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

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 04-02-2003 - 6:36am
You're welcome. Just fighting the good fight here, for greater understanding of statistical data everywhere! :)

You are studying education, right? Why not ask one of your professors for leads to track down that original data? You'd probably have to go back a lot of years, but original studies involving Headstart or Title I might be available someplace. And Rand.org, where I got the link I posted, does studies about education for legislative purposes. They might have information available to the public?

I agree that it's maddening that these studies are done this way (it's like doing a motion problem in physics, but assuming no gravity or friction -- where in reality is that situation going to exist???). The problem now is, the researchers are saying "But everybody knows this...", 40+ years have gone by, and, no, everybody DOESN'T know this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-01-2003 - 7:31pm
THATS IT!!!!!! HORMONE HELL, THATS WHAT IT WAS!!! omg, there is a name for it. those damned hormones work the kids and the parents over!! there ought to be a law!! ROFLMAO!! i can do nothing but laugh, because after going through "hormone hell" with ones children, thats all one can do!!
Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 04-01-2003 - 4:08pm
Personally, I think puberty probably has something to do with it. I remember hormone hell all too well.
Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 04-01-2003 - 3:16pm
Thank you! At least someone gets what I'm saying. Personally, I'd like to see the uncorrected data and find out if moms working status still doesn't make a difference. I'd be willing to bet that that negligable effect would be a positive for WM's if they left in the impact of higher income. I hate this correction because if you take away my job you also take away my income. They go hand in hand. Why tell me what my life would be like if I could not work and STILL have the income when that is, simply, not reality. The income comes with the job. While I find it nice that there's precious little difference between my kids and the kids of a SAHM with the same income, what I'd really like to know is the difference in my kids that results from the increased income. Moms working does impact family finances so why compare us as if it didn't? That's just not a realistic view.
Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 04-01-2003 - 3:10pm
Yes, because that's what peer reviews of the studies in question said. What I don't know is by how much they adusted. The adjustments are made because they know they will find a difference if they don't make the adjustment. They want to see if one particular thing makes a difference so they adjust for things that are known to cause a difference. How, precisely, they do that, I have no idea. However, if SES made no difference, they wouldn't adjust for it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-01-2003 - 8:12am
Since at least the 1960s, educational researchers have assumed that children benefit from living in a higher income household. So, when they look at SAH/WOH, they mathematically correct for the higher income, in order to have a level comparison. If you look at this study:

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

you will notice this statement:

<<< Surprisingly, whether the mother worked had a negligible effect, after accounting for other family factors. >>>

One of the other family factors they accounted for was the income provided by the mother's job. Basically, they remove the positive effects of the income, then see if there is a statistically relevant difference in the two groups of children.

That is what CLW has been referring to. I haven't done statistical analysis in a while, so I can't explain the mathematical formula off the top of my head, but it does exist.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 7:24pm
But you claim to know that the "adjustments", whatever they may be, are made because SES means kids turn out "better".

If you don't know what's being adjusted and why, how can you possibly claim to know what the adjustments mean?

Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 4:09pm
I don't, firmly, believe that an educated parent is a good parent but it does improve the odds a bit. It's all about odds. Kids can come from horrible backgrounds and excel while other languish in the best of circumstances. It's about giving your kids the best chances. We don't get some osmotic download when our kids are born that endows us with special knowledge as to what they need to excel so we do what we can to stack the deck. My kids will go to a college prep high school where the teen pregancy rate is very low. I went to a non colleg prep high school where the teen pregnancy rate was high. I managed to go to college anyway (albeit late but I went). Could one of my dd's end up the teen pregancy stat? Of course. But the odds are more in her favor than they were for me. That's all I can do as a parent.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 3:18pm
Yes, I did mean net worth, my apologies if I put that badly. Essentially, my

definition of "middle" as opposed to whatever is the next step down, is that

you have enough to have a fairly substantial cushion against adversity. Perhaps

you might have to liquidate some of your assets to maintain your standard of

living, but owning assets that you can liquidate makes all the difference.

"Upper class" in the sense of "wealthy" is a bit more nebulous to me, but most

of the people I have known who I would think of that way were people who had

substantial trust-fund income to fall back on. I would perceive that group as

comprising a very small segment of the US population, probably less than 10%.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-31-2003 - 1:25pm
I would say only the wealthiest 1-3% in the U.S. live off of investment income. Maybe you're talking about classes based on net worth and not on annual income. It DOES make a difference.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages