From Harvard to Housewife

June 9, 2006

Linda bemoans the freshly minted Harvard grads who will waste their gold brick educations vacuuming Cheerios out of couches.

These highly educated housewives cost their parents a lot. Tuition, room and board at Harvard is over $50,000 a year. Although a college education enriches any life, why spend $200,000 to train someone to do a job that someone without even a high school diploma does routinely and that pays relatively little? Should the whole society spend money educating people who end up devoting themselves to their few biological offspring?

I can’t manage to get too worked up about some of these gals, primarily because I’m not paying for their education. If their parents consider Harvard little more than a finishing school where princess can meet a high-earning-potential mate, they will probably get what they pay for. And a next generation of “legacy” students will be born.

I do, however, take issue with Hirshman’s premise that the women who drop out of the workforce will never “lead their nation” or “give back to their communities.” Give me a break! As I mentioned recently, Nancy Pelosi was a stay-at-home mom with five (count ’em, five!) kids, and proceded to become the first woman to lead a political party in Congress.

I might further suggest that a foster mom or school volunteer “gives back” more to “the community” than a lawyer working to find tax shelters for large, profitable corporations.

This part of Linda’s post is true–those lady grads will most likely have a harder time in the workforce than their male peers come family-making time. But then she takes a whack at liberals for wanting more family-friendly policies for all! Dig:

For forty years liberals have been suggesting that business and government solve the problem with day care and maternity leave. Ezra and Sam tell us that even bluest California couldn’t pass a universal preschool initiative this past week.

That’s because California liberals like me who read the small print voted against it. The initiative was a poorly-conceived, expensive, stinker with service redundancies. The bill’s backers vow to go back to the drawing board to come up with a better version, and that’s a good thing.