4 ms·

??? That's still a bit confusing. Maybe I'm being dense, but one chart is for women with college degrees having babies and the other is for women without colle

??? That's still a bit confusing. Maybe I'm being dense, but one chart is for women with college degrees having babies and the other is for women without college degrees having babies. So what impact would race have on when a woman with a college degree has a baby? (I mean, whether they are married or not is presumably irrelevant to the question of whether they have a college degree. So why would race not be irrelevant to that question?) My question is the similar for the graph of married vs unmarried? If you are married and having a baby, (I mean, unless I'm missing something?), you are married and having a baby. Why would your race change that fact?

danielvf 8y ago
[edit: probably wrong, see below] Great question. If married/college were the only relevant factors, it would not matter. However, there are cultural differences beyond just those. Black women in the US do go to college at approximately the same rate as the rest of the US population, however they are far less likely to study STEM subjects, nor go to graduate school school, and are more likely to be going to a lower tier of school. Also, even college educated black women are far less likely to be married or in long term relationships.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  ??? But the charts are not counting women who have college degrees AND are married. The chart is a count of women who have college degrees and had their first child. So whether or not a college educated black or hispanic woman is married, is totally irrelevant to that question. I'm starting to think that, perhaps, you have misread the graphs? These are not graphs of women who are college educated AND married. These are graphs of women who are college educated. And then there is another set of graphs for women who are married. With both factors isolated to get a true picture of what's going on.
  - danielvf 8y ago
    You are correct, I was misreading the graphs - I'll have to rethink things!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
timr 8y ago
You're not confused. The parent to this subthread is introducing race as an unnecessary/unsupported factor: the belt of low-age births is simply the bible belt. You don't need to "subtract" race from it (nor can you; it's not clear how you'd map race to birth age without a chart explicitly making the comparison). This whole subthread is a non-sequitur. You can see the pattern in every map except the unmarried, no-college degree map (which is almost entirely in the lowest bin on the histogram).

danielvf 8y ago

[edit: probably wrong, see below] Great question. If married/college were the only relevant factors, it would not matter. However, there are cultural differences beyond just those. Black women in the US do go to college at approximately the same rate as the rest of the US population, however they are far less likely to study STEM subjects, nor go to graduate school school, and are more likely to be going to a lower tier of school. Also, even college educated black women are far less likely to be married or in long term relationships.

bilbo0s 8y ago
??? But the charts are not counting women who have college degrees AND are married. The chart is a count of women who have college degrees and had their first child. So whether or not a college educated black or hispanic woman is married, is totally irrelevant to that question. I'm starting to think that, perhaps, you have misread the graphs? These are not graphs of women who are college educated AND married. These are graphs of women who are college educated. And then there is another set of graphs for women who are married. With both factors isolated to get a true picture of what's going on.
- danielvf 8y ago
  You are correct, I was misreading the graphs - I'll have to rethink things!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

timr 8y ago

You're not confused. The parent to this subthread is introducing race as an unnecessary/unsupported factor: the belt of low-age births is simply the bible belt. You don't need to "subtract" race from it (nor can you; it's not clear how you'd map race to birth age without a chart explicitly making the comparison). This whole subthread is a non-sequitur. You can see the pattern in every map except the unmarried, no-college degree map (which is almost entirely in the lowest bin on the histogram).