This"hybrid"self, an"androgynous"personality incorporating needed the college advantage, and school districts'new"mar- spects of both parents, is a cornerstone of alpha psychology, he riage bars"against married female teachers made teaching de believes. The more androgynous girls in his study had higher grees less valuable to women. less promiscuous sex and substance abuse. Because they can get this huge spike of guys coming back from Europe and A choose from what feminist psychologists call" separate"tradi- Goldin for every woman. The GI Bill enabled men from many tionally masculine)or"connected"(traditionally feminine) styles campus of being in the world, they have a psychological advantage. "Girls age groups to attend college at the same time, bolstering male are better adapted, he says. "Theyre more flexible and have enrollment until after the Korean War. More women went as more skill. Boys havent changed as much-or haven,'t been in- well, because college benefits often included "your M.R.S., duced as much to play a variety of roles notes goldin. Then came vietnam-and draft deferment. Be What girls are saying, adds Kindlon, is, "I have flexibility that cause more draftable men went to and stayed in college, male no other woman has ever had in history, or certainly not in any college graduation rates peaked for men born in the late 194os numbers, and I can play any role-Bring it on. "As one"hybrid" Women also have"a Vietnam effect, " Goldin says: "If boys go alpha(now at Harvard) told him, "I can wear high heels to my girls go. "Women were catching up, but the gender gap in B.A. linear algebra class. I can be sexy or I can be feminine, or I can completion in 1g70 still favored men, 57 percent to 43 percent also blow the boys away in this really tough class. I can do any. By 1972, girls in the top socioeconomic quartile achieved col thing. I don't see it as inconsistent to be wearing high heels. I lege parity despite the war. In two decades, by 1992, girls at every don't feel like I've got to dress down or dress like a man to do this socioeconomic level had a substantial lead. "Families are not dis class I can still be a woman and do all these other things criminating in resources for college in favor of boys as they may have done 75 years ago, "says Katz. And in the lower half of eco- The Rise of the Alpha Girl nomic distribution, the female-to-male ratio today is consider LoNG-EMERGING CHANGES in girls'access to higher education ably higher than in the upper half, a reversal of traditional pat and career options have prepared the ground for girls"emanci- terns. (The female advantage is larger among African Americans pated confidence. "In fact, aspects of alpha girlhood aren't new. and Hispanics than among whites, but the decline in the male Girls have been ahead of boys in pre-college education for well to-female ratio of undergraduates during the past 35 years is not over 100 years, "says Allison professor of economics Lawrence due primarily to changes in the ethnic mix of the college-aged Katz: in high-school graduation rates and in constituting two- pop pulation, write Goldin and Katz: "The bottom line is that the thirds of honors students. "What was striking in the past [was] new gender gap favoring females is found throughout the socio- that even though girls dominated boys through high school, boys economic distribution, "and it is similar for whites, all ethnic and were given greater opportunities to go on to college racial subgroups, and the entire U.S. population.) But as the women's movement dismantled labor-market barri Girls and young women today also invest in"their own human rs and an accelerating service economy expanded job opportu- capital" through what they choose to study in high school and nities in the 1970s, girls and young women expected and found college, due to dramatic changes in the labor market. Reflecting greater economic benefits from going to college. Add the Pill and on college majors, Goldin says, " The huge shift is out of educa- later marriage and first birth; subtract male incentives like the tion into business. "Until the 197os, most female undergradua GI Bill and disproportionate family support; multiply by behav- concentrated in literature, languages, and education, because ioral differences between girls and boys-and you have the for- most of the job opportunities were in teaching. In 1970, for exam- mula for exponential change, argue Lee professor of economics ple, 56 percent of working 30-to 34-year-old college-educated Claudia Goldin and Katz in a recent journal article, "The Home- women were teachers, compared to only 18 percent in 2000.By oming of American College Women: The Reversal of the Col- 2005, 50 percent of business majors were women. And"psychol lege Gender Gap"(with Ilyana Kuziemko, Ph D 'o7) ogy is the English of yesterday, "adds Goldin: 78 percent of psy- "It's never clear why the American press wakes up suddenly chology concentrators today are women. As their opportunities and says, 'Oh! Where are the men on campus?" The crossover changed, girls took more high-school science and math, achiev point was way back in 1g80--25 years ago! " says Goldin. Head- ing virtual parity by 1992 in numbers of courses(and narrowing lines imply that male college attendance has dropped, yet there's the math-score gap), while rem ahead in foreign languages been"enormous growth in B.A. completion rates"for both sexes, Meanwhile, boys' progress relative to girls'was less dramatic, she notes. The female rate of increase has been much higher, and even stagnating at lower socioeconomic levels In Goldin and however, so the ratios of the 1g6os and zos have fliy to s8 Katz's"cost-benefit analysis"of college returns, girls and young percent female nationwide today. What drove this dramatic women have lower"nonpecuniary costs" for college-prep and at catch-up and reversal? "The playing field and the labor market tendance than boys and young men, and they earn higher eco- are much more even,"says Katz. "Thats really what's changed. nomic benefits from going to college(women without college earn Surprisingly, however, the rise of women in higher education less than men without college). Moreover, note Goldin and Katz, began with college parity, early in the twentieth century. From boys have more learning disabilities, suffer from attention deficit 1g00 to the Crash of 1929, women went to college in numbers hyperactivity disorder at triple the rate of girls, engage in more ual to men. A fraction went to the"Seven Sisters, "but the ma- criminal activity, and spend less time on schoolwork than girls jority enrolled in public institutions, such as teachers'colleges School has also become harder and more competitive since and the large state institutions that accepted women. Then the 1983. when the National Commission on Excellence in Education Great Depression drove a wedge into parity. Unemployed men published A Nation at Risk, notes Dan Kindlon. The girls born at HARⅤ ARD MAGAS2NE37 Reprinted from Ha arvard Magazine. For more information, contact Harvard Magazine, Inc. at 617-495-5746Harvard Magazine 37 This “hybrid” self, an “androgynous” personality incorporating aspects of both parents, is a cornerstone of alpha psychology, he believes. The more androgynous girls in his study had higher self-esteem, were less anxious or self-conscious, and engaged in less promiscuous sex and substance abuse. Because they can choose from what feminist psychologists call “separate” (tradi￾tionally masculine) or “connected” (traditionally feminine) styles of being in the world, they have a psychological advantage. “Girls are better adapted,” he says. “They’re more flexible and have more skill. Boys haven’t changed as much—or haven’t been in￾duced as much to play a variety of roles.” What girls are saying, adds Kindlon, is, “I have flexibility that no other woman has ever had in history, or certainly not in any numbers, and I can play any role—‘Bring it on.’” As one “hybrid” alpha (now at Harvard) told him, “I can wear high heels to my linear algebra class. I can be sexy or I can be feminine, or I can also blow the boys away in this really tough class. I can do any￾thing. I don’t see it as inconsistent to be wearing high heels. I don’t feel like I’ve got to dress down or dress like a man to do this class. I can still be a woman and do all these other things.” The Rise of the Alpha Girl Long-emerging changes in girls’ access to higher education and career options have prepared the ground for girls’ “emanci￾pated confidence.” In fact, aspects of alpha girlhood aren’t new. “Girls have been ahead of boys in pre-college education for well over 100 years,” says Allison professor of economics Lawrence Katz: in high-school graduation rates and in constituting two￾thirds of honors students. “What was striking in the past [was] that even though girls dominated boys through high school, boys were given greater opportunities to go on to college.” But as the women’s movement dismantled labor-market barri￾ers and an accelerating service economy expanded job opportu￾nities in the 1970s, girls and young women expected and found greater economic benefits from going to college. Add the Pill and later marriage and first birth; subtract male incentives like the GI Bill and disproportionate family support; multiply by behav￾ioral di≠erences between girls and boys—and you have the for￾mula for exponential change, argue Lee professor of economics Claudia Goldin and Katz in a recent journal article, “The Home￾coming of American College Women: The Reversal of the Col￾lege Gender Gap” (with Ilyana Kuziemko, Ph.D. ’07). “It’s never clear why the American press wakes up suddenly and says, ‘Oh! Where are the men on campus?’ The crossover point was way back in 1980—25 years ago!” says Goldin. Head￾lines imply that male college attendance has dropped, yet there’s been “enormous growth in B.A. completion rates” for both sexes, she notes. The female rate of increase has been much higher, however, so the ratios of the 1960s and ’70s have flipped—to 58 percent female nationwide today. What drove this dramatic catch-up and reversal? “The playing field and the labor market are much more even,” says Katz. “That’s really what’s changed.” Surprisingly, however, the rise of women in higher education began with college parity, early in the twentieth century. From 1900 to the Crash of 1929, women went to college in numbers equal to men. A fraction went to the “Seven Sisters,” but the ma￾jority enrolled in public institutions, such as teachers’ colleges and the large state institutions that accepted women. Then the Great Depression drove a wedge into parity. Unemployed men needed the college advantage, and school districts’ new “mar￾riage bars” against married female teachers made teaching de￾grees less valuable to women. Male-to-female ratios peaked in 1947, after World War II. “You get this huge spike of guys coming back from Europe and Asia,” Goldin says, when there were “two and a half men” on college campuses for every woman. The GI Bill enabled men from many age groups to attend college at the same time, bolstering male enrollment until after the Korean War. More women went as well, because college benefits often included “your M.R.S.,” notes Goldin. Then came Vietnam—and draft deferment. Be￾cause more draftable men went to and stayed in college, male college graduation rates peaked for men born in the late 1940s. Women also have “a Vietnam e≠ect,” Goldin says: “If boys go, girls go.” Women were catching up, but the gender gap in B.A. completion in 1970 still favored men, 57 percent to 43 percent. By 1972, girls in the top socioeconomic quartile achieved col￾lege parity despite the war. In two decades, by 1992, girls at every socioeconomic level had a substantial lead. “Families are not dis￾criminating in resources for college in favor of boys as they may have done 75 years ago,” says Katz. And in the lower half of eco￾nomic distribution, the female-to-male ratio today is consider￾ably higher than in the upper half, a reversal of traditional pat￾terns. (The female advantage is larger among African Americans and Hispanics than among whites, but the decline in the male￾to-female ratio of undergraduates during the past 35 years is not due primarily to changes in the ethnic mix of the college-aged population, write Goldin and Katz: “The bottom line is that the new gender gap favoring females is found throughout the socio￾economic distribution,” and it is similar for whites, all ethnic and racial subgroups, and the entire U.S. population.) Girls and young women today also invest in “their own human capital” through what they choose to study in high school and college, due to dramatic changes in the labor market. Reflecting on college majors, Goldin says, “The huge shift is out of educa￾tion into business.” Until the 1970s, most female undergraduates concentrated in literature, languages, and education, because most of the job opportunities were in teaching. In 1970, for exam￾ple, 56 percent of working 30- to 34-year-old college-educated women were teachers, compared to only 18 percent in 2000. By 2005, 50 percent of business majors were women. And “psychol￾ogy is the English of yesterday,” adds Goldin: 78 percent of psy￾chology concentrators today are women. As their opportunities changed, girls took more high-school science and math, achiev￾ing virtual parity by 1992 in numbers of courses (and narrowing the math-score gap), while remaining ahead in foreign languages. Meanwhile, boys’ progress relative to girls’ was less dramatic, and even stagnating at lower socioeconomic levels. In Goldin and Katz’s “cost-benefit analysis” of college returns, girls and young women have lower “nonpecuniary costs” for college-prep and at￾tendance than boys and young men, and they earn higher eco￾nomic benefits from going to college (women without college earn less than men without college). Moreover, note Goldin and Katz, boys have more learning disabilities, su≠er from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at triple the rate of girls, engage in more criminal activity, and spend less time on schoolwork than girls. School has also become harder and more competitive since 1983, when the National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk, notes Dan Kindlon. The girls born at