This morning, I read an article entitled “I’ve got marriage on my mind” in the Boston Globe after visiting Boston Gal’s Open Wallet. In short, its an economic argument for marriage. A Northwestern University professor economist was of the opinion that “marriage now poses an even larger social divide than race” and that due to “assortive mating”, “MBAs marry MBAs; nobody is interested in rescuing Cinderella any more”.
While I’m hopeful that his statements are all backed up by thoughtfully carried out research, I wonder if someone of his position is still in touch with the real world? While I do agree that children who are brought up in a stable home are better adjusted and tend to do better in life, I wonder if marriage should be the only criteria. Is it better to be born in wedlock, only for that marriage to fall apart later? How do those children fare compared to children born out of wedlock but still experience a stable family life? Of course, having a two parent family is better because the responsibilities of caring for the chid are then spread between two people, who hopefully share the same values, hopes and dreams for that child. That said, it doesn’t mean that a child coming from a single parent home will turn out to be an uneducated hooligan either.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that an article like this is constrained by space. I think the message is well-intentioned, and I’m sure that the research is well-planned. But as with all research, there are always a lot of confounding factors to take into consideration. The way the article is written, it does seem like there are a lot of sweeping statements with very little facts to back it up. I hope the original research article bears more insight.