Even when I was purportedly "just a SAHM," I was using my education for my benefit, not just my kids (in my case, I've edited a relatively successful blog on politics, autism and Indian issues for the last five years.)  Plus I ran for office, worked on a number of campaigns, sat on a state-level panel on reducing childhood lead poisoning, created and maintained a large organic garden, counseled local environmental organizations on mercury contamination, personally renovated my 1913 house (including plumbing, wiring, framing,) etc., etc.

This is why I like the Non-Trad forum.

No, of course schools can't force them to stay in the workplace.

I was talking about society, but we can include schools in that, too.

(I'm thinking here of a controversial survey of female Yale undergraduates that appeared in the NY Times a while back).

I remember that survey. This goes back, I think, to my italicized point about the very foundations of society needing to shift in order for women to not feel like such a choice is necessary. I don't know what each Yale undergrad was thinking, but I can imagine that the current climate in many U.S. places of employment--severely limited maternal and often non-existent paternal leave; over-reliance on the same full-time workers instead of a variety of part-timers, high-priced child-care, etc.--in part fuels the drive for one to leave the workplace in favor of offspring.

Major changes on both the social program/employer level and on the level of each individual couple (more couples choosing for the husband to take on childcare duties) will be needed to get us to the point where all or many young female grads no longer feel compelled to stay home to do right by their kids. Then women staying home will become just what it is: a choice as little charged as whether to have lima beans or bok choy for dinner.

On a happier note, I saw a Pampers ad the other day in which the caregiver was male and in jeans. On a sadder note, this was so rare as to make me happy.

And I don't like the idea that the eventual decision about whether to work or not is only "HER choice." If women deserve to have a choice in this, shouldn't men? 

I used "her" as a proxy for she and her male partner. Hopefully, both will have agreed on the subject.

I, too, really have a problem with people entering grad school with the specific goal of getting married and staying at home. My law school has quite a few students like this and I just think it's unfair to other students who didn't get in and actually want to do more than just find a rich husband.

Perhaps, although it might actually help other law grads by having less recent grads flooding the market competing for the same jobs.

It would be interesting to find out how your classmates (presumably female since you said "husband") articulate this. I can't imagine their decision would be a popular one around campus--or maybe it is at yours. How do they make their revelations about the purpose of their presence at LS?  Also, I'm not the first to have said this, but maybe someone could tell them there has to be an easier way to meet a spouse!

(...since this thread is already highjacked...)

blck_reign's point about the challenges women face in equalizing or at least balancing their partnerships is well-made.

But it reminds me of what some feminist scholars have argued: Women entering high-powered, long-hour or highly visible professions might consider marrying "down" (academic, outside-the-home ambition level, etc.) instead of "equal." They cite stats that show highly educated and/or professional women with similar husbands are almost always the partners to give up their full-time jobs or high salaries and to either stay at home or take time cuts/hiatuses that derail their career trajectories  (and from what I've read, private law work is still mostly unaccomodating to parental leave and people who try "come back" to the practice after a few years' leave).

In this schema, the male partner would work part-time or 9 to 5, shouldering the majority of during- or after-work childcare, preparing meals many days of the week, etc.

Marrying a man with either less formal ed or with a less demanding job helps on two fronts: (a) it helps each individual woman realize her academic/career potential in a society often hostile to this, and (b)it creates and helps sustain a core mass of women role models for the next generation.

*Note that less demanding job or less education =/= less intelligent, less conversant in politics or literature, etc. or anything else two people like to talk about.

This is the way some female and male feminists/humanists think the U.S. can take steps towards gender and human equality. I am intrigued by this, and wonder what high-powered and/OR educated women feel about this.

sstar's post and the ones supporting it are completely credited. I cannot overestimate the importance of attuning yourself to each inividual prof (withOUT, as sstar says, coming off as a nuisance or teacher's pet). No matter how well you know the material (non-quantitative), your grade is ultimately in her or his hands.

Meet one-on-one with your profs and talk about anything, not even an assignment. Some of his/her academic philosophy will spill out. For example, some profs love you to take a clear line/have a "for or against" thesis in papers, whereas others prefer a more objective, balanced view.