Popular doesn't mean what it used to...

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2007
Popular doesn't mean what it used to...
4
Thu, 12-27-2007 - 11:37am

So, I have been doing some thinking and then did a little research to back my findings up. People are constantly saying that names are too popular and then relating it back to Jennifer (or other 80's names).
Well I started to wonder because I live in the Chicagoland area, I taught preschool up until last year, and I am now teaching kindergarten (so I see lots of babies), and I have lots of friends and family having babies. Well, what I started to wonder if popular really means what it used to.
I know 2 Aiden's, 1 Emma, 3 Jacob's, 1 Olivia, 0 Addison's, 1 Madison, 2 Michael's, 3 Ethan's, 1 Isabella, 0 Ava's and I could go on.
Then I think back to growing up. I knew like 10 Jennifer's, 8 Michael's, 6 Christophers, 5 Amy's, and I could go on.
What I think is that with all of the name options out there now - the definition of popularity is different than it used to be. And I think we should be careful to say that if you name your child, say, Emma, that she will be one of 4 in her class. I don't see that happening.
Example:
In 2006 there were 21,118 Emily's (#1) and 18,838 Emma's (#2). But in 1980, #1 was Jennifer and there were 58, 362 and #2 was Amanda at 35, 812.
In 1980 Michael was #1 and there were 68,570 and now it is #2 with 22,220.

The numbers show that we will not see as many Emily's per grade as we did Jennifer's in the 80's.

Sorry, for my long tangent. I had just been thinking about this a lot lately (maybe it is because I am finally thinking for real about what I am going to name a real life baby).

I think it is important for mom's to be to think about what a popular name means compared to what it used to be.

Jaime

Lilypie Expecting a baby Ticker

Jaime ~ Mom to Brennan Patrick and Molly Catherine Image and video hosting by TinyPic
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-26-1999
Thu, 12-27-2007 - 11:42am
Wow, that's weird!
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2006
Thu, 12-27-2007 - 1:21pm

A friend and I were just talking about this the other day. Here's what's happening: There are both a lot more babies and a lot more NAMES in our day than there were even, say, 50 years ago. My numbers aren't based on anything, but I'm just using these numbers to make the point: 50 years ago (or whenever), there were (for example) 100 names to choose from and only 10,000 new babies a year. So, the popular names were more popular then because there were so many fewer names to choose from. Out of 10,000 names, you might see 750 Michaels (or whatever) and get 5 others in the child's kindergarten class because of the lower number of available names and lower number of population in general. On the other hand, NOW there are, say, 300,000 babies born each year and 1000 names to choose from (again, these are obviously not exact numbers!) so to get to be #1, it takes far fewer with that name since the tally now also includes 999 other names instead of just 99. So there might just be 75 Michaels but because he's competing with 999 other names, it's far easier to become #1 due to the high numbers its competing against.

Does that make sense?

I'm with you -- popularity means little anymore. I only know one little Emma, one Ava, no Aiden/Jaden/Cadens, no Ethans, etc. even though these names are high on the popularity charts. I can't think of one Michael that I've met since my first baby was born 14 years ago, nor one Emily. This topic came up with my friend because I currently like the name nn Andy, but I didn't think I'd use Andrew because it's number 8 on the SSA list. Then she brought the above up and it's TRUE! I can only think of one Andrew, he's 7 or so and goes by "A.J.".

So whether it's "popular" or "trendy" that people don't like, it almost doesn't matter anymore. The population base is too large to worry about. I see, for example, a discussion here about, say, Isla. Someone loves it but is worried it's becoming "too popular" -- yes, it's moving up the chart, but it's on a "chart" with thousands of other names so that doesn't mean much. They're all moving up (or down).

Anyway, all that to say, I hear where you're coming from and it would be super if we'd not worry about popularity or trendiness (except, TO ME, many "trendy" names are made-up/cutesy and I don't like that style) and just name our babies what we LIKE.

Darla

= = = = = = = = = =

Married since 1992, happily homemaking and homeschooling six great children. Our family has a Christian hospitalty outreach to the international students attending our local university.

= = = = = = = = = =




Edited 12/27/2007 1:25 pm ET by endyblue


Darla
= = = = = = = = = =
Avatar for cathby
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-16-2003
Thu, 12-27-2007 - 4:18pm

Yeah, I think a lot of it is regional. I don't think I know one Madison (but there are FOUR Olivia's in my DD's class!)

When you compare it to your experience w/ the Jennifer thing I expect part of it is due to the fact that you're including all the Jennifer's you knew over the course of years, reaching through high school. It's a bigger pool than the little kids you are currently seeing.

Cathy

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-10-2007
Thu, 12-27-2007 - 4:32pm

Your thoughts and research sound really interesting...maybe people in the late 70's weren't as concerned about originality than today, but I think just like with any research, you can only put so much stock in your own personal experience and anedotal evidence.


For example, I have a fairly uncommon name (Liana), but it just so happened that there was another Liana in my high school class.

 BabyFetus Ticker