Hur1ey and Pa1onen,

(Ihi1man and Meyer, 1966; Fsh1en1an and!
k of theoretica1 formu1ations,

1967)], are of 1imited va1ue due to 1) 13c
2) weaknesses in basic design. and 3) incomparabflity of data because

0": samp1ing prob1ems” (Marsha11 and King, 1966:350—9) Many show an

'irwssensitivity both to the prob1ems faced by married iomen who want an
C3<1l1cation and, more basica11y, to the 1egitiuacy of their even wanting

an education.

 

For examp1e, ore study reports that “on1y 1% of the men and 4
63 women had drrtped out of co11eqe at any time becau e of marriage
' 1 ' ' \ rrc

th
( (:ifiilnEWIand Meyer, 1965:69). Cenera1izirg to the entire popu1at1cn
'12: Y‘ried students is invahd because the sa:1:p1e doesn't even inciude a1?
() Cbse peop1e who dropped out but did not 1eturn to be part of a s np1..
8; (er studies vere were aware of the poss1b1e c1rcu1stant1a1 bias oi the
KJckwfi‘sa1u1c” (Christa pherson, et. a1., 1960:128). Those married
11ke1y dreppedcutcfiischoo1

s;
Ei1t1$1dents with i:he n10 st [rob1ens have most
“C1 are no 1c-1'1.1gcr around to be interviewed.

13

Of some interest are the studies of the S.E.S. of married students

which suggest that "apparently married male students are more apt to come

rom families of lower S.E.S. than unmarried males." (Marshall, l9662352),
Eshleman and Hunt (l967z487) go farther to say that "the bulk of married
students come from a lower class background.” If this is true, it may
partially explain why so few of the wives are in school: Both the huSuands
and the wives probably subscribe to more traditionally defined sex-roles,
meaning that both are less likely than their single contemporaries to see
education as a reasonable expectation for the wife.

Marshall (l966) found that student couples with children enjoy less
satisfactory marital adjustment; married students participate less in
college activities and finally that married males aspire to higher future
goals than single males. He goes on to say that ". . . the differentiai
aspiration of the females was not generally as marked as the males and was
somewhat complicated by the fact that many of the women were fulltime
housewives." (Marshall, l966:357). while he suggests that ”it would
appear that the process of marriage is largely responsible for the
higher educational aspirations of the married respondents" (Marshall,
1966:357), .e seems to ignore or take for granted the effects of marriage
on women. Other writers as well show this insensitivity to the conditions
which stack the deck against women.

In contrast to Marshall's acceptance of the status quo as natural
law are writings which suggest some of the implications of the present
pattern of husbands obtaining more education than their wives:

But, by and large, couples are not equally educated. The accepted

pattern is for husbands to have more schooling, wives to have
and as the years of togetherness accumulate, the differential

l4

widens. . . He winds up with a Ph.D. she with a “Ph.T., the
ConsulaM: y degree for ”putting huthy through“. An election has
been ma: e that the husband 5 career tas ;riority . . . . No

doubt the young woman's sacrificei as appreciated but the division
of labor begins to divide interests too. Routine work keeps her in
a narrow channel, while he goes on to increasingly more complex
levels of thought. In most cases her career is eclipsed. The wife
who puts her husband through, winds up through. (Reeves, l97lz33—4)

Several studies have been done concerning married students at HSU
and Lansing Community College (Ross, l9 3, l9 65; Erickson, 1966; Hunt,
l966; Thomas, l915; Lantz, l969). Dorothy Ross points to the greater
diffiCulty wonen face getting the education they are intellectually
capable of:

Sanford has stated 'one of the greatest dangers at the period of

late adolescence is that the young person will commit himself pre-
maturely to a social 1:2le that helps define hini as all right in the
eyes of the world but w ich is not in keeping with his needs and
talents. The marriage. 1 ese youn woiien made were not inappropriate
in the eyes of the world. . . . But they found themselves in situa»
tions which restricted their freedom to grow and develop as autonomous
individuals. (Ross, l963275)

The three "lacks", lack of time for home and family, lack of time for
study, and lack of finances, contributed to the suppression of

goals that could have been appropriate for the intellectual potential
of the woman. (Ross, l965:8-9), these studies illustrate the iiiact
of the cultural attitude toward marriage and iamily on the goals and
concerns of the beginning single freshman and her married undergraduate
sister. From my vantage point as a counselor of both men and women
students, it seems to me that the counselling of women in higher
education is a nore era rplex process than counseling of men. To

the consideration of such factors as motivation, academic aptit de
special skills, and interests which are applicable to helping a man
make an appropriate choice to which he can then proceed with singl
purpose, we have to add for women the resolution of the conflicts
presented in these factors:

1. The present attitude of the American society which places almost
any kind of a n;arriage for a woman above a career or intellectual
attainment. . . .

2. The limitation imposed by the ”perceived” attitude of the
significant male--boyfriend, husband, father, professor, or
0thEPS.

”J
(fl

3. The selection of a program which will lead to a goal which will
be possible to coinbine witi the responsibilities of marriage
and .amily.

4. The selection of a goal which permits interruption for child~
bearing and rearing.

5. The physical and psychological stamina necessary to combine
roles successfully.

6. The availability of educational or vocgtional opportunity with
husband's mobility.

7. The frustration inherent in suppression or downgrading of goals
as a result of marriage. (Ross, 1965:9—l0)

The findings of a stuc‘y by Lantz (l969) suggest that those women
who are in school have more clearly defined goals and more feminine
oriented occupational plairs than those not in school. This suggests
that school is easier and seen as more reasonable for those women who
accept cultural attitudes and who choose a feminine care er—-in other
words, women who stay in their place.

A third study concerning adult students found that: Women were
older; both the men and the women tended to come from non~college
parental backgrounds; spouses tended to have some colleo ge education
(but more of the husbands had done graduate work); the men were aiming for
higher degrees than the wdncn; more women than men were in education; and,
while the men held a variety of jobs, the women were concentrated in
office, sales, teaching and nursing. (Erickson, l966).

(The Faculty-Student Committee in their Proposal For a Married
fStudant Service Center (l97 ) concluded th:t the stuc ’ent wife:

is a pv~cnncr to her a part: ent; she cannot share with her husband
in his ' .e‘leccui. Cc\EiOum“nc. Hence the situation arises in
idiich the infidxnid grows 5: .ti iewctually while tfitiiviie remains
stagnant, tctsming an in¢reasingly less stimulating panther to her
hush;nd. doth conflict in the wife naturally pronuccs strains in

.4
in

the marital relationship whicho fiLen cannot be reduced unles

concrete changes . the enviionmeht are made. (Facultvatudent

Committee, l37lz6)
Even this seeminolv understanding study fails to get at basic underlyiz.1
assumptions concerning the rights of women.

Margaret Mead has sugg sted that wonen's lack of education is
not only for the individual woman's developing autonomy, but also for the
marriage relationship and, by extension, for society in gene~a . Some
universities have instituted programs aimed at correcting this imbalance
by encouraging (with scholarships) the wives of male students to continue
their own schooling at the same time as their husbands. (cf. (Schleman,
1969a, l969b).

The remainder of the articles deal with two issues. First are the

_/socialization variables which prevent married women from seeing education

as a reasonable expectation for themselves. Whitehurst (n.d.) has
suggested one mechanism by which women keep themselves out of school:

It is probable that American mothers find it ove rwl elmingly

unacceptable to see in themselves a very importa.n: level of self"

seeking behavior. . . . self—seeking appears in this sample to he

covered by rationalizations of doing something for the children,

family benefit, or society. (Hhitehurst, n.d.;8)

Second, are the more tangible difficulties of being a married woman

student. The :se inclu 3e duties which customarily fall on the wife:

Cl"
C)
22'
:3.

care of children and responsibility for housework, helping the hu 5
with his work, and the need to earn m ney to pay for the husband‘s
education. All of thee are a combination of cultural expectations and
objective conditions. Of the difficulty in breaking out of old patterns,
Cynthia Epstein writes:

Today worth who cho.:3 bot” marriage ‘ ad a czreer face a ngarly
norwless situation. . . . lhe ability t;o deal with rr'ula> roles.

—J
\3

l l

,0

r a matter of individual adaptation and compromise.

is still
,. O)

argc
"3 c‘i-‘x ' "i‘n-‘C
\Lpoctlfi, inc.

|\‘i "

\~..
0

A final observation on the writings in this catrgory: some of the

' while doubtless true, can be and are used in a way

'in their place.” For instance, many studies (c.f.

reported ”facts,‘
that keeps women '
Fagerburg, l967) report that interrupted students are better students.
This can and does provide a rationale for saying that the present status
quo (women getting their education after their kids grow up) should be
preserved. Consider, on the other hand, how outraged we would be by
anyone’s suggesting that since older blacks are better students than
younger blacks, universities should not worry about making it possible
for more young blacks to attend college. The same holds if we substitute
men for women in the analogy. Here I am not denying that older students
may very well be better students, only that the evidence seems to be
used selectively as a rationale for preserving the status quo. However,
even if people are better students (usually operationally defined as
getting better grades) it is still true that a late vs. an early educa»
tion does restrict one's life chances.

At the time the data was collected for the present study, most
studies of married women students were based on the assumption that
less education for women was 'natural', and furthennore great strides
had been made in improving educational opportunities for women. The
present study began with the assumption that women receive less education
than men for two reasons (neither of which is the result of some
inherent part of female nature‘: (l) they are taught, early and late,

to expect less, and (2) the objective conditions under which they, as

l8

compared to men, must get an education severely limit the likelihood

of their getting as mach as their intellectual capabilities would indicate.
Looked at in another way, the present study suggests that in order

to get the standard rewards of the educational system one must play by

the rules. The rules, as far as education is concerred, are that men

will get the amount of education they want, need, and are capable of

either before marriage, or after marriage with the financial and moral

support of the wife. The man will get an education and a good job

(which is what men are expected to want) and the woman will get the

security and status of her husband's achievements (which is what she is

expected to want).

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY

The data used for this study were collecte from two sources:
statistics from the Office of the Registrar at MSU, and lSO telephlne
interviews. The latter were done by the author at the end of Spring
quarter T970.

From the Fall l969 HSU Student Directory, a stratified random
sample (including both graduate and undergraduate students) was selected
consisting of one hundred and fifty women in each of three categories:1

1. Fifty women who were currently students but whose husbands
were not.

2. Fifty women who were currently students whose husbands were
also.

3. Fifty women who were not currently students but whose husbands
2
were.

Ninety-eight per cent of the women contacted agreed to cooperate with

the study. Data concerning both spouses was obtained from each woman.

 

1In all, the original sample included l88. Twenty~four Persons could
not be contacted for the following reasons: moved, onliSted phone, or
disconnected phone. An additional nine numbers resulted in no answer over
a two week period, and the university refused to give the addresses or
numbers of two people. Finally of the l53 women contacted only three
refused to complete the interview schedule: one could not Speak English,
one was reluctant to give the information over the phone, and the third
did not want any part of the interview.

2 . . . . .
A person was counted as a student if he or sne was a student during
any one of the three quarters from Fall l959 to Spring l970.

l9

?U

Telephone interviewing compared to regular interviewing is fast and

~
I
I

efficient--a l interviews were completed between hay 20 and June 6;
travel time or expenditure was necessary; people seldom home were easily
reached, and out of town respondents could be included despite the
distance. All these factors made it possible for all interviews to be
done by one person and to be completed at essentially the same time (end
of Spring quarter)~-incre asing the con waiatility of the data. The
advantages over mailed questionnaires are many. First the very high
response rate of the present study is never equalled by mailed question-
naires. Only three out of l53 did not complete tt e interview. Secondly,
complicated directions would have been necessary on a questionnaire
making onestionna1re completion difficult for maiiy respondents. Finally,
the Open ended questions were no doubt answered in more depth.

One disadvantage of telephone interviewing is that many people are

suspicious of telephone calls from strangers. Although I was extremely

w’.
v

successful at gaining their cooperation, I have some ethical res£:rv:t e

about that very success. Increasingly large portions of people‘s pr “vai‘

lives are becoming material for data banks. Eve en the possibility that
Wei data could be used tzo control people agein etheir will mates me

uncomfortable about my potential ontributisn to this trend. More

ann'Cioo'l , but still potentially harmful, the far t that respon ants

. - . ----- 7-,, u - .- \.'~q‘r\ P. K ~ -\ ,1 I‘ .I ',.~'\;\', _I‘
Came to iiusi. be en the. phone may have mad: then hu:u cpen CLL vulnc.acia
. '1. ..,,,:5 -.,,~._,,1,,e 4-... ”A . 2
to tne ngzzaa te:epnunesolic1tations tha; .ccur oa.ly.
‘r '. . -',.. ' .c I ’ 1r ‘1.. w .4— .2 1,... ,.
ihe than..:cw itsel. toon from au~.a erltes, but rany luSLLJ .cng<..
t1. .1 +3.”; 0 ,, _ - -r 1 '11“. M1,”; .c' , . fif—“Vl -°_.‘.' (.3... iv?"
I‘t -|e (:: ‘\ O; Lai'x- 1:315} VIEW 1 L'st‘a‘ g" a..43"\t.'.) LI];- 333.10“ ' : (JV-‘3‘ HUM
__._' ,. l. _... n. h ,_ ‘,... ._ n" “,1 .‘I‘I.’ --.. _..-,. A,” ‘3‘,,\f ;
QUE?- LION; (.0 «3‘3 ..‘.' 0: any (.Ulhnzelllio Lu Iwmu‘ . A: thing-:5 5.115999. “an-l. :l > ii.“ .

2!
IV ': § .- " ' ‘. C ’I." 4;" . " ~'-‘ ‘I {7" n v,“ ‘. ~ 4- N W \. .‘gh. 1‘. J: . {.l. 1 ‘0. . . .
(wh.ch lasted f.nm one to sorty-.Ive m‘HULLb) .sie o. I.ctie use to me in
. -- 4."... ... ., , .. . . a. .... ..L.1 .. .: ......z ._.,_. ,V. a
the actual study~~ hey weze extremgxy sulUQUtt .n anachc: Sense. Data

tions and

'1‘:

collection is usually a one way strgwtu-thc interviewar asks que
the respondent answers. Through these informal (and in many cases wann
and intensely personal) conversations a new model was possible. Some
re5pondents had opinions on the worth and condu.t of the study which they
.wanted me to know about. Some were negative about the study, while others
felt the focus of the study was vitally important. Others gave me a lot
of encouragement to continue with the study after the thesis was done.
Some respondents were intellectually or enoticnallv aifected by the
interview. For example, for some women it was their only chance to talk
twith another adult during the day. For others, it was a chance to compare
'problems and accomplishments with another person who was trying to

combine family responsibilities with getting an education. Some were
threatened by various issues brought out in the interview and needed
reassurance that they personally were alright. Others had personal

problems and appreciated the chance to talk through those problems with

I“?

a sympa hetis stranger.

ts sane extent, many respondents got more from the interview
‘thsn simply a chance to give someone data for a thesis. I think an
interviewer has an ethical responsibility to respondents-~to recognize
and take account of the complexity and autonomy of each individual (some-
thing a questionnaire or an interview genera ly does not do}; and to

take some responsibility for the fact that the interview may bring out
feelings in the respondent that may need to be dealt with right away.

I have chosen not to use the information shared in these infonnal conver~

. I u. ‘ . . #- -- n T. -: -r_ ‘ -I' ‘ ~ . .. J; . _ : J... ‘n x 1‘ - - v.4 Q. a . ~ ‘
satzcus since I ieel at rouze be u vinla ion of bldJL and intimacy.

RESULTS

Although it is often contended that women now have equal access
to education, the results of this study are consistent with an opposite
contention. First, the results show significant differences between men
and women in the direction of the men obtaining more of the standard
rewards of academia.3 Furthennore, there are significant differences
between the three groups of subjects (each containing both men and wonen)-r
the most startling of these being that male students whose wives are also
in school are less likely than other men, and even less likely than the
women in two of the other categories, to get the standard rewards of the
system. Some of the differences which were documented by the study are
presented below. The more generally descriptive results are outliner
first, followed by those results that best illustrate the differential
attainment of the standard rewards of academia. Some of the qualitative
responses to question number thirty-two are included in Part II,

allowing more insight into the values, hopes and fears of the respondents.

 

I

5 c 0 o
tore degrees, uninterrupted education, etc.

2’)
.l—

23

Batu.

The three groups1+ interviewed for this study differed from each
other in significant ways along the following dimensions; age, numbers
and ages of children, employment, income, friends, parents' education,
husband's reaction to wife‘s education, and impressions regarding the
effect of schol rships.

The age differences between the three groups were considerable
and in the hypothesized direction, with Group II being the youngest and

Group I the oldest.

TABLE l
AGE BY GROUP AND SEX

 

\m"

 

 

can—u“- ‘- _. —_'_ ‘ 7 ' _v__

 

_.§.C.0.‘.~£P._L _ “GreueiL ‘Group III __
Women Men Women Men Women Men

 

25 or under ll 9 36 29 l8 ll
over 25 39 4l l4 21 32 39
Mean age 35:]0 38fll 24:4 26:5 28ifi 29in

 

Although by definition all the women in the sample were married,
l0 per cent {5) of the women in Group l were separated at the time of

the interview.

 

for the remainder of this thesis the three groups will be referred
to as follows:
GPOUp
Group Both husband and wife students.

7 Wife 8 student, husband not.
I:
Groun Ill: Husband a student, wife not.

s
l

The d}

were smal‘é

.r.
l

ierenCLs in the mean age at marriage betw en the three groups

although twice as many of the women in Groups I and II were

 

 

 

 

 

married L- .re age 20 as compared to the women in Group III.
TABLE 2

AGE AT MARRIAGE BY GROUP AND SEX

.;§:925:L2_ Group II "“Grnup III

Nomen Men Women Men Women Men
under 20 l0 l ll 4 5 5
20-24 28 26 39 46 39 31
25 and over l0 4 0 C 0 0
Mean age 22.06 24.68 20.58 22.3 2l.8 23.0
s.d. 3.4 4.4 l.7 2.3 2.4 3.6
N= 50 50 50 50 50 50

 

 

Women with children, especially preschool children, are less

likely to be going to school.

Women in Group III (who are at home) are

twice as likely to have children as are the women in Group II (who are

students). women in Group I (who are also students) are even more

likely to have children but theirs are less likely to be of pre-chool

age.

Ix)
'J'l

TfBLE 3

NUMBER OF CHILDRTN PER FAMILY BY GROUP

 

 

Group I Group II Group III

 

no children 9 32 16
1-2 children 18 14 30
3—4 children 22 2 3
5-6 children 2 2 l

 

—m.vu-o -o

A high percentage of married students in all three groups are
employed. Although having to work is often cited as a reason for not
going to school it seems clear from Table 4 that many people are able

to work full time as well as attend school.

TABLE 4
EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY GROUP AND SEX

A

 

 

 

e1” 1—1717— WEN-241!-
not employed 18 l 16 12 22 14
Part time 7 O 16 16 6 15
full time 25 47 18 22 22 21
N= 50 50 50 50 50 5O

 

-- — rv—v— .-

One of the most frequently mentioned reasons For not being in
school is lack of finances. Yet it is the group with the lowest income
that finds it possible for both the husnand and wife to go to school.

Almost all of the women in Group I have very high family iecomes.

26

There were only three respondents in Group I with incomes of less than

$5,000/year--all three were recently separated from their husbands.

TABLE 5
ANNUAL INCOME BY GROUP

 

 

 

Group I Group II Group III
filer $5 ,000 3 15 8 2.2....
over $15,000 26 4 7
N= 50 50 50

Mean $12,500 $6,500 $8,500

 

There is a very high correlation between attending school and having
close friends who attend school. However, it cannot be inferred from
the present data whether having close friends in school is a cause or an

effect of the woman herself being in school.

TABLE 6
NUMBER OF CLOSE FEMALE FRIENDS NOW IN SCHOOL BY GROUP

 

w.-- -‘m.’ -m~-——-—u--— w,

 

v—w -.~.—--‘~-o q—a-~-«

 

Ima§gwu

 

 

Group I Group II Group III
None v 16 15 29
l or more 34 34 20
has no close friends 0 l l

N= 50 ' 50 50

 

An interesting and unexpected finding concerns the educational

level of the respondents' parents. The data in general do support the

(l)

hypothesis that marri d students have less educated parents than the
student body in general. However there are interesting differences in
the data from Group I. The fathers of women in Group I are ten times

as likely as the fathers of the women's husbands to have ore or more
college degrees. Almost a of the women's fathers have college degrees,
while only 2 of the 50 fathers of their husbands have degrees. This
same relationship holds for women in Group II but the difference is much
less striking (15 of the wives' fathers and 12 of the husbands'

fathers have degree. In Group III the opposite holds—~the husbands'
fathers are more educated than the wives'. In all three groups the
mothers of both the men and the women have roughly the same number of
college degrees (in each group between 11-13 of the mothers have one or
more college degrees). The anomalous situation of the wife's father
having more education than the husband's father still obtains in Group I
even when age is held constant5--suggesting that the difference cannot
be attributed to the relatively large number of older women in Group 1.
Looking at each individual couple from Group I, one finds that the

Same pattern holds: in 31 out of 50 cases the wife's father has more
education than the husband's father, in 8 cases the education of both
Spouses; fathers if roughly equal, and in 6 cases the husband's father

has more education. One possible hypothesis is that only women who feel

 

_--% W a ‘v

5 . . , . , , ,
ConSidering all eeucation, not Just college degrees.

very much entitled to an education (i.e.. we on iio came from were
highly educated families themselves) can justify heir going to school
after marriage and children. This, combined with the fact that their
family incone is very high, may explm n wi.y Ht .5 more reasona‘le

to them (than to women in general) to get an education.

TABLE 7

EDUCATIGNQL LEVEL OF PARE'TS EWY ROUP AND SE

 

 

 

~0m-4-—.-_—- --... *———g—g——.——.o‘-—v~. ..... -- _ -

 

 

__., v v. "-m‘1'--—1 cc —u— ---'---1" v w j, -~ . -—-v- » "W - s-~- --Q .1. -~- u—u -0-—-.—s-¢--

Group I Group II urouz) III

 

 

 

Women Men ' Women ilen homen Men
Fa_. No. Fa. (9. Fa. Vo.Fa4,MQ, Fa. lo. ra. fifllu

 

 

 

BA 10 9 I ll “7 9 7 7 7 577?; 10 ll
MA 4 4 0 l l 4 l 4 2 2 3 1
PhD, MD, etc. 7 0 l 0 5 0 4 O 3 O 3 0
Totals 2l l3 2 l2 l5 ll l2 ll l4 “*8 l6 l2
N = 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

 

The data from one question, "How does (or would) your husband feel
about your going to school?” do not seem very valid or reliable. It
probably does not reflect the complexity of feelings inherent in the
situation. However, two things may be mentioned. First, considering
only gross differences, it appears that fewer of the husbands in Group
III than in either of the other two groups are in favor of their
wives going to school. Some of the ”no answer" responses may r fleet
a negative attitude on the part of the husband (the respoise in many
cases was "Oh, I wouldn‘t go anyway so .is opinion wouldn't matter)."

Fi: ally it is inter:SIiir ._though perhaps unwarranted) to speculate

29

why so many of the husbands in Group g9_encourage their wives to go te
school-«perhaps it is easy to be ~ncouraging if they know that their

wives really wouldn‘t go anyway.

TABLE 8

HUSBANDS' OPINIOflS ON WIFE GOING TO SCHOOL, BY GROUP

 

 

Group I. Group II Group III
no answer 0 0 l0
encouraging 45 47 34
indifferent l 3 1
negative or OK with

conditions 4 O 5
N: 50 50 50

Since money is often cited as a reason why married women don't go
to school, I asked the following question: ”If special scholarships
were provided for married women, do you think more of them would go
to school?” Though some of the people answered the question in terms
of themselves, most answered in terms of others or of women in general.
Some answered for both themselves and others-~thus the column totals
may be more than 50. In general, the women in Group III were the least
likely to see scholarships as an incentive for most women. Not even
1/3 said "yes", as compared to 2/3 of Group II and over l/2 of Group I.
They were almost three timeC as likely as women in either Group I or
II to say "no" (with respect to both themselves and others). However,

with respect to themselves, they were slightly more litely than either

I or II to say "Yes, a scholarship would help me“—~l2 as compared to 7

v‘

and 9 reSpectively. Interpretation of these results is very tentativv

Perhaps the women in Group III are aware that there are many reasons
more important than money why women don't go to school. Women in Group II
see the most value in scholarships, perhaps pecans of their very high

interest in school and their very limited family inc;mes.

TABLE 9

PERCEIVED VALUE OF SCHOLARSHIPS SPECIFICRLLY
FOR MARRIED HOHEN, BY GROUP

 

 

or“. .__.__.

 

 

Group I Group II Group III

 

For Self: 3 5 l7
No 3 5 17
Yes 9 7 12
No answer 33 38 17
Wouldn‘t go anyway 0 0 3

For Others:

No 9 5 l3
Yes 28 34 T8
No answer ll 7 20
Don't know 2 4 2
N= 50 5O 50

 

Summary of Part I

 

The results thus far indicate that women in Group I are considerably
older than other students; that women with preschool children are less
likely to be students; that the amount of income necessary for the wife
to go to school is very relative; that a large proportion of married
students are employed; that woven in Group I have more highiy educated

fathers than do their husbands; that husbands feelings about their

3i

-. ' . n- . ~V\ "A \\'-'c/ '4‘ a, “‘0 —\‘ " ’ a"‘\"\ "' .\."-~
wives education vary bhhhdgn tnc giuups, and that wouen have mixed
1

feelings about the value of schewlai hips for mairied ix wen

C-WC'” -—‘

while the precargir g results do point to Some differences along
sex lines between the six sut mg oups, the fol 'lowing items provide the
clearest delineation fo the differential distribution of the standard

rewards of academia. For the purposes of this study degree attaim

‘5)
£4“?

amount of certainty about future degree plans,n nuiuber and duration of
interruptions in education, GPA, credit load, major field, full-or partv
tire. status, and type of job held while self or spouse is going to s;hoel
were used as indicators of the standard rewards of academia. Briefly
somna.17td the differences between the groups tend in the following

directions:

-Men whose wives den' ‘ go to school (Group III) have both the hi(iiw
ex..<LUiious and highest achievements related to education.

~ women who go to scho c- latter in life (Group I) are next in line
on most dimensiois e witi in total number expecting to get a PhD.

~Men and women who iroth go to school (Group II) face more diffi~
culties and have lower expectations than either of the above.

-wcmen whose husbands are in school but who are not in school
themselves expect and get the least in terms of degrcme , etc.

Assuming a random distribution of abilities and an open system (i.e.
no systematic discriniination) one would expect roughly equal numbers of
men and women to be obtaining BA's, MA's and PhD‘s. This was clearly
not the case for the lSO couples interviewed at MSU in l970.

First, there are large differences among the four groups of students
in terms of what ree they are presently working on. Males who se

wives are not students are almost twice as likely as the next higher

group (women in Group I) to be enrolled in a PhD. program. hen whose
wives are in school however, show a pattern more similar to the won:n
in the sample-~they are less likely than even the women in Group I to

be in a PhD. program.

TABLE l0
NUMBER NOW IN PHD PROGRAM, BY SEX AND GHOUP

 

g.--._ §u...\-—. “_ —.

 

 

— —————- .-~a—'.-‘ “—--

__firoupml__. .EFO?” II “*Group III

Honmni hen Vhrnen"“lani lhnnen_ ’lkni

 

In PhD. program 8 -- l 6 »- l5
Other 42 -- 49 44 -- 35
N= 50 -- 50 50 fi- 50

 

The same general pattern holds (with some leveling) in comparisons

of the numbers of students in each group enrolled in graduate progransn

including MA and PhD.

TABLE ll
N'MBER ENROLLED IN GRADUATE PROGRAMS, BY GROUP AND SEX

-nu—g-

 

 

“on

 

Ewell}.

 

 

Group I __Group I} _ ”g“
Women hen Women hen homen Men
No. in Grad. Prog. 25 -- 2l 24 —- 34

N= 50 -- 50 50 —- 50

 

33

The following table nhich combines the number of persons with a
PhD. already, or who are now in a PhD program makes comparison with

the non—student spouses possible.

TABLE 12
NUNBER WITH PHD OR IN PHD PROGRAM, BY GROUP AND SEX

 

“-— __v -“m
_.-_ --..-..

 

 

 

 

Group I Group II Group III_
Women Men Homen Ken women Hen
No. with PhD or
in PhD program 8 l5 l 6 0 l5
N= 50 50 50 50 50 50

 

The differences between and within the three groups are striking,
with men consistently obtaining more PhD's than their wives. Also, this
comparison shows a very marked difference between men in Group 11
compared with men in the other two groups—~a difference which still obtains
when age is held constant.

Future degree plans of the subjects also follow the same pattern.
0f the men in Group III, 2l expect to have a PhD by the time they are
through going to school. knong their wives on the other hand, only 4
ever expect to obtain a PhD. There is sharp distinction between men
and women along this dimension. Even the women in Group I, who on many
dimensions fare better than the men in Group II, expect to get fewer
PhD's than any of the three groups of men. Furthermore, the equality
which seemed apparent in the educational careers of Group II couples
disappears, with nearly four times as many of theinen expecting to get

a PhD.

5

(:5

TABLE l3

a! fit“ r: r1° | 1 '\,"’f .‘jier; cr~r" :Hr .
:.l.iL«D\LL>AL l‘:\’. ]U lib‘l. 'ilt VLJ- - I. CR

l.
hHO HAVE IT ALREADY, BY GROUP AID SLX

 

._-. p——-— - - -'. -- .-.—. m. —_. - —-—-

 

 

 

 

 

G.L;0.ILL_I-_-_ . GI. tLLL II GrPLLLL I II...
Thimni Inn Ilene-:1 ’7Tn: 'Women hen
No. having or
expecting PhD l2 l8 5 l8 4 2l
N= 50 50 50 50 50 50

 

The reslonses to the open one ’ed questions provide dimension of
analysis on the subject of degree attainment. Most of the responses
show the degree to which \HOlGn accept stanoa.d sex-role definitions~~
many see their lack of education as their own perso.ia al problem, feel
that women should be able to "keep up” without going to college; feel
that men need more education than women; and feel that it is more okay
for a wonan than for a man to feel inferior.

Most outstanding is the degree to which the responses suggest that
women see their lack of schooling and the resultant difficulties as
their own personal problem or as "the way things should be". The follow-
ing quotes are in response to the question "many husbands get more
education than their wives. Do you see this as a problem?

Many women said that not only was this no problem, but infect
husbands shgpld_have more education than their wives. The's messed
the "logic" of this plana nd the importance of the wife's accepting her

inferior position:

35

—-I don't think it s a problen as long as they recognize that they
are not noc~<saiiI 'fltPIIL,‘UuI equals.

--Heavens no, he WI uld ha.e nore.

—-No this is probably good for the entire family--i.e. good for his
ego. .

--His will hOpe fully surpa:;s mine. l.f you have to put all your
eggs in one baslet, they should go in the husband's. I won't
be working for the rest of my life.

--. . .Like if both want to go to shcool, but they can only afford
one or the other, it would looicallv be the hu band, be cause he
has to be the breadwinner.

Another large group pointed out that it would be much worse if it

were the wife who had more education. Women can accept feeling inferi1or,
but men can't. Also some saw the strains put on a family by an educateo

woman as illegitimate:

--Doesn‘t matter except if wife has more than husband. In our
society it doesn't matter if the wife feels a little inferior.

--In general I think the husband would have more, wife shouldn't
feel superior educationally.

--More problem if the wife has more

--Yes, but it' 5 still bet er than the wife having more education
than her husband. . . .The more education the wife has then
maybe she' ll start to get career oriented and put some strains
on the family.

--The big problem is that women get too much education. It's
eventually going to break down the family system. . . .

A number of wanen said that while this could be a problem, the
burden is on the wife to fi.1d some way to "keep up."
~-It is the wife's responsibility to keep up

--No, no problem. I kind of keep up with him (reading, talking
With peeple.

--No, most of my friends read a lot and belong to League of Women
Voters, and Sierra Club so they keep up just fine with their
husbands.

I

Others said that the husbond having more education was not a
problem generally but then went on to say that it had been a problem for
then personally. The tone was generally selfureproaching or at least
very particularized~-its just our particular relationship, or my
particular husband—-with little recognition of the problems inherent
in the structure of the situation:

--No. The only problem is my case (her husband has a law degree
and they are now separated, leaving her to support the kids as
best she can).

--The big problem is that women get too much education. It's
eventually going to break down the family system. You get
pulled in all sorts of directions. But, then again, there are a
lot of husbands that get their PhD and then leave their wives
(llke mine did). . . but it's not the University's problem--
each person should find their own solutions.

On the other hand, many also pointed to the effects they had noticed

resulting from the husband having more education than the wife; divorce,

separation, feelings of inferiority and being left out:

--Yes, definitely. They've left their wives behind. I've seen
this in my friends.

--Yes, the husband tends to look down on his wife as less intelligent

--There is a higher incidence of marital deterioration when the
husband is in graduate school. There were five divorces in my
husband's department in two years (she herself is separated).

--Yes! Well there is a lack of communication. Some places I've
felt I didn't fit. You sometimes feel a little insecure.

--Yes! Hives don't fit in husband's social or academic groups.

-—Yes, especially when you get married young and the wife puts the
husband through law school. when finished she doesn't have
anything.

--But then again there are a lot of husoands that get there PhD's
and then leave their wives (like mine).

ut them through college—-

~~I know quite a few MD's whose wives
p between them.

0
after 15»20 years there is no rap crt

(.u
‘4

( P
”'3
..:1.
r+

L "T |- 1w ‘ r‘ I. .11: (1. ‘r'- 'J. ~15 - w .l\ l - q ' Iri'n'.‘ -\
N'.Jm-11 o: erg.ues CUUASLSLCu o. 1103 cued} i he on1y 1Hd1LuLC1

of differentiui distrihution of the 1m111tn a.r reuerds of the system.
There is a13o a wide variation (by sex and group} in ttiws of the
certainty of future degree p1ans. Those who a1e in the customary career
1ine (ma1e oriented) are the most sure of when they wi11 get their
degrees Honen in C11 three groups and men in Group 11 experience the
.ighest degree of uncertainty regarding future degree p1ans. The
fo11owing tab1e 1 epresonts the nun.oer of persons who respor.ded "DoWn

know” or “Far in the distance" to the question of ”when do you expect to

get your fina1 degree?”

TABLE 14
DEGI CE 0F (.ERTAIHTY REGARD11G rUiUiE DEGREE PLANS BY GROUP AND SEX

 

.- .-—o— g. .“ --—----‘ .

 

 

Group I Group II GroupfijII
Women Men Women Hen Women Men

 

 

 

 

No. who are
uncertain 14 5 11 13 17 8

N= 50 50 50 50 50 50

 

It appears that th 1e me n in Groups I and 111 can reasonab1v sume t1a
1itt1e wi11 interfer with their projected p1ans. Women, on the other
hand, can not make this assumption. In a dition to the possibi1ity of
interference from chi1dren (since the burden of kids and iiousework
genera11y fa11s on women) the; mu:;t Consider hcu to work their own
education into their husband'. career pattern, knowing that their own

interests not..; come second. It may be that the wen in Group II experiC11oe

the future in somewhat the same wayn-feeling that they may have to take
into consideration more than just their own career plans.

Another dimension wnere there ace wide differences between the data
for men and women concerns interruptions in university education.
Virtually all of the women in Group I (46/50) and 66 per cent of the
women in Group II have had their education interrupted one or more

times.

TABLE l5
INTERRUPTIONS IN EDUCATION, BY GROUP

 

-—— ‘-—v

 

 

Group I Group II
No. whose education has been
interrupted 46 33
N= 50 50

 

A further indication of the relative ease with which women drop
out of school is the turnover in students between Fall and Spring
quarters. Since the sample was from Fall quarter records and the
interviewing was done in the Spring, it was possible to note some
gross differences in the attrition rates of men and women. Roughly
20 per cent of the women who were in school in the Fall were not in
school by Spring quarter. The comparable figure for men is 6 per cent.
Furthermore, men in Group II are five tines as likely as men in Group
III to have dropped out by Spring quarter-—another factor highlighting

their marginal status.

39

TABLE T6

ATTRITION RHTES, BY GROUP AND SEX

 

 

——_ h. ...—- *‘ -_...—-—.-._ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

._.E.r;eee-l- “5321139. 11.... -ELDJPJU...
Women hen Women Hen Women Men
Out Temp. (plan*
to return 9 -— 8 5 -- l
Out permanently* 2 -n 2 0- -- 0
Still in school** 39 ~- 40 45 -- 49
N= 50 -- 50 50 -~ 50

 

*About 20 percent of the women students interviewed were out of
school Spring quarter. t would be interesting to compare their
response to those of the other 80 percent especially on the open-ended
questions.

**Includes those students who were not in school Spring quarter
by reason of having completed degree requirements Fall or Winter quarter.
Men in Group III had significantly higher grades than persons in
any of the other groups. The lowest grades were reported for the men

in Group II and the women in Group III.

TABLE 17
GPA, BY GROUP AND SEX

 

 

 

eroug I-.. smell... -ereeul
Women hen Homen Hen iomen Ken

Less than 3.0 TS -- l2 21 24 9

3.0 or aboe 35 -- 38 37 30 40

N= 50 -- 50 50 50 50

Mean 3.37 3.45 3.25 3.28* 3.55

*G.P.A. when last in school

40

One possible explanation for the variation in GPA is the differential
number of credits for which student are enrolled. A high proportion of
the men in Group II are enrolled in an overload (more than 15 credits) and
at the same time very few are enrolled in four credits or less. Although
the women in Group II are also very likely to be taking an overload they
are also somewhat more likely than Group II men to be taking four or less
credits. Men in Group III, on the other hand, are least likely of the
four groups of students to be taking a large credit load and most likely

to be taking a very light load.6

TABLE 18
CREDIT LOAD, BY GROUP AH SEX

 

u..- ..._. —

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£13353. I arm. -11.. Group 11.1.

Women Men Women Hen Women Men
4 or less IO ~— 8 4 -~ l9
5-6 7 -- 3 5 -- 2
Totals l7 -- ll 9 -- 21
l4-l6 ll -- 8 l2 -- 9
over l6 3 -~ 7 8 -- 2
Totals l4 —- 15 20 -- ll
N= 50 -~ 50 50 -~ 50

 

 

6The differences in credit load and GPA can be partially explained,
by the fact that more of the men in Group III are graduate students.

41

There are large differences between men and women in their choices
ofWWJCW‘field. While over 3/5 of the women are in education, only l/4
of the men are. Also men are enrolled in a much wider variety of fields
than are the w men. In several ways, however, the men in Group II
are more similar to the women than to the men in Group III. ion in
Group III are three times as likely as men in Group II to be in Business.7
The other unexpected finding is the high proportion of Group II men who
are in the social sciences--26 per cent as compared to 6 per cent of the
men in Group III and ll per cent combined total for the women. This
may_suggest that those men who marry women who continue in school after
marriage are somehow different from those men whose wives do not. They
certainly show gross differences in choice of major field. However, on
the other hand perhaps their choice of field is a result of their type
of marriage rather than a basic underlying preference. Some fields
such as business and the hard sciences may demand a certain rigid,
total commitment which doesn't allow for any variation from the tradi-
tional male lifestyle.

Women are more likely than men to be going part-time, which can
variously be seen as either an increased option or as a handicap.

However, while there are considerable advantages to going part«time,

 

7A study by Alice Pilotti and George Walton (T970) snowed that
there was perfect inverse correlation between the number of full pro-
fessors in a department (an indicator of the relative prestige of the
of the department) and the numler of women faculty in that departnent.
Business had the highest number of full professors.

4)
R:

attendance {professors have less interest in partmtime students,
fellowships and assistantships are not generally available to them},
and that this handicap falls mainly on women. For women in Group I,

going to school part—time is positvely correlated with age.

TABLE 19
FIELD, BY GROUP AND SEX

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group I Group II _§r9up_III._

Women Men Women ken Women "TWen

Education 3l ~- 30 l4 —- ll
Social Work 2 -- 0 l -— l
Home Ec. l -- 2 0 ~- 0
Psy,Soc,Pol.Sci. 4 -- 7 13 -~ 3
Business 0 -- 2 4 -- l2
Math,Hard Sciences 4 -- 0 5 -- 7
Other 8 -- 9 l3 -- 16
N= 50 ~- 50 50 -- 50

TABLE 20

FULL VS PART—TIME ENROLLMENT, BY GROUP AND SEX

 

 

 

 

Group I Group II__ _§rpup Ill.
iomen Men Women Men Women Wen
Part-time 29 -- l8 l3 -- l6
Full-time 2T -- 32 37 -- 34

N= 50 -- 50 50 -- 50

 

TLBLE 2T

AGES OF FULL AND PhRT—TIHE STUDENTS IN GROUP I WOMEN ONLY)

,\

 

 

 

 

 

Fulleime Part-Time
29 and under l2 7
over 29 9 22
N= 50 50

 

In considering the type of job held by the subjects, several
interesting comparisons can be made. First there are no women
represented in the category of Prof., lawyer, M.D., minister, etc.,
although l6 men from Group I and one from Group III are in that
category. Also there are more men than women at the GTA, GRA, or
instructor level. Women, on the other hand, are most likely to be
teachers, social workers, secretaries or nurses-~there are 72 women as
compared to 36 men in these categories (about l/2 of the women highly
represented in the "other" category-~42/l50 of the men compared to only
lZ/l50 of the women. This is similar to the finding that wanen are

represented in fewer academic fields than men (see Table 20).

Summary of Part II

 

In vir ually all the preceeding results there is a hierarchical
distribution—~with the males in Group III getting more of the rewards
that are most valued by the dominant culture and these males in Group
I already having attained them. Women in Group I are next in some respects,

but not in others. The men in Group II share many things in comnon with

the women although W

'--' --. -.s -. .1”. c .
it” rCepGut LO hummer ul Cegze€5

44

a\\r’v‘ \I-u
~‘ . .l(~
..1 f‘ ..\-

a. J
I

£0 and

.-

A

field they are more similar to the men than to the Women.

TYPE OF JOB, BY GROUP AND Se

TABLE 22

 

 

 

 

Group I

w-"

Women Wen

 

Q)
’ o
-

(“a

-f
.‘

 

Greer) III.

-—.—.‘_

Weten Hen

 

 

Clerk,sales, etc.
Secretarial

Nurse

Teaching, Soc. Work
Instruc,GTA,GRA
Prof.,WD,Lawyer,etc.
iilitary

Busiless

Other

Not employed

N.D.

N=

0
l
2
20

00001

(J)

3
O
0

—-l
QOQJON-D-OO-fi-

m _.I ._.a
O O . 2

5 5

(A)

O
O
7
ll

01000000.)
—-I

22 l4

50 50

f. In"; I"

ll
.
1'!

SU

\-

\..

‘a-lv‘r;- ." ’-
I l.‘.-‘.-. c

l
i

I~ 4
‘ ~,fi f
i- t l V

1

~‘

.00.
.
ii!
is.
.(
. t
.
¢.|
.-
.1
u!
,..r.
u..
I!
I.
.4.

l>

o '
1‘ n" :- “ f‘"r‘~:-
u n I t- \J 9.x. “1... .x

|

I
I

. \
.le‘ ll g

in" ‘2‘

ll 1.5 S'- Li i

-.n stacked

' ‘1
0‘3 r

:0. K ('3

I

"I

K.

.
l .

I G

'n ".!'s
.K

i

Married women students are oloor thsan 2"Flru Lain stfldtnts,
meaning primarily that th: here put off their own eduaaiinh until
their husbands' and children‘s needs rare taken care of. Altncoon a
case can be made tot edocction sting more men infiné Tn thcr tannin
than to young adults, the f;1ct still remains {hit a person who has: ‘1

\

get the necessary degree(s; netil one 30 wil be ‘ciUII iro7, o1 at
least severely handica ped in the pursuit of,lnost career1

The presence of children increases the likelihood that a remnn‘
not try to go to college since primam v in1nchsifiéliif for tacit cars

generally falls on the wife even area ton ness=nu rgi f :27. that

many go anywa' should not be taken as errof of t ere finish re gruplim.

The energy, resourcefullness and st niea renofz d is going to school
kids, as compared to without, is tremeniehe.
lia ny married women do not go to can :ge because they here to wo1k

to support their husbands' college car: ers. That tho' could protahly
find a way to get along without the wife's money is a moot po.nt,
since things one has never learned to expect cannot no part of oze's
bghavioral rc:pertoire.

That adequate income is a very relative content comes across very
Cl36riv in this study. Couples with combined incones of $l6,000 say
the rife drapped out of school because they didn't have enough money,

while other couples put both spouses throum colle e on $2 3f 0 per

Considering both of these variables~~childr:1n and income~-i.
seems that those wmnen who really feel entitled t.o :1_n ecuc tion {and

.. ,. p.311, 1. , ”'11 .’.‘--' . . . 1...”. .,, .I.. '-
ehcse mungAUS feel sSnil oily} will .ard a naV. howeves, the long

."
Orin-
\l

years of sr'“c.1e«t1on whrre a gi. l learns not to see a career as a
reasonablec .,-cta ion foa herself predispose women to compromise for
earlier and for far less than would a man of comparable talents.

That wanen expect to get less comes not only from their socializa-
tion as children and teem1 gers but also from their knowledge of *
reality of the university. It is oblious that fewer women than man
ever obtain PhD's, that more wcnen than men have their education
interrupted, and that women are represented in fewer good jobs than men.
As a result, women experience and express a great deal of uncertainty about
their future goals. This is ofter n cited as a character trait (flaw?)
of women in go eral-«they car.not n1a1e decisions. At least one aspect
of this is that women have cor reel ly perceived their re cality—-t he truth
is that they can ngt_mate decisions. Not bet aos eof some inner defect,
but because the objective cond1 cions of their lives mal<e it impossible
for them to act autonomously. lhe ability to make valid choices in the
light of one's needs is difficult when one's choices are always con-
tingent on (secondary to) another' 5 choices. 1

While it seems to me problematical whether getting a college
education is the best step in the direction of becoming an autonomous
person, 1t is clear that no kind of autonomy can develop when a person

is blocked from making her own decisions about the direction of her

 

Ilhe question of true autonomy is, of course, ouch broader, and
the case can he made that at present it is exercised b3' only a few p’c ople
(men 9: kGhSfl) in this society.

48

own life. homen have systematically been denied th1s opt1on, It

is easy to document th1s 1.1th re qard to peop1e geit rg the ew1c t1on
they want and I have therefore used tha as an example 1n this study.
But women experience Ia11y 1nstances where other peop1e have control over
the1r (women’s) .1ves e11mh .d1rect1y (Jr throuyh the meehan1sm of the
wonan "want1ng" always to do what 15 best for her husband and fam11y

and 1n the process deny1ng her own needs. 11h11e (as c1ted 1n the text}
ma1e's educationa] goa13 1nc1ease w1th marr1age . women's goa1s decrease
and w1th good reason. Marr1age for a man makese ' good care .er both n'ore
poss1b19 and more necessary. The oppos1te 1s true for women.

Looking at the future, I 1mag1ne there w111 be an 1ncreas1ng
demand for equal access to educat1on w1th 11tt1e quest1on1ng of the
va11d1ty of the present educat1ona1 system. On1y after th1s 1s
atta1ned w111 there be a w1despread concern w1th chang1ng some of t1e
bas1c assumpt1ons under1y1ng the present ed uc at1ona1 syste1n The

fo11aer1s perhaps 5 rec es .sr1r' ste;1 toward the 1atter. Women are just

‘

he o.nn1ng to change 1rom 51mp1y want11w1 a h1gger share of the customer;
rewa1ds ofa mz1a-dom1nated scc1ety to wanting to change the emphas1s

of those very rewards.
V

5
6.
* 7.
8.
* 9.
* O
l

*23.

*2 .

15:25

20.

1‘7]
* 2.
it '2

--'o
* ‘1.
*

APPEHLEA L

Are you currently a student?

Year in school

(For ortioao students only) b guanine. mid .e or and r7 n1egrsm
ield

(If not now a sin“ ui} amount of school comoleted

Full or part~tixu

Gradeo 90: nt ‘Mlzwma

(If not now it. school) were you in tall or winter, and do you plan

to return to school?

Number of credits this term

Age

How long married?

Number of ch ild ren

A9830 0: Chi-ldren .

How much school is ad you completed before marriage?

lhat inttrrUpiions, if any, have you had in your education——

include duration and reasons?

What degree are you currently working on?

When d: you expe at to get it?

Do you plan to get any oiher dggi

If so, when do you plan to get it 11 (fr

What are your me: n reasons for gm n: L: sehon ?

What did you do during the time gou wane not in school?

If tuition scholarships were providzd : ” or married

women student do you thing it \culd . e a fie..oiznce in their

going to school? (then asked the; Li 9.,JU‘JLE)

Are you employed?

Full or par ~time

Tyne of work

Ho' does yesx husband feel about your goin:; to sci: ol?

”‘3‘“- r: ')

I I " .
' f’~/"V‘:, " ‘I1E\'{

27. Lfixi iainly incon e

*28. Fe1hzr's education

*29. 3% f;hsr 's toa.dt.on

30. a.,n- your th:€€ closest female friends ho w many are currently
sttr'nts"

al. Rio taoze any t.}img that would make it easier for yea: to go to
school?

3“. “any husbands get more education than h.ir wives, do you see
this as a problem? (then asked them 1: elaborate)

*Stc‘.rred items indisite that data was Mcllected( um tte Hanan} on the

hus and as hell as the uife on these Vol.dusb$.

49

A11er, Fiorence D. 'Wie se1f COHCEpt in student m-1:t1 dU1U§LW“HC
Marriage 11nd Fami1X_Living, 25 (August): 371, 1i363.

 

Andreas, Caro1. The New Feminism. Unpub1ished paper, 1958.

Bird, Caro1ise. Born Fema1e: The High Cost of Keeoin: Coven flown,
New York: Focket Books, 1969.

Chi1man Cathcrrine, and Dona1d Ney:r. "Sing 9 and erried r1r¢rrr«r2
mea m1 1 r-ruoo‘11ty needs and self-raLr: d hootinsss.” Jo 1ne1 cf
figrijaue z:nd the Farnily 28 (Feb): 67~76, 1966.

 

Chris topherson, Victor, et 31., "The married coiicge student." He:
and Fa_m21;, Livino 22 (may): 122~128, 1969.

. ebeth. "A modest proposa1 for 1hr edcastino o
317 1n Janey Reeves (ed. ) 1019.“..u. Chi sue: midi“: .'~‘-.1;r.er"2‘1

J’h
C
<

Davis, Ann E. "”omen as a minority group in higm academics."\i“0
Anerican_§o‘1o. gist, 4 (HJ;): 95 ~99, 1369.

     

D‘E xon, Har1sue The Secondary Socia1 Status of rowan: ($5.12 and Ciass
App1ied to .fomrn 5 Position. Unpubiisned working oraft, n.d.

Epstein, Cynthia F. "Women and the professions." ~LLwiphngL1Hn 51
(ia11): 16-22, 1969.

 

p -“M‘

Erickson, Hi1dred B. An Ana1ysi 13 of Se1ected LFMIUVT“V1Si1CT and H::*x
of Adu1t LNJCIUVCCULLB Stud uen nts Attend ding Hilu. Ph.9. 1hasys. h.,,

1966.

Esh1emen, J. n., and C. L. Hunt. l‘Sooia c. a
C‘

adjustnzarzt pat1;erns of married coi1etss. studeniz.“L1*L.igw5§:
Herrigggflfiand the Femi1y7 -9 (August): 431 491, 199/.

 

zuoLsty-Siuzen- C mmiitee. Proposa1 for the H :ve1cw10nt of a Harried
Student Szrvice Center. anub1ished paper. 19:0.

“Fagerburg, Joan E A Comparative Study 1? Urmc rarer-11. e H as in
Re1ation to Se1.;'eted Persona1 Cra .c1’V1stzcs an: Ce 1L..n L-fie

r.¢-~~.~ -m....--«-. . .—

L . ‘
0f Educa. ““01 lnturrupt10n. 1h. 9. Thesi 1S, ‘uroue uuiver51LJ, 1?fi?

51

' w - ’, ,! 1 \ 1‘ - \— 4...: ,- .“- p 1,- - :‘ «Q ;~;-'. a . ‘ - '.
Faik, Lauren62, H F.0Wpuldu;Vd izudy e1 prev 1:19 9 M43113d end 2'1U'n
.l.. .' , - . a I! ,. . x. F e .,, I I . . '1 1- ' I F r) . I r '
SLLI'JL’LJLQ. 1,511. N! (H In": '111'05‘11'10 T1173 FLU—51!" 43 1111133): 11.x ' r\.—~.

 

...- anm W.— .-- J4 ._.-V...‘-.
y) I‘ r

1
IIU'TO

.l

’u. a a C. Tu-' L !
F1?;SiOhC, U1u10m1tn. Ta

17)

 

Gifilije‘ng, E] a. I

U11 1 11:15.1 if,"

 

n+ _ r I f" 1 I ‘ t '1‘ .f '
1 e : yFes HF qucated Women New Yn*1-: uOslmu'd
F7- *-.(:':'-.-- 1‘ 5.7:... ~- -...- V...

I
I“
r

1' ° - r...fi , '1.
' Soc1a1 Ft an? aJ {QLLUcU‘}.

..-.- ~— '1--.‘ -~

H1151. “H21 n as a Kinor1ty Grovp.

Hufer, Be;i1nn J.. and H1Chez1e Pa tte%.s n. W. \cvua1 ty of Q1P'fi’f 1371
Spec1czzty: Some Obse1vat1011s on Pesea1.n ”an Pm ogreas. “1,;atzehgf
paper read at the annual meet1ngs of the hn3 1c=n Soc1zw1 1*61
Assoc1at1r1 1n 1.‘as sh1ngton, D. C. on September 25 1970.

Hughes, Everett C. "Soc1a1 Change nd Status Pro 051,: AU E:m P On the
Harg1na1 Han.” thign X, 1949.
Hunfi, BeverYy. unfilc”tnr1°t1CS, Perceptions 81d 1V11r“"'n~ 01 Pfirrfnd

A 0"!

Homer Stud;nts at Lans1ng £0m1nunity C011ege . Ed.u. unazis, H50,.

Hur1ev John, and Donna Pa1onen. "Mar1ta1 satisfact1ow and ch113 Crns1iy
u“”{“ 1:n:ve1s1ty student p“.\n1z.' “OLLLZLmflfmflnmuiiL;~L;§.L:-
Eigiil_mtinuguet): 183- 484.

, enne. “Campers on of AdUIt Women Un1ver31ty Student.

Other Aduit Women 111$e1ected Factors. Ph.D. Tngs1s, MSU.

"Undergraduate student Her-1316:

fiershail, P1111emgmn1 Per
5 'nos.“ JeurnaF of Hawr1axe and the

a comp11311r131 reS«c
.n‘ {'0‘ . . \ ,\_ r0 , 1..
frn11“ /3 1r gu1t}; JCU"JD

s._ ‘ r“ .- '1 _: - .‘o I P, . 3 11,3.” ., 1.3. _
“5‘. COC10|OCICEI J 1:1 ’1. ‘13:: jCJio {18‘ ‘(JY‘L : \l>\f6wd L’l’:‘\l'{:|‘5 ‘ Z,"
l

Nyrdal, Cnnnar. fin finer1can Di1cnma. New York: Harper anfl Bro . £934.

.o.-._1 -nr

 

’1

nd Coe1ge Ha.1ton, The Pos1t10n of Pcn1en on the Facu1ty
’can S;a;1.> Univers1t3, unp ub11 she d pu. 1m r 19?0.

~ (‘1
ll 4 (D
(1‘

Peeves, Nancy (ed.} Enmank1nq. Ch1cagc: A1d1ne A hertcn, 1971

he Storv of the Top 1% of the. Woncn at M2d.

.1 a»
I. J' “,' '_r‘~
" u L).

.3 __ 1oun¢e111ng 1n 'rsgrams of Lcnt1nu11g H1gher Educat1.
Hflflffl. Unnab11shed pager, read ct tne Pmer1can C0126 :1sc1ea

fifisusiai10n p1ogr;m: Apr1! 13, 19 ’35.

7' ”(1 ": h ‘JA 3 s .' L" '/-’,‘I i’flhzil'. .{HJI‘
Dizl1CCt1C-S 0f 30X. 11‘1“ Yf'PK: LJCLY'LMIM 11.:t.'.;.15 .4"

v,
{\3

Sbniemqn, Hc:en 8. opufl glam. [UFT:L;::i¢kfiwfl up-w,vury;: !~::. i 02;
HT: - .: 4 A! -- r , IF '* '- Fr:
3 ngLu .0220! F’JWH: "‘,' .0} 41M". C: i ‘ I w x [a 1-3ij (3."
~—!, 0‘: J.- — F .n‘~ {‘I' ) ‘\ h, ‘
ine hnb in F 1(3\ .(.:0h 0: kzn“u ‘ J"‘ or C:\ * 16.3 ('J'Iii
7C3; '73‘L”“"' ' “ ""‘“‘ ”"’—" "“‘“" ‘—"" "‘ “‘ '"“ ”“ """“ """"“'“' ‘ ""“‘ '
iJ-LU. 1‘1'”
l " 7 r ’ 'Y‘l. . - It"! ' ~ r-
Tnonma , Laroiyn. 60325 of Young w*ve3. h.A. Inrbss wad 54;“.

Virgiifi 1a Commission. Revort of the Virginia Ccumissicn far *he Sthgy
or EducsH 01a i FiCiiities in the State of Virginifi, Ci 36 In the
February 6— 8 deb ie in r 3 House of Reprefieniotivcs an Tiiie

l
L,

VII of the Civi 1 righ-s A t.

Heisstein, Naon :;i. Kinde, Kuch, and Kirche: PS“ mi 1093 Constructs th:
Femaie. Pepe er read at Cavis, University oi Cai*fornia meeting of
the Rmzi.cur tudies Association, Octo bar 28, 1383.

White, Martha 8. “Psvcho.ogica1
SCT£H(1“ w}, (Octcior 23‘ )24

nuuuww—c

N3 4161 70

I

hhit .huu*:t, Faber N. Impiicatinns of Socie?a7 Attiinfirs ir'lrd Che
Admit Coed. Unpublished paper.

y. A Viqgication of tug FFcF Sty Unfinr. flew

“—omai ....— a -.- .. —o_«——. ....

 

Mary Weilstonecraft,i W
96

York: Morten, i 7.

'1 . " ’l".. . f;
n r9pnbz c (m.rci a”;

Zwerdling, Dan
l

91 ‘ "The womanpower probiem." Ne;
11"]3, I.

i
7

.-
k.
.1

nd socia] hfrriers to womsn in scicn;

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIE

lJJ JJIJ JIlJJlllJlJJ l