This plot, which appeared in an article in the Washington Post, is taken from a survey by the Harvard Crimson (the student newspaper) of that university’s incoming freshmen (first-year students)Note that agnostics predominate over all other faiths, and, combined with atheists, show that 37.9% of all entering students are nonbelievers. I’m sure that’s atypical compared to other schools, but it’s still heartening, and once again shows the increasing secularization of America.
Here are some date from a recent Pew poll, which shows only 13% of “millennials” can be classified as nonbelievers:
As the Post notes:
Harvard’s combined number of atheists and agnostics among its incoming class exceeds the number of Catholics and Protestants, as Pew Research Center’s Conrad Hackett noted. The number appears to be a striking contrast with the rest of the U.S. millennial population, those from ages 18 to 34.
but adds:
The Crimson’s poll and Pew’s survey are not perfect comparisons since they appear to ask about religious identification differently. Pew provides the opportunity for respondents to say they are not religious. The Crimson doesn’t appear to have a category for those who don’t identify with religion at all, except for the categories of atheists and agnostics.
In other words, if the Crimson asked about religious affiliation another way, students might respond differently.
Either way, the Crimson’s poll suggests a decline in number of Protestants and Catholics and a rise of atheists and agnostics in the three years of available data. For the class of 2017, the number of Protestants and Catholics were 42.4 percent, compared to 37 percent for the class of 2018 and 34.1 percent for the class of 2019.
There’s one other statistic in the Crimson survey that surprised me, and it’s one that I think can’t be changed much by how the question is asked:
As someone who grew up in the free-for-all Sixties, that 62% figure surprised me. Either I have a false impression garnered from my youth, young folks have become less interested in sex, or Harvard first-years are less licentious than other students. Or they could simply be lying.
The Kinsey Institute, and other sources, estimate from 2005 data that by age 17, 46% of men and 49% of women have had sexual intercourse, and those figures rise at age 18 to 62% and 70% respectively. This appears to be fairly constant, as the mean age of intercourse remains at about age 17 for both men and women. Ergo, if the survey above is accurate, those entering Harvard are less sexually experience than their peers.
Data aren’t given about whether the nonbelievers differ in their sexual proclivity from the religious.
________
UPDATE: The Crimson also compares some of these statistics to those from students at its big rival, Yale University. Yalies questioned by the Crimson didn’t give information about their faith, but they did say something about sex. As the Crimson reports, with a barely-concealed note of pride:
Though the majority of respondents at Harvard and Yale said they had not had sex before coming to college, Harvard respondents are slightly more experienced in bed.
-
About 38 percent of surveyed Harvard freshmen said they had sex before college, compared to 34 percent of surveyed Yale freshmen.
-
But Yale freshmen are still hopeful—54 percent of respondents said they anticipated having sex while at Yale, and 81 percent of them said they anticipated having a romantic relationship while there.
h/t: Charles
I’m still a virgin but don’t tell my grandchildren.
Those would be the grandkids that look like your old mailman?
I think the growing number of “nones” is related to the 62% virgins; sex as a teen is more fun when you think you’re going to hell for it.
There is an active humanist, etc. community movement at Harvard. I would attend, but the road trip takes four days. Website at
http://www.humanisthub.org/
34% (Protestant/Catholic) of the incoming class have provided an answer that mocks reason. Hoping they will figure out what they universe has to offer that’s real.
Slightly stunned at the number of virgins. Nerds obviously have different priorities. Of course, I was the same way. (Take it from experience: spend a little time away from the studies to get some booty; it’s more fun than you know and I doubt it will hurt the GPA like you think.)
There are plenty of possibilities on the virgin thing:
– they lied
– it was true the day they arrived on campus, but significantly less true 3 days into Fresher’s Week once the parental units had finally gone home and left them alone.
– they didn’t answer the question for a variety of reasons.
Or early sexual experience is inversely related to social class, or family wealth, or some other social status proxy. Boys don’t make passes at girls that wear glasses?
This was my thought as well. I somehow doubt that incoming freshmen at elite universities are perfectly representative of the general public. I would expect discrepancies in beliefs, attitudes and behavior, sexual activity included.
Respondents may also have been inclined to lie about not being a virgin. If we’re to not trust the figure, I’m not sure if we should revise our estimate upwards or downwards.
‘Parental units’. Funny how certain terms turn up the world over.
Or they don’t count it as sex if there is no vaginal penetration. It reminds me of the Garfunkel & Oates song, The Loophole even though the majority of the students aren’t Christians — I knew plenty of “none” girls who felt this way when I was in highschool.
Right. They might be using different definitions of “sex” and “virginity” than we old fogies are.
Remember, Bill Clinton “did not have sexual relations with that woman” and believed he was telling the truth when he said so.
I am a virgin with women not with men. I would like to change that but the difficulties are markedly different. Different psychologies since males seem to be more ready for sex than women. At least from my own experience.
However it is amazing that people will still have penetrating relations and still not cause it sex dependent on the orifice. That is just plain crazy. Humans are amazing in how they can parse reality to fit their notions.
I’m not. Average is average; if the average age of first-time sex is 17 that means there are as many people who haven’t had sex by 17 as there are people who have.
Such averages are base means. Most numerically present as a base line. Nothing more. When they talk about 2.6 children they are not talking about real families with only part of a child.
Well this flies in the face of the widely-held belief that “kids these days” are ultra-promiscuous.
Always beware of self-reported data. It may be correct, but we don’t know that.
It’d be good to know whether or not the survey was anonymous.
Well this flies in the face of the widely-held belief that “kids these days” are ultra-promiscuous.
It is called rumor and hardly a good basis for solid information. More of a breeding ground for spurious memes.
How do they know these precise percentages? They ask the students to what religion they belong? Illegal in Belgium and France, and probably many other countries.
Answering is optional here, but we have laws preventing discrimination. For these laws to work, the information has to be recorded.
And since they are anonymous it shouldn’t be illegal. Vastly different from filling out a form with your name and address on it.
It was from a survey, not collected from personal data.
If someone comes up to you and asks if she can ask you some personal questions and you are in a situation where you can refuse without consequences, then there is nothing illegal about it, not even in Belgium or France.
When it comes to doing things like job interviews, then that is different: here in the US, MANY personal things are indeed illegal to ask about: even things like age, marital status, having kids, etc; so let alone religion, sexual preference or political preference.
Having said that, it’s shocking how few people actually doing job interviews here, are aware of this: I have been asked some VERY illegal questions during interviews .. understandable and seemingly rational questions (“what country is that accent of yours from?”), but nevertheless: illegal.
“They” in this case is not the University, but the student-run school newspaper, which has the same free-speech rights as any citizen.
Probably more students at Harvard identify as “agnostic” because they’re more likely to know what that word means than the general population.
I’m always a little confused in these surveys how Agnostic and Atheist are counted separately, because I consider myself an “agnostic atheist” (the definitions, as I understand them, are orthogonal).
Are these surveys catering to the misconception of agnosticism as a middle ground between theism and atheism, or what definition are they using?
I assume that they allow the pollee to use whatever definition they wish.
There really isn’t a consensus on the distinction between agnostic and atheist. Your identity as an “agnostic atheist” isn’t unique, but I don’t think many people would use that to identify themselves, even if they qualified based on your definitions.
As Geoff points out, there is a ‘dictionary’ difference between the two terms; they aren’t strictly synonymous.
However I think in common vernacular speech, the two terms signal more of a social difference than a philosophical one. If someone calls themselves ‘agnostic’ they are socially signaling to people that their confidence or belief is not as extreme as someone who calls themselves ‘atheist’. Likewise, someone self-describing as an atheist is probably making a social point that they have higher confidence or a stronger belief than someone else who may self-label as agnostic.
Its almost like one term is used as the emphatic version of the other. Agnostic vs atheist is sometimes used like non-believer vs. NON-BELIEVER.
I agree that this is how most people interpret the words. But I also buy into the point that Russell made that “agnostic” often miscommunicates the degree of uncertainty that one has.
Maybe that’s why I tend to use the term “non-believer” when it comes up in conversation.
I agree that you make a good point.
If atheism is defined in a passive way ‘I see no evidence for god so I conclude, for now, that there is no god’, then it is little different to agnosticism ‘I need evidence of god before believing’. I’ve increasingly come to the view that most atheists are actually beyond the passive definition; certainly in my case I have formed the view that, not only is there no evidence of god, there is actually strong evidence that such a god does not exist.
This means that my atheism is not just a ‘lack’ of belief, but is, in reality, a positive belief that god does not exist. Of course this only applies to traditional gods, who it is claimed interfere in world events. If there is a secret god who hides away, as many claim, then its existence is exactly equivalent, to all intents and purposes, to one that doesn’t exist at all.
I can’t see how you make that out. Our classical scholars here may have some quibbles, but
–agnostic ; Greek ; a- (without) ; -gnosis (knowledge) ; One who doesn’t know whether there is or is not a god.
–atheist ; Latin, or mixed Latin/ Greek (of which no good can come) ; a- (without) ; -theos (god) ; One who (knows) there is no god.
They’re not orthogonal, they’re in a linear relation with “theist” (one who believes in the existence of at least one god).
If you’re an agnostic (one who doesn’t know) then you cannot be either an atheist, or a theist, who do know, one way or the other.
If they are truly “orthogonal” wouldn’t they have to be counted separately? (Though the total then might well exceed 100%)
Agnostics give the benefit of the doubt in the positive to deities existing.
Atheists do not. So how can you be both? One of the other, no such things as both.
Agnostic was the “middle ground” to begin with. Created so that it wouldn’t be so “harsh” sounding as Atheism.
Why do you say “Agnostics give the benefit of the doubt in the positive to deities existing.”? I doubt that’s true.
Thomas Henry Huxley, the originator of the term Agnosticism, was one of the 19th century’s most effective debunkers of Christianity. The only reason he didn’t describe himself as an atheist was because he knew it was impossible to prove the non-existence of vast number of postulated entities, including gods. Which is why he coined Agnosticism.
That 62% number doesn’t surprise me at all. In my experience the stereotype of nerds getting less sex is a stereotype for a reason.
We also tend to overthink things, and while the jocks are just asking the girls out, and having sex, we’re worrying about rejection, or offending the girl if we go to far.
Also sex seems to be a much more favored pastime among the poor, and stupid.
How the heck do they get that statistic? Does Harvard require you fill out a form with that question?
Go to this link: http://features.thecrimson.com/2015/freshman-survey/lifestyle-narrative/
It’s at least as likely that Johnnie & Janie can’t read, as that Johnnie & Janie don’t do the nasty.
“A show of hands: how many here have had their cherry popped?”
If you are speaking of both sexes the guy’s number depends on how many anuses of males have been penetrated who respond.
Reminds me of the scene in the first Revenge of the Nerds movie. The main nerd character has sex with the beautiful girl and she is amazed that he is so good in bed. He says that this is because the jocks are always thinking about sports, but nerds spend a lot of time thinking about sex.
I seriously doubt that. Perhaps less likely to use contraception and other safe sex practices, but a much more favored pastime among the poor and stupid? Where do you get that from? Or do you mean to say that people that have sex frequently are, if not poor, then stupid?
“I seriously doubt that. Perhaps less likely to use contraception and other safe sex practices, but a much more favored pastime among the poor and stupid? Where do you get that from?”
I don’t think this is at all controversial. If you don’t read, aren’t interested in intellectual pursuits, and can’t afford entertainment, you resort to sex. It’s free, and any moron can do it.
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are, swell, I guess. If not, see below.
Just so rationalizations of stereotypes are rarely accurate. A ten second search and a few minutes looking through the first page of results yields some data that does not support your stereotype.
Money, Sex and Happiness: An Empirical Study
From the “Conclusions” of that study,
If you look at the “Low income” and “High income” columns for frequency of sex, in the first table of the study, you can see the numbers.
The Effect of Sexual Activity on Wages
From the “Conclusive remarks” from that study,
And,
That study included people ranging from migrants to people with university degrees.
Perhaps not definitive, but more than enough to doubt that your claim is uncontroversial.
I’ve lived in Massachusetts, Alabama, Michigan, and been in the army. I’ve lived in suburbs. and the inner city. My experience in these communities have shaped my opinion.
The studies don’t change my opinion to a significant degree, but I’ll concede that perhaps my opinion is influenced by the fact that the poor, and less educated tend to be trashier than the better educated and more affluent. Perhaps it’s not that they are having more sex, but that they are more likely to talk about wanting sex, and to share stories about their sexual exploits.
I find teenagers these days to be a pretty responsible, sensible bunch. They know more about everything than kids of a generation ago, and as a result make better choices. Many are consciously avoiding “going all the way” because they don’t feel ready, and because of the vast improvement in sex education, their peers are generally pretty good about that.
Also, with sex in general being less of a mystery, there’s less obsession to actually do it. And because parents these days are much more reasonable about the whole business, there’s less rebellion involved.
It’s the Bible Belt, where sex education is limited to “it’s a sin,” and “it’s your responsibility, girls, to keep your legs crossed,” that teenage pregnancies are still endemic.
I have trouble imagining that any boy would feel that he’s not ready. For almost any boy, the main reason for being a virgin is lack of opportunity.
“Teenagers” and “responsible, sensible” — now these are factors that are “orthogonal” (or, I guess more accurately, inversely related).
Just kidding; you’re probably right. But it cuts against the grain of 400 years of The American Experience.
I just think it’s a consequence of them being better informed. There’s also data now suggesting that where sex education is good, abortion rates have dropped markedly, which is what rational people expected, but the religious insisted would cause some kind of sexual frenzy.
Just because people list themselves as ‘virgins’ doesn’t mean they aren’t having sex. Oral sex, mutual masturbation and almost anything not involving penile vaginal intercouse is widely construed by young people (I’ve had discussions with a small biased subset of them) as ‘not sex’. This even extends to young gay folk who have not had heterosexual intercourse to define themselves as ‘virgins’. Now, my sample is small, but the remarks are consistent. And these definitions are attested to by at least one former president.
So, if the survey was not more intrusive about its questions about sexual activity, it may have lowballed the rate of sexual activity.
But if you count just intercourse as equivalent to losing your virginity, Harvard students are still below average.
Exactly. My suggestion is that checking the ‘virgin’ box is not equivalent to ‘has never engaged in intimate sexual activity with another person that resulted in orgasms all around’. And Harvard freshman may be more likely pursue this route than the general population.
“anything not involving penile vaginal intercourse is widely construed by young people as ‘not sex’.”
Not only by young people: even by certain presidents!
Harvard Class of ’19: “Masters of Frottage”?
Does this coincide with a growth in attendance for religious universities? Or maybe with a growth in home schooling which might steer kids towards those religious universities or away from college altogether?
So kids accepted for admission at Harvard are declining (opting for religious schools instead) so as not to mingle among fornicators?
Has nobody noticed that the percentage of irreligious students and the percentage of non-virgins are only a tenth of a percent apart? An amusing coincidence – or is it?
Sub
They also list the religious (or not) groups by region: north-east US (38.3% of answers), south-east (12.5%), midwest (12.3%), south-west (7%), west (18.5%), and outside the USA (11.2%).
http://features.thecrimson.com/2015/freshman-survey/lifestyle/ (and look for ‘religion by region’ – had a problem getting a direct link to it).
South-east US has 9.2% atheists; outside the US 22.2%, and others between those. Agnostics vary between 14.1% (SE US) and 31.8% (outside). The sou-west is the most godless part of the USA.
Just a few generations ago, the column for Protestants (which would have been comprised almost entirely of WASPs) would have disappeared off the right side of your computer screen; there would have been two tiny columns for Catholics and Jews (artificially held down by “quotas” setting their maximum number), and the other columns would have rounded down to zero.
But just when you think progress has been made — 62% of Harvard incomings are virgins?! No way, no how, not gonna believe it. That stat must have been lifted from The Onion.
The college students of yore on single-sex campuses — the ones who wore raccoon coats; the ones who piled into phone booths and had goldfish-eating contests — even they got laid more than that.
I hope we’ll see the exit numbers in 2019, too. And for the other classes as well. I predict the religious will drop further.
Interesting. I’m wondering what percentage of people who say they’re members of a religious denomination consider themselves secular members of said denomination.
I’m an atheist, from an atheist family, yet some family members identify as culturally Catholic or culturally Jewish and go through the motions. Depending on how the question is phrased, I’m not sure what I’d answer.
Yes, I’ve always been an atheist, but yes I’m also a cultural member of a religious group.
That’s a fair point. Judging by the last few times I’ve been in a Catholic Church, if they phrased the question as “Do you consider Catholic Church to be a good place to cure insomnia?” and the answer to this counted toward being Catholic, you’d get a greatly skewed percentage.
Class of 2019?? Do students gain entry into Harvard from test results and interviews they take as 15 or 16-year-olds – 4 years before they go there?
The class of ’19 are beginning their freshman year now. They’ll graduate four years from now, in 2019.
Ah. I see. Thanks.
Get off my patch!
Ah. I see. Thanks.
Jerry, I have taken informal polls in all my classes each year both down in Kentucky and back home up here in Northern Illinois for a few years now, and I have gotten very similar results. Even in KY 30-40% of the class reported being non-religious of some kind: none, agnostic and a few brave ones identified as atheists. I get the same numbers up north here as well. Those up here especially that still identify as religious, usually some Xian sect of course, such as Catholicism for example, when asked are definitely not their parents or grandparents brand of Catholic. As Krauss recently noted, the young don’t care about one’s sexual orientation…nor race, nor religious affiliation. And they don’t adhere to Catholic dogma on birth control, divorce, etc. Even the Protestant Xian kids down south tend to be much more liberal than mom and dad and especially grandma.
Perhaps the stereotype of the nerd entering college as a virgin still holds true…
But if we’re talking stereotypes, aren’t Harvard students supposed to be preppies? The nerds are down the street at MIT.
Could be, but that would mean the Harvard students have girlfriends who are fooling around with the jocks from Bunker Hill Community College…so that statistics hold.
“But Yale freshmen are still hopeful—54 percent of respondents said they anticipated having sex while at Yale, and 81 percent of them said they anticipated having a romantic relationship while there.”
So 27% anticipated having a ‘romantic relationship’ not involving sex. How… quaintly old-fashioned.
cr
While we’re on statistics – “the mean age of intercourse remains at about age 17”
Not around here. The supply of willing 17-year-olds seems to have dried up, much to my disappointment. 🙁
(I think that should have read ‘first intercourse’…)
cr
You had me thinking there for a second that regular shagging keeps one 17 forever …
Actually the romance-sans-sex figure could be as high as 46%, if we allow for 19% who anticipate sex-sans-romance.
These must be the poor little lambs who have lost their way … baa, baa, baa.
Now I finally get why they call them “wiffenpoofs.”
Made me laugh. 😀
I wonder how many of the self-identified Jews are also atheist or agnostic, i.e., “secular Jews.”
sub