![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Why Middle-Born Kids Lose Out
Inequality begins at home. The children born in the middle of the family are at a much higher risk than their older or younger siblings of not being as successful as an adult. It's not about birth order. It's about the pecking order--and the economic disparities that naturally occur based on where you land in that order.
So says New York University sociologist Dalton Conley, author of the groundbreaking book "The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why." His startling conclusions are based on an exhaustive data analysis of the 1990 United States Census, the General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago over the last 30 years, and a landmark study that was launched in 1968 by the University of Michigan, as well 175 interviews with 75 families from around the country.
Conley's premise: Middle-born children, who never have the experience of being the only child in the family, suffer financially compared with their siblings.
The New York Times reports that Conley's research uncovered these disheartening facts:
- Middles are less likely to receive financial support for their education.
- Middles may do less well in school than their siblings.
- The chance that middle-borns will attend a private school drops by 25 percent with the birth of a third child.
- The chance that middles will be held back a year in school increases severalfold with the birth of a third child.
But this is the most astonishing assertion of all: Conley says that while economic differences between families explain 25 percent of the nation's income inequality, the rest--fully 75 percent--is explained by the economic differences between siblings. Think Bill Clinton and Roger Clinton. Or Jimmy Carter and Billy Carter. Or William Bulger, president of the University of Massachusetts, and his brother James Bulger, a fugitive who is on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted" list.
"There's this enormous issue of sibling inequality that we sweep under the rug because we want to see the family as a haven in a harsh world, operating outside the dog-eat-dog world of American capitalism," Conley explained to New York Times reporter Emily Eakin. "But you can't think of the family in isolation from larger social forces."
He insists that inequality in families is not the exception but the norm. Children who have the same parents, live in the same home, and attend the same schools can easily end up on different sides of the economic tracks. Treating all the children equally may prove to be the hardest job yet for parents.
So says New York University sociologist Dalton Conley, author of the groundbreaking book "The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why." His startling conclusions are based on an exhaustive data analysis of the 1990 United States Census, the General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago over the last 30 years, and a landmark study that was launched in 1968 by the University of Michigan, as well 175 interviews with 75 families from around the country.
Conley's premise: Middle-born children, who never have the experience of being the only child in the family, suffer financially compared with their siblings.
The New York Times reports that Conley's research uncovered these disheartening facts:
- Middles are less likely to receive financial support for their education.
- Middles may do less well in school than their siblings.
- The chance that middle-borns will attend a private school drops by 25 percent with the birth of a third child.
- The chance that middles will be held back a year in school increases severalfold with the birth of a third child.
But this is the most astonishing assertion of all: Conley says that while economic differences between families explain 25 percent of the nation's income inequality, the rest--fully 75 percent--is explained by the economic differences between siblings. Think Bill Clinton and Roger Clinton. Or Jimmy Carter and Billy Carter. Or William Bulger, president of the University of Massachusetts, and his brother James Bulger, a fugitive who is on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted" list.
"There's this enormous issue of sibling inequality that we sweep under the rug because we want to see the family as a haven in a harsh world, operating outside the dog-eat-dog world of American capitalism," Conley explained to New York Times reporter Emily Eakin. "But you can't think of the family in isolation from larger social forces."
He insists that inequality in families is not the exception but the norm. Children who have the same parents, live in the same home, and attend the same schools can easily end up on different sides of the economic tracks. Treating all the children equally may prove to be the hardest job yet for parents.
no subject
no subject
As for girls, they tend to be more fad-driven than anything else (if a soap opera or famous actress names their kid something, everybody has it-- e.g. Emma, daughter of Rachel and Ross from Friends; Aidan, the guy Carrie dates from Sex and the City; and other names like Brooklyn, Maddox and Madison are names of famous celebrities' children).
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-03-11 02:36 pm (UTC)(link)take care,
QumQuat
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject