So, I don’t know if I should be pleased or disturbed by these NYT “findings.” Yes, I agree that parents should have an important role in a child’s life. What I’m not so sure about, is whether having that role requires either parent to stay at home for an extended period of time. Perhaps you don’t want to be working 18 hour days after you’ve just given birth, but for many students who have sacrificed so much to attend top educational institutions and pursue higher degrees, it’s a strange thought to not really use that education, or at least not for very long.
I have personally very rarely encountered women with this thought process, but I do believe that the culture at MIT is very different from those at some of the Ivies. Our backgrounds are different, our beliefs are different, so obviously, our aspirations may not be the same. But again, so many resources are poured into educating these young women, who in the long term, do not necessarily want to use that education in the traditional sense. Will the impact on their children compensate for their other losses?
It’s similar to the whole argument about home-schooling your children. Sure, if you’ve got a top class education and you think you can teach your child better than the best primary/secondary school staff, great. All the more power to you. However, if society is siphoning off so many highly-educated, incredibly intelligent people to simply stay at home and teach their children, is that an efficient use of resources? *sigh*
Maybe I’ve just been doing too much economics.