Higher Education and the Marriage Market: Educational Attainment, Educational Homogamy, and Inequality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to examine if educational homogamy patterns are associated intergenerationally, the extent to which today’s couples are homogamous, and how this translates into levels of family income and financial and overall well-being. To examine these relationships, 28 years of longitudinal data from the British Columbia Paths on Life’s Way project are employed. First, changes in marital status, educational completion, and homogamy are examined with the goal of defining these constructs more precisely. Through descriptive statistics, the relationship between educational attainment and related homogamy levels of Paths respondents and their parents is established. Then, the technique of correspondence analysis is used to determine the relationship between assortative mating and the nature and extent of inequality experienced by Paths respondents. Findings reveal that educational homogamy and its intergenerational associations exist and the extent to which it exacerbates inequality in terms of family income levels, contributions to registered investment plans, and physical, mental, and financial well-being in the sample. The findings of this article highlight the value of a post-secondary education in relation to marriage strategies, and the reproduction of inequalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".