When you add in the fact that people tend to marry people that are similar to themselves – often called assortative mating – you get a driver for income inequality. People with high incomes are marrying other people with high incomes.
According to data from the Equality of Opportunity Project, if you were born between 1980 and 1984, went to Princeton, and came from a family with a household income in the top 20%, you had a 56% chance of being married by the time you hit 32-34 years old.
However, if you came from a family with a household income in the bottom 20%, you only had a 34% of being married by the time you hit the same age bracket. One possible explanation is that if you’re from a lower income family, you simply aren’t privy to the same “clubs”, where people mate, even though you still got into Princeton.
When you add in the fact that people tend to marry people that are similar to themselves – often called assortative mating – you get a driver for income inequality. People with high incomes are marrying other people with high incomes.
According to data from the Equality of Opportunity Project, if you were born between 1980 and 1984, went to Princeton, and came from a family with a household income in the top 20%, you had a 56% chance of being married by the time you hit 32-34 years old.
However, if you came from a family with a household income in the bottom 20%, you only had a 34% of being married by the time you hit the same age bracket. One possible explanation is that if you’re from a lower income family, you simply aren’t privy to the same “clubs”, where people mate, even though you still got into Princeton.
To reinforce this point even further, the above data suggests that only about 1.3% of Princeton students that come from a poor family will ultimately end up a rich adult. About 72% of Princeton students come from a household in the top 20 percent.
When I look at the numbers for Penn, my alma mater, the marriage spread isn’t quite as dramatic. The marriage rates are 55% and 48%, respectively, for the top and bottom 20%. Maybe that makes it more egalitarian. Or maybe not.
“Like the United States, and thanks to the United States, MIT gains tremendous strength by being a magnet for talent from around the world. Faculty, students, post-docs and staff from 134 other nations join us here because they love our mission, our values and our community.” -L.Rafael Reif, MIT President
The MIT Senseable City Lab recently analyzed nearly 20 years of ethnographic student data in order to visualize the origins of its international faculty, students, and researchers from 1999 to the present.
Earlier this week I got a sneak peek of One Spadina Crescent – the new building for the Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto.
The renovation and addition was designed by the Boston-based firm NADAAA. And let me tell you, it’s absolutely spectacular.
I was in a rush at the time and I didn’t have my real camera on me, but I managed to quickly grab this snap:
To reinforce this point even further, the above data suggests that only about 1.3% of Princeton students that come from a poor family will ultimately end up a rich adult. About 72% of Princeton students come from a household in the top 20 percent.
When I look at the numbers for Penn, my alma mater, the marriage spread isn’t quite as dramatic. The marriage rates are 55% and 48%, respectively, for the top and bottom 20%. Maybe that makes it more egalitarian. Or maybe not.
“Like the United States, and thanks to the United States, MIT gains tremendous strength by being a magnet for talent from around the world. Faculty, students, post-docs and staff from 134 other nations join us here because they love our mission, our values and our community.” -L.Rafael Reif, MIT President
The MIT Senseable City Lab recently analyzed nearly 20 years of ethnographic student data in order to visualize the origins of its international faculty, students, and researchers from 1999 to the present.
Earlier this week I got a sneak peek of One Spadina Crescent – the new building for the Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto.
The renovation and addition was designed by the Boston-based firm NADAAA. And let me tell you, it’s absolutely spectacular.
I was in a rush at the time and I didn’t have my real camera on me, but I managed to quickly grab this snap:
The above chart may be a bit small (larger version here), but it shows all students (undergraduate, graduate, and visiting/others) by country. The top 5 countries are China, India, Canada, South Korea, and France.
To give you some sense of the math, there are 3,808 international students at MIT as of 2017. 888 of them alone are from China – mostly at the graduate level (688 out of the 888). So China represents almost ¼ of MIT’s international student population.
Another thing that stood out for me was the drop off in Canadians in 2009. You can see that “V” roughly in the middle of the chart. Canada went from 233 to 144 students. I wonder if this had something to do with the economic climate at the time. Not sure.
Note that you can toggle by region and country, as well as by “Trump’s EO Countries.” That feature, as well as the quote at the beginning of this post, should give you an immediate appreciation for some of the motivations behind this exercise.
What you see in the middle are steps leading down to an “open bleacher space” that functions as a crit space and as an oculus that brings light into the core of the building. In the middle of the building is a large flex space.
Because the building effectively sits in the middle of Spadina Avenue, the windows on the right side (above) look directly up the street, as if you were standing in the middle of it. I wish I had betters photos to share with you all.
When you’re an architecture student, you spend almost all of your waking time in studio. I can certainly think of worse buildings to be cooped up in. I’m excited to see it in full swing come September.
Click here if you’d like to see renderings of the building.
The above chart may be a bit small (larger version here), but it shows all students (undergraduate, graduate, and visiting/others) by country. The top 5 countries are China, India, Canada, South Korea, and France.
To give you some sense of the math, there are 3,808 international students at MIT as of 2017. 888 of them alone are from China – mostly at the graduate level (688 out of the 888). So China represents almost ¼ of MIT’s international student population.
Another thing that stood out for me was the drop off in Canadians in 2009. You can see that “V” roughly in the middle of the chart. Canada went from 233 to 144 students. I wonder if this had something to do with the economic climate at the time. Not sure.
Note that you can toggle by region and country, as well as by “Trump’s EO Countries.” That feature, as well as the quote at the beginning of this post, should give you an immediate appreciation for some of the motivations behind this exercise.
What you see in the middle are steps leading down to an “open bleacher space” that functions as a crit space and as an oculus that brings light into the core of the building. In the middle of the building is a large flex space.
Because the building effectively sits in the middle of Spadina Avenue, the windows on the right side (above) look directly up the street, as if you were standing in the middle of it. I wish I had betters photos to share with you all.
When you’re an architecture student, you spend almost all of your waking time in studio. I can certainly think of worse buildings to be cooped up in. I’m excited to see it in full swing come September.
Click here if you’d like to see renderings of the building.
