Buriedor ignored discussionon SES

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Buriedor ignored discussionon SES
51
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 8:49am
I prefer to believe it was buried. CLW believes that SES is one of the key determining factors in how a kid turns out. I am cutting and pasting my post here..

Where? What studies? What are the criteria for turning out "well"? Is it only earnings? I am still waiting to see all of this research and I am not sure how, aside from finances, turning out well could be quantified. Would my friend, the dd of a high earning succesful business man, who dropped out of college, took an average job and spends a great portion of her time volunteering at women's shelters have turned out well? Would she not have turned out well because her earnings dropped her down in SES from where she started? Would the guy who hates what he does but earns more than his high earning parents meet the criteria for turning out well?

SUS

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 1:01pm
See my answer above. It's measured in obvious ways.
Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 1:09pm
I have to disagree on the lower to upper middle class. That's the difference between my upbringing and my kids up bringing and there is a world of difference. Where I come from, it's routine for girls to get pg in high school thinking some guy will take care of you. Here, it's routine to pick your college major in your junior year of high school. I grew up lower middle class and now live upper middle class. I grew up with undeducated parents. My mom finished high school my dad dropped out in the 6th grade. My kids are growing up with two parents who have masters degrees. The school district I attended is rated D- in our state and hasn't changed much since I attended. The one my girls attend is rated B-. Not stellar but a whole lot better than what I had. I think there's a big difference going from lower middle class to upper middle class. Being lower middle class meant I saw less crime and violence than I would have seen at the poverty level but it didn't do much to improve my future prospects in life. Sad to say, most of my friends didn't amount to much. Many of those girls who married young are now divorced and trying to figure out how they'll ever be able to retire. I run into quite a few of them working behind counters in stores I shop. It's pretty sad.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 1:11pm
I don't think those are necessarily obvious ways. I live among people who married young, don't have a high earning potential (but high enough to own their own homes), some months they eek by - sometimes they do better than that, mostly didn't go to college - but they are happy. Anecdotally they do not commit crime or use drugs (not do their children) at a higher rate than the people I know in the upper middle class spheres, but the difference is that among those that do those things, the white middle class guy has better access to better attornies, possibly "knowing someone" etc. I can point to a few friends - again anecdotally - in better neighborhoods, with more resources for the children, more opportunities for enrichment, that don't USE them. Being there is only a small portion of the game. The assumption that just because one has/earns x y z in life they are happy/successful or good parents, is as false as just because one doesn't earn x y z they are schmos that couldn't figure out HOW not to get pg, shotgun beer and are morally bankrupt.

You still haven't shown me where the lines are drawn and how this data is adjusted - if it is adjusted how accurate can it be? I understand that there is a huge disparity in life choices between the rich and the poor. I wouldn't argue that. But I also don't believe that a college degree and a four bedroom home in a subdivision is an accurate measure of happiness or turning out better.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 1:13pm
I totally understand that. But the argument being made SEEMS to be the difference between steps in class and that kids TURN OUT better. IMO, turning out better does include those "soft" things you mention above.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 1:41pm
I think that I would place parental/family involvement above SES in those keys.

Of the people I know that are happiest and most satisfied with the general direction of thier lives - regardless of education and financial situation - they are usually the ones with that can look back to a high level of positive parental involvement and a suport network. USUAL/IN GENERAL are key here. I know plenty of people that have achieved a level of comfort and happiness with crappy parental relationships and I know of the reverse too.

I DON'T believe that only the middle and upper middle class (and I really don't know where I fall in the real scope of things, but on this board I think I am definatley in the lower percentages) have involved parents. I don't believe that work status impacts the amount of support or involvement either - unless of course it is a situation that falls off of the norms.

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 2:01pm
I think the problem here is defining "well" in the SES context. Bear with me, "Well" is not like "better human being" but well according to those factors which determine where a person falls on the ... food chain, for lack of a better word. So for example, a person's SES is determined by social factors and economic factors. I think if you took college level adults, and looked at their backgrounds, I think you can draw parallels, ie., more likely than not to have educated parents, make a certain amount of money, etc. I think if you took the average prisoner, you would see the same socio-economic indicators in their background, perhaps family instability, single-parent household, poverty, lack of education.

Another example, I read this article where one of the researchers, or commentators, hypothesized that breast feeding resulted in that baby growing up to be smarter, or more likely to go to college, etc. A criticism of that was studies of bfing mothers showed that the parents were more likely to be college educated or above anyway, mid or upper "class," so it is just as likely that where the child ended up had more to do with the SES of the parents than the BFing alone.

So if we took "well" to mean college educated, good job, earning mid or upper levels, (ie. those indicators considered to elevate one's SES) then yes I agree that one's parents' SES does affect where that child ends up, if only in terms of opportunity afforded to that child versus the opportunity afforded a child living in South Central LA.

As a general rule, as in more likely than not, but not slam dunk. As always individual results may vary.

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 2:04pm
All I know is that they adjust for this data and that tells me it's important. I know it matters with regard to school readiness, school performance, teen pregnancy rates, dropping out of high school and college attendence as I can find references to those things in my texts. No I don't know exactly how the researchers corrected for SES. Personally, I'd rather they let me look at the raw data because correction for SES is wrong in my book because you can't take the portion of our SES that I contribute to our family out of the equation like that. Comparing me to someone who has the same income level I have becuase I work who doesn't work isn't a fair comparison because I wouldn't have the income level if I didn't work. Like it or not, SES matters enough for the researchers to take it out of the equation before they digest the data. Sorry, but this is common knowledge. They wouldn't adjust current research for income and education levels if it weren't and no I'm not going to go dig into the archives to find data. IMO, the impact of SES is pretty obvious but then again I've lived as both lower middle class and now as upper middle class so I can see the difference first hand. I'm not going to sit here and argue that which researchers accept because you don't like it.


Edited 3/30/2003 3:06:03 PM ET by cyndiluwho
Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 2:14pm
Parental involvement and parental quality are two other known impactors for kids. No one ever said SES was the end all be all here. We're talking about slices of a pie. SES is one slice. WOH/SAH isn't even a sliver by comparison. Parental involvement is another slice of the pie. Is it bigger than SES? I don't know but there is a link between parental involvement and SES (however you will find involved/uninvolved parents at all levels so I'm speaking in general here) and researchers correct for SES but not parental involvement, usually. I have seen them correct for maternal sensitivity but that was research involving infants. From what I've read, if mom is sensitive to her baby's needs, her working status is irrelevent.

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 2:18pm
They have determined that part of the difference in IQ in bf'd babies is due to the tendency of bf'ing mothers being smarter and more educated but part is not. I believe it's a difference of 8 IQ points with 3-5 being attributed to genetics and the rest to components found in breast milk, some of which are now finding their way into infant formulas.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 03-30-2003 - 4:02pm
I understand that. But that is not what was said, the idea - and it has been presented frequently here - is that the kids turn out "better". How come it is ok to say and justify that one way, as in going down the economic ladder but not the other?

SUS