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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 6:23am
I would love to see any site that anyone has available that shows how the research is taken, and more importantly... WHY?

Why are these studies taken? Is it for politic's sake? To get a better chance at Fed/State funding for certain programs? Like Welfare/Headstart/School Supplies?

I will give my two cents - it seems to me that somewhere at the bottom of the SES ladder, the gov't does what it can to provide *disadvantaged* children the same opportunitues as their peers in higher tax brackets. Headstart, Financial-Based college funding, etc.... how is a $15,000 family income THAT much different in opportunity than a $50k one?

Does everyone here also *firmly* believe that educated parents = good children? If you take an uneducated mother, and stand her alongside an educated mother, with the same parenting styles, what is the difference between the two?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 8:37am
Exactly and that is what I have been trying to find out (the intended meaning of "better")

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 8:41am
But your income would go up,so it would even out.Honestly,housingprices scare me.Of course MA is expensive,but it seems like they are getting expensive everywhere.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 9:11am
You aren't going to find any, because that isn't what the researchers are looking at. In order to conduct scientific research, you have to use factors that are measurable. Decades have been spent studying which factors affect children's performance in school and which factors can be manipulated to improve it. I don't know of anybody, ever, who has attempted to quantify "good".

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 9:20am
Right... I realize that you can't quantify *good* - but they are useful in saying, blah blah parents create blah blah kids, and so on.

I still wonder why the studies are even done. :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 9:27am
If you are interested in seeing what researchers found out about family demographics vs. student performance, here's a link:

http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB8009/

Notice that they did find a modestly significant difference between $40,000 and $15,000 income levels. There was negligible difference found between WOHM and SAHM. But what they were measuring was students' performance on standardized tests and in school. Nothing about whether they were "good" or not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 9:31am
Because educational researchers need something to do all day??? Mostly, large institutions (gov't., colleges, advocacy groups, etc.) want to make sure they are getting their money's worth. Hence, large-scale studies about education, families, and other aspects of human development.
Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 10:18am
Um, I DID!! I've never claimed to know exactly how the researchers correct for SES and maternal education. I know some of the things affected by them but not the magnitude. I can only guess that it's of higher order than working or not working since they correct for it in order to deteremine if there are differences in moms working status and when they do, they find precious little difference. The only thing I know is how SES affects my kids. The improvement in our SES outweighs by tons any percieved benefit of SAH.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 11:10am
Interesting article. I wonder if the reason drug use increased so much from 6th to 7th grade is because afterschool programs generally end at age 12 (6th grade in most cases). After that many of these kids become latchkey or worse, babysitters for younger sibs after school. Too much responsibility/stress added to the normal stress of just being an adolescent. Another interesting point was the lack of a sense of community these kids have due in part to parents' demanding careers. I wonder how many of these kids feel (rightly or wrongly) that their parents value their careers as much or more than them.



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 11:12am
I don't look at it in terms of raw numbers. It used to be partly a function of what

sort of work one did. As recently as WW2, if you were any sort of factory worker,

you were working-class, no matter how much money you managed to earn.

My own personal definition depends on income source and real property ownership.

It's not any kind of sophisticated system, and I don't really care if economists

agree with it, but I find that it is useful to me in terms of political perspective.

Here it is: Upper-class: majority of income derived from investment; owns real

property. Middle-class: owns real property, some income derived from investment,

but majority of income is derived from salary or wages. Lower-class: Does not own

real property, no investment income. By my definition, if you make $60K, but you

rent your residence and live paycheck-to-paycheck, you are still working-class.