One study, published in the Journal Social Forces in 2012, found that women’s educational preferences for a potential partner have been changing over time. The study found that in the 1960s and 1970s, women were more likely to prefer men with higher levels of education than themselves, while in the 1990s and 2000s, women were more likely to prefer partners with similar levels of education. The study also found that women’s educational preferences were influenced by their own educational attainment and the gender ratio of their college campus.
Another study, published in the journal Demography in 2015, found that women’s educational preferences for a potential partner varied depending on their own educational background and the gender ratio of their local area. The study found that women with higher levels of education were more likely to prefer men with similar levels of education, while women with lower levels of education were more likely to prefer men with higher levels of education. The study also found that women in areas with a higher ratio of men to women were more likely to prefer men with higher levels of education.
While these studies suggest that young women’s preferences for college-educated men as marriage partners may be influenced by a variety of factors, it is important to recognize that individual preferences and behaviors can vary widely and are influenced by a wide range of factors. Additionally, any generalizations about the preferences of “young women” or any other group should be approached with caution, as these preferences can vary widely depending on factors such as age, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
In stabilized standards, it is more cost effective to run the changes through ANSI rather than a collaborative workspace that requires administration and software licensing cost. Accordingly, redlines for changes, and calls for stakeholder participation are released in ANSI’s Standards Portal:
Send your comments to Dave Panning. (See Dave’s presentation to the University of Michigan in the video linked below.
John Peace Laptop Library Lounge | University of Texas, San Antonio
We find a great deal of interest in sustainable furniture climbing up the value chain and dwelling on material selection and manufacture. We encourage end-users in the education industry — specifiers, department facility managers, interior design consultants, housekeeping staff and even occupants — to participate in BIFMA standards setting. You may obtain an electronic copies for in-process standards from David Panning, (616) 285-3963, dpanning@bifma.org You are encouraged to send comments directly to BIFMA (with copy to psa@ansi.org). David explains its emergent standard for furniture designed for use in healthcare settings in the videorecording linked below:
Issue: [15-267]
Contacts:Mike Anthony, Christine Fischer, Jack Janveja, Dave Panning
“View of the Colosseum” 1747 Giovanni Paolo Panini
Play is the making of civilization—how one plays the game
more to the point than whether the game is won or lost.
The purpose of this standard is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability and safety to life and property relative to the construction, alteration, repair, operation and maintenance of new and existing temporary and permanent bench bleacher, folding and telescopic seating and grandstands. This standard is intended for adoption by government agencies and organizations setting model codes to achieve uniformity in technical design criteria in building codes and other regulations.
This title is on the standing agenda of our Sport, Olahraga (Indonesian), رياضة (Arabic), colloquia. You are welcomed to join us any day at with the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
At the April International Code Council Group A Hearings there were three candidate code changes related to the safety standard of care for athletic venues:
These concepts will likely be coordinated with another ICC regulatory product —ICC 300 – Standard on Bleachers, Folding and Telescopic Seating, and Grandstands — covered here previously. ICC 300 is a separate document but some of the safety concepts track through both.
The ICC Public Comment Hearings on Group A comments in Richmond Virginia ended a few days ago (CLICK HERE). The balloting is being processed by the appropriate committee and will be released soon. For the moment, we are happy to walk through the proposed changes – that will become part of the 2021 International Building Code — any day at 11 AM Eastern time. We will walk through all athletic and recreation enterprise codes and standards on Friday, November 2nd, 11 AM Eastern time. For access to either teleconference, click on the LIVE Link at the upper right corner of our home page.
Issue: [15-283]
Category: Athletics & Recreation, Architectural, Public Safety
Contact: Mike Anthony, Richard Robben, Jack Janveja
The International Code Council has launched a new revision cycle for its consensus document — ICC 300 – Standard on Bleachers, Folding and Telescopic Seating, and Grandstands. The purpose of the effort is the development of appropriate, reasonable, and enforceable model health and safety provisions for new and existing installations of all types of bleachers and bleacher-type seating, including fixed and folding bleachers for indoor, outdoor, temporary, and permanent installations. Such provisions would serve as a model for adoption and use by enforcement agencies at all levels of government in the interest of national uniformity.
Comments are due December 4th. The document is free. You may obtain an electronic copy from: https://www.iccsafe.org/codes-techsupport/standards/is-ble/. Comments may be sent to Edward Wirtschoreck, (888) 422-7233, ewirtschoreck@iccsafe with copy to psa@ansi.org)
* With some authority, we can claim that without Standards Michigan, many education industry trade associations would not be as involved in asserting the interest of facility managers in global consensus standards development processes. See ABOUT.
The Robie House is maintained and operated by the Frank Lloyd Wright Trust, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the works of Frank Lloyd Wright. The trust focuses on the restoration, preservation, and education related to Wright’s architectural legacy. The Robie House, located in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, is one of the trust’s key properties.
Building codes for houses and museums may have some similarities but also key differences due to the distinct functions and occupancy types. Building codes are typically established to ensure the safety, health, and general welfare of the occupants and the public. While some requirements may be consistent, the specific regulations can vary based on the use and characteristics of the building. Here are some general considerations for how building codes might differ between houses and museums:
Occupancy Type: The primary factor that influences building codes is the occupancy type. Residential houses are generally classified as Group R (Residential), while museums might fall under Group A (Assembly) or Group B (Business). Each occupancy group has specific requirements related to fire safety, egress, accessibility, and structural integrity.
Fire Safety: Museums often house valuable artifacts, and fire safety is a critical concern. Museums may have more stringent fire protection measures, such as fire suppression systems, fire-resistant construction materials, and specialized storage requirements for certain materials. Residential homes also have fire safety requirements but may not have the same level of protection as cultural institutions.
Accessibility: Museums, as public buildings, are usually subject to more stringent accessibility requirements to ensure that people with disabilities can navigate the space. This includes features like ramps, elevators, and accessible restrooms. Residential buildings have accessibility requirements as well, but they are typically less extensive compared to public spaces.
Structural Requirements: Museums may have specialized structural requirements to support the weight of exhibits, particularly for large and heavy artifacts. Residential homes, while still subject to structural codes, may not have the same load-bearing considerations unless they incorporate unique features like extensive libraries or art collections.
Zoning and Land Use: The location and zoning regulations can also impact both houses and museums differently. Museums might be subject to additional zoning requirements related to cultural institutions, parking, and public access.
Energy Efficiency: Both residential and commercial buildings are subject to energy efficiency codes, but the specific requirements may differ. Commercial buildings, including museums, might have more extensive requirements for HVAC systems, lighting, and insulation.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
