Most of us are not half the people we eventually become (for good or bad) during our collegiate years. There's just too much growing and developing yet to do. Yes, it's possible to meet Mr. or Mrs. "#1" in college and live happily ever ever, but not likely. As I said, too much self-discovery/development yet to do.

Who's joining me on the sofa? I've got fresh caramel corn and ranch flavor corn from Prayerfully Popped. Made some fresh lemonade for Arnold Palmers. BYOB.

FWIW: is this an April Fool's thread or what?

I get part of what Momma Patton is saying, but the whole things is kind of complicated, isn't it?

My primary issue is the tone of the article and letter - blaming women and threatening that they'll become spinster cat ladies if they don't stop being such frigid b****es. How did this become entirely womens' fault again? Because of one random (and I'd imagine, misleading) study about dating behavior of college women?

Listen - it's a two-way street, and men have the advantage of time on their side: the expectations we impose on them as a society tend to develop with age (ability to provide, status, etc.), and they don't have much of a limit on when they can start families.

I'd argue that we've put a lot of pressure on young women nowadays to pursue all of their career goals, but we tell them they can't be aggressive in pursuing relationship goals for fear of scaring men off.

Then, as Mrs. Patton points out, there's still pressure for women to marry an appropriate choice - either her equal or better, older or the same age, etc. Then you add educational attainment and intelligence to the mix. It seems like a no-win for women, doesn't it?

This all reminds me a lot of this article, published in The Atlantic in 2008, where a successful woman makes the case for settling down early in life because as a woman, your choices will always diminish with age. Joy.

No, I think everyone deserves a college education. In my ideal world, everyone would be able to obtain a college education, and further, would be able to attend the type of elementary and high schools that prepare them for success at the university level.

However, we don't live in my ideal world, we live in a society with limited resources for higher education, and thus we have to make decisions on who does and does not get to go to college.

So, as a person who pays taxes that support both public and private universities throughout the country, and the financial aid that allows students to attend, I would prefer that the limited resources be allocated to those with ambitions toward a post-college career or other path that contributes to society beyond one's own family.

Granted, if you don't "work" outside the home, but volunteer or otherwise contribute strongly to your community, that's effectively the same thing, but there is a huge amount of intellectual capital lost when highly-educated women choose to leave the workforce.

But really, this all misses the larger point: regardless of what individual women choose to do with their lives, societal forces exist that push women out of the workplace and into the home, while similar forces don't exist for men. So if your goal is gender equality (and mine is) the question is not really "is it okay for women to go to college just to find a husband?", the question is "why do women do this and men don't?", and in this context of this article, why didn't this woman write the same thing to the men of Princeton?

I know that we should be learning for learning's sake, but I truly don't see the point of a college education if you don't plan to have a career "outside the home." It seems like a waste of time and money, but please understand that I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who grew up in a blue collar family, was the first in my family to attend college, and financed my education with loans and scholarships. Why would I have gone to college and taken on that debt just to keep house? I'm all for the choice, but it is financially irresponsible to go to college unless you are paying cash or you plan to work off the debt.

My vote for post of the day!

College is not trade school. If college is all about getting a degree so you can go out and work, then we should close down liberal arts colleges immediately and make everyone major in stuff like business and engineering.

My momma has a degree and is the best momma in the world. She is my role model. She took care of our home and family and raised several wonderful, smart, educated and giving children. We were loved and nurtured and read to and prepared to become upstanding and happy adults. She helped at our school, volunteered in very challenging places, supported my daddy in every way and helped us with our homework and made us delicious homemade food. I'm sorry you think that life and those accomplishments are beneath an educated woman.

I did not get my degrees planning to use them for a career

I got them because education is a good in and of itself. I got them because I firmly believe that a democracy requires an educated citizenry. I got them because I wished to be educated for my personal development, and because I planned to have children. I wanted my children to have the advantage of an educated mother.

In fact, I ended up in education because I wanted my girls to have a private school education, and the only way I could do it was teaching at the school I wanted them to attend.

I love teaching, and can't imagine not doing it. But I still maintain that education doesn't have to be vocational training.

Then, wouldn't it work both ways? The male students are also surrounded by excellent, "marriage-worthy" women. Why is Patton's letter directed only at female students? I think people would have less of a problem with her if she were encouraging all students to form secure, long-lasting relationships, and not just telling the women that they need to snare a man.

There's also the heterosexism aspect of this, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I respect what you are both saying and I agree to a certain extent, but again, it really comes down to your economic station in life. If you've grown up living paycheck to paycheck and are financing your education on borrowed money, then yes, college is vocational school for many Americans. It's an unfortunate truth for those of us who have grown up in a less economically stable environment and without the benefits of advisers and examples of what we can do and be. I wish it were different, but then we go and complain about the philosophy majors who cried during Occupy Wall Street that they took out $100K for a 4 year degree and can't get a job to pay it back. If you can afford it, then yes, college is for learning. If you cannot, it is for a trade like business, engineering, etc. No one should be denied a college education, and I am not saying that anyone should. My point is that those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds view college differently.

I am not demeaning anyone's choices. I was just sharing the perspective of someone who has come from a different economic background and how they view a college education. In fact, I am envious that someone can go to college, major in whatever they want, and not have to work in a career to support themselves and repay their debt to finance that education. We would have a very different society if more people had those choices! I am quite envious of my European friends whose countries don't charge for college. You have much more freedom to pursue your interests and the kind of life you truly want.

I'm plopping down with you. Met Mr. Poppins after school, and he didn't go to Ole Miss for even one class. And the idiot I did marry from undergrad? He divorced me while I was in Law School.

Like it or not, some of the people attending Princeton probably fit into your category of not particularly worrying about how they're paying for college so they have the freedom to be above a "trade school" mentality. But I think ADPiUCF is putting herself into too small of a box. You don't have to have grown up economically disadvantaged to need to actually get a job based on your education. The only people who don't are the very wealthy who don't ever need to get a job, and there just aren't that many of those people in the US.

Quote of the year!

This! Some things in life can be planned. Finding Mr (or Mrs) Right isn't one of those things. I went to college in a place where some girls felt such enormous pressure to have a ring on their finger by graduation - mainly because all of their other friends were doing it - that they ended up pushing away the guys they were with who were more than happy to wait.

Exaaaaactly.

If your only intention is to "snap up" a man as if he were a cute dress at a sample sale, I suppose you could do it if you tried. If you really want an equal relationship, though, you should probably rethink looking at men in this manner.

P.S. Those "best men" who are "snapped up" early? Get back to them when they're 40+ and see how many of them are still with their snapper, or if they are, if they're happy.

Not really, anymore. I don't have hard numbers, but over the last few years there have been just as many women in college as men, with it nearing more women in college than men.

If you are an educated woman (in the liberal arts, natural sciences, applied sciences, or business), then you more than likely want a man (assuming a heterosexual relationship) who is just as educated.

In other words, the pickin's are getting slim for college educated women who want to marry a college educated man.

A few years back Essence magazine, or Ebony, was advising educated Black women to come to terms with the fact that there are not as many equally educated Black men. So, if an educated Black woman wants to marry a Black man, then she may have to settle.

The article was along the lines of if you are an educated Black woman with a MS degree, and want to marry a good Black man, then that good man may be in a service industry like garbage pick-up.