Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This debate is really intriguing and I've actually followed it for 30 pages. I think it ultimately shows how people view different standards of quality of life as acceptable. Ivorytickler likely comes from a background where a college education and white-collar level financial security is expected and is viewed as a definition of success. The posters objecting to this view likely come from more rural and/or blue-collar backgrounds and saw their own parents manage to raise them safely and comfortably without being educated to the extent IT is advocating be required/recommended. In the end this is very much a class issue. I am inclined to side with the "it's okay to have kids in your 20s" crowd, simply because we should not prohibit people who are not in professional white-collar careers from having kids, and it's foolish to pretend that everyone is going to be that way.
IT's statistics are certainly true, however, the conclusion she draws from them assumes an extreme "nurture" view on the nature v. nurture debate (that tends to be a teacher thing :P ). You have to know yourself; you should be able to find the evidence all around you that people tend to deviate from statistical averages simply because they are naturally different. I find it almost insulting as an individual, in fact, that people can actually see everyone else as mostly the product of external characteristics and external history, and that everyone's fate is associated with correlations and increased and decreased risks.
More specifically, do people have increased financial stability directly because of that degree, or do they have increased financial stability because they have shown through that degree that they have the skills necessary to complete course work of a certain rigor that requires knowledge and abilities that are useful in the job market? You can see the "degree" as the external indicator, but in the end I think the correlation is with the skills and the abilities used to obtain them. I think people with abilities that help them gain skills valued by society (such as impulse control and etc) wait because they have more to be concerned with in their life. People dealt crappy cards with minimal education won't have much else to worry about besides scraping by and just having those kids. It's kind of like all the studies that say Ivy League graduates make significantly more money; do they make more money because of the brand name, or do they make more money because Ivy League only accepts people that have shown that their abilities allow them to be more valuable to society and make more money?
By the way, IT, your insistence about Julia's math being wrong is incorrect. Second marriages have nothing to do with it, as they are already counted in the marriage count. Marriage rates have gone down, so the algorithm described inflates the figures. To explain it more concretely, 10 couples get married in 2010. Then, 6 couples get married in 2011. 3 of the couples married in 2010 divorced in 2011. Therefore, by the logic used, 50% of all marriages end in divorce. However, they fail to take into account the decreased marriage rate, as only 3 of the 10 couples married in 2010 (30%) actually divorced. It's a little more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.
Excellent.
Now, I am praying that this thread will die a quicker death this time....lol.
But there are degrees of not ready. If you have not taken the time to figure out who you are...if you have not experienced some success in life....you could be in trouble when you have kids.
Likewise, it's possible that the older you become, the more set in your ways you become. People who marry later in life sometimes have that issue, where they are just used to doing things a particular way and having things in a particular place. I know all older parents are not like that, and you might not be like that, but I am not like your stepdaughter-in-law either. I don’t live through my children, nor did I have kids to get attention.
This debate is really intriguing and I've actually followed it for 30 pages. I think it ultimately shows how people view different standards of quality of life as acceptable. Ivorytickler likely comes from a background where a college education and white-collar level financial security is expected and is viewed as a definition of success. The posters objecting to this view likely come from more rural and/or blue-collar backgrounds and saw their own parents manage to raise them safely and comfortably without being educated to the extent IT is advocating be required/recommended. In the end this is very much a class issue. I am inclined to side with the "it's okay to have kids in your 20s" crowd, simply because we should not prohibit people who are not in professional white-collar careers from having kids, and it's foolish to pretend that everyone is going to be that way.
IT's statistics are certainly true, however, the conclusion she draws from them assumes an extreme "nurture" view on the nature v. nurture debate (that tends to be a teacher thing :P ). You have to know yourself; you should be able to find the evidence all around you that people tend to deviate from statistical averages simply because they are naturally different. I find it almost insulting as an individual, in fact, that people can actually see everyone else as mostly the product of external characteristics and external history, and that everyone's fate is associated with correlations and increased and decreased risks.
More specifically, do people have increased financial stability directly because of that degree, or do they have increased financial stability because they have shown through that degree that they have the skills necessary to complete course work of a certain rigor that requires knowledge and abilities that are useful in the job market? You can see the "degree" as the external indicator, but in the end I think the correlation is with the skills and the abilities used to obtain them. I think people with abilities that help them gain skills valued by society (such as impulse control and etc) wait because they have more to be concerned with in their life. People dealt crappy cards with minimal education won't have much else to worry about besides scraping by and just having those kids. It's kind of like all the studies that say Ivy League graduates make significantly more money; do they make more money because of the brand name, or do they make more money because Ivy League only accepts people that have shown that their abilities allow them to be more valuable to society and make more money?
By the way, IT, your insistence about Julia's math being wrong is incorrect. Second marriages have nothing to do with it, as they are already counted in the marriage count. Marriage rates have gone down, so the algorithm described inflates the figures. To explain it more concretely, 10 couples get married in 2010. Then, 6 couples get married in 2011. 3 of the couples married in 2010 divorced in 2011. Therefore, by the logic used, 50% of all marriages end in divorce. However, they fail to take into account the decreased marriage rate, as only 3 of the 10 couples married in 2010 (30%) actually divorced. It's a little more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.
The decreased marriage rate has nothing to do with the failure rate of marriages. If you don't get married, you're not counted in that failure rate because you never got married. However, it is true that second marriages fail at a higher rate than first marriages. That's actually quite logical. Second marriages involve, at least, one party who has already walked away from one marriage.
I do agree that the failure rate is more complicated than it's stated. That's just the way stats like this work. If you want the true failure rate for any particular year, you'd have to wait until all couples married that year are dead and then calculate what it actually was. Comparing marriages to divorces in a given year is one way to come up with a marriage failure rate. So is looking at length of marriages.
One of the strongest predictors of outcomes for children is maternal education at time of birth. It's not whether mom has what it takes to get an education but whether she has one before the baby is born. That would lead to the conclusion that the education itself does something. Perhaps it's time to grow up (though they, usually, correct for age in studies). Perhaps it's having experienced some success. Perhaps college educated mothers attract more stable fathers (paternal involvement is also a strong predictor of child outcomes). Perhaps it's the simple fact that the parents value education enough to put education first. We know it's not the income because income is corrected for in the studies.
I find this one fascinating. I would have thought the link would be genetic but the timing of the mother's education seems to matter. After kids doesn't seem to have the same impact as before kids.
Likewise, it's possible that the older you become, the more set in your ways you become. People who marry later in life sometimes have that issue, where they are just used to doing things a particular way and having things in a particular place. I know all older parents are not like that, and you might not be like that, but I am not like your stepdaughter-in-law either. I don’t live through my children, nor did I have kids to get attention.
I would think that people who are set in their ways wouldn't be looking to change things by having kids. I know several couples who fit this description and they've all opted to not have kids even though the plan was to have them later. They like the way things are and don't want to change it.
I see many young mothers living vicariously through their kids. It's more common than you think. I don't see this in older mothers. Older mothers seem to have kids simply because they want kids. I'm sure some younger mothers do too but there are also a lot who have kids for other reasons like not wanting to work or not wanting to go to school, or they think someone else will take care of them if they have kids, or they want the attention of being pregnant or having a new baby (I'm pretty sure this is my daughter in law which is why we're ignoring her during her pregnancies. She can have them if she wants them but we're not encouraging her.)
Perhaps it's because more women become mothers when young but I've seen way more issues with young mothers than older mothers and they, usually, from my experience, stem from mom not ever having a real life before kids and either wanting to be patted on the back for being able to have babies or living, vicariously, through her kids. You have to set yourself aside when you have kids. If you're looking for attention, who's paying attention to your kids?
And, FTR, I believe in nature over nurture. I don't think we determine who our kids turn out to be. I think we can only work with what they have to begin with. We can, inadvertantly, play into what they are for good or for bad but the starting material is what they're born with. There is no doubt in my mind that dd#2 would be just as successful with the next pair of parents over. Dd#1 is the kid I made mistakes with. She needed a much stronger hand but we didn't realize that when she was young. If I had it to do again, I would not have spared the rod with her but I have the advantage of knowing that her personality requires a stronger hand now.
Ivory, for someone who says that younger moms are the ones living vicariously through their children, you sure talk about your own kids and stepkids a lot. My family is not like yours, and I'm not going to bicker whether that's "more common" or "less common," nor am I going to write huge diatribes on the matter.
Ivory, for someone who says that younger moms are the ones living vicariously through their children, you sure talk about your own kids and stepkids a lot. My family is not like yours, and I'm not going to bicker whether that's "more common" or "less common," nor am I going to write huge diatribes on the matter.
Yeah, I talk about them a lot. What I don't do is claim their successes as my own or claim they are who they are because I made them that way. I talk about issues I have to make decisions about because, as a parent, I'd like to make the right decision and others have walked where I walk who can give advice.
I have concerns I talk about with both of my kids because I have hard decisions to make. Some even radical. Should we send dd#1 to a boot camp to see if it helps at the risk of not being able to help her through college? Should we push dd#2 to continue music studies because, as adults, we see the value of her talent when she doesn't at 13? Should we allow her to graduate early or are the social aspects of high school more important? Is a 13 year old old enough to make this decision on her own? As a parent, I'm walking on untested ground here wheras other parents have already been here. They have allowed a child to graduate early or let them stay with their peer group. They have chosen to let a child decide to quit something they are talented at or required them to continue. They have struggled with a child who lacks empathy and worked it out in therapy or chosen the boot camp route (though I haven't heard anyone who went that route chiming in here so I'm still undecided on that one). There is a difference in asking for advice and living through your kids. One thing I want to make sure I don't do is live through my kids. There's a real danger of that with a child like dd#2. She's smart and talented. She has many roads open to her. As a parent, I feel a need to keep as many open for as long as I can so that she can choose the one that is right for her but maybe that's not the right route. Maybe she'd learn more by letting a door close.
I see a lot of younger mothers taking their children's successes personally to the point kids get pushed harder than they should be. I also see a lot of younger women having kids because they think having kids makes them important or will get them taken care of and it often back fires. I don't see this behavior in older moms.
I think it's a good thing to live life a bit before you have kids. To get an education, to figure out who you are and what you want out of life before you take on raising the next generation. While, to a large extent, they will turn out to be who they will turn out to be, it is possible to be a crappy parent and have a negative impact on your kids. One flaw I see in younger parents these days is not allowing their children to fail. One of the things kids need to learn is how to fall down, pick themselves back up, dust themselves off and get on with it.
"Using data from a nationally representative longitudinal panel study of parent child dyads. This study examines the relationship between maternal age and child outcomes. The model looks at parental social capital at time one and uses panel data to follow the parent child dyads at time two, when child outcomes are measured in terms of externalizing problems. Panel analyses reveal that there is a negative linear relationship between the age of the mother at the time of the birth of the child and the level of problems reported. The results show that there is a beneficial effect on child outcomes when parents are older."
This site talks about the impact of one additional year of maternal education on child outcomes. This additional year of education is positively correlated with higher math and reading scores and negatively correlated with behavior problems, grade retention and children being overweight. Of course an additional year of education might mean the mother is a year older so some of this may be correlated to maternal age not education.
More and more women are having babies in their 30's and 40's. I guess a married couple can enjoy life while they're young and then settle into having a family. But I feel the older we get, the more we might appreciate slowing down and relaxing - at least I do. At 39, I can't imagine being responsible for another human being for 18 more years.
I also like being young enough to be able to relate to my son during his entry into adulthood. He likes being around me, wants me to tear up the town with him when he turns 21. I'm not much of a party gal anymore, but I love that he thinks I'm "cool" enough to party with.
Your thoughts?
I think people's ideal situation is to have their kids younger, but I do not wish to have kids at all ever (I am 33) so it's hard for me to say which one is correct...
But I would assume the younger you are the better. Like around 22-28.
One of the strongest predictors of outcomes for children is maternal education at time of birth. It's not whether mom has what it takes to get an education but whether she has one before the baby is born. That would lead to the conclusion that the education itself does something. Perhaps it's time to grow up (though they, usually, correct for age in studies). Perhaps it's having experienced some success. Perhaps college educated mothers attract more stable fathers (paternal involvement is also a strong predictor of child outcomes). Perhaps it's the simple fact that the parents value education enough to put education first. We know it's not the income because income is corrected for in the studies.
I find this one fascinating. I would have thought the link would be genetic but the timing of the mother's education seems to matter. After kids doesn't seem to have the same impact as before kids.
The issue with this is that it those abilities are quite tough to measure. There is IQ obviously but schooling also requires effective organization and time-management skills. I'd probably say all the reasons you speculated contribute to the effect described. I'm not denying a college generally benefits in many ways, but my question is more, how many of the people who did not attend college would have actually been able to stick it out and get a degree, and if they did, is this a good thing for society as a whole? This idea that everyone, given the right upbringing, should be able to attend and complete college, is a major blow to the value of a college education within itself. If everyone had a college degree, it would just be an additional four years and tens of thousands of dollars spent on making yourself and your education "normal". Fat cats at financial companies (not to mention for-profit colleges) love that view, because it means more people who have to give them more and more money (in student loans and etc) and keep themselves dependent. An education looks increasingly like a shackle rather than a door-opener, and that development honestly troubles me; this is supposed to be the nation of opportunity.
There's a reason not everyone attends college, and we either make college a complete joke so everyone can get a degree (and force professionals through even more hoops to be considered qualified as an indirect result), or we can actually begin to accept that for the college degree to be worth anything, some people should not have the skills/abilities to obtain one. Many of these same people should not necessarily be looked down upon if they have children. Education is part of a system of weeding out more skilled/able people (social stratification). If everyone has that education, it no longer works, and employers have to rely on even more education. As a financial investment, most schools now have less of a return on investment than if you were to put that money in the stock market (typically considered 11% annually).
Got a little OT there, my bad, but what I thought was interesting in the link you posted is that as kids got older, the link between maternal education and reading/math abilities went down, while the link between maternal education and behavioral problems went up with age. More educated parents tend to intervene somehow if their child is causing a behavioral issue, I presume.
The issue with this is that it those abilities are quite tough to measure. There is IQ obviously but schooling also requires effective organization and time-management skills. I'd probably say all the reasons you speculated contribute to the effect described. I'm not denying a college generally benefits in many ways, but my question is more, how many of the people who did not attend college would have actually been able to stick it out and get a degree, and if they did, is this a good thing for society as a whole? This idea that everyone, given the right upbringing, should be able to attend and complete college, is a major blow to the value of a college education within itself. If everyone had a college degree, it would just be an additional four years and tens of thousands of dollars spent on making yourself and your education "normal". Fat cats at financial companies (not to mention for-profit colleges) love that view, because it means more people who have to give them more and more money (in student loans and etc) and keep themselves dependent. An education looks increasingly like a shackle rather than a door-opener, and that development honestly troubles me; this is supposed to be the nation of opportunity.
There's a reason not everyone attends college, and we either make college a complete joke so everyone can get a degree (and force professionals through even more hoops to be considered qualified as an indirect result), or we can actually begin to accept that for the college degree to be worth anything, some people should not have the skills/abilities to obtain one. Many of these same people should not necessarily be looked down upon if they have children. Education is part of a system of weeding out more skilled/able people (social stratification). If everyone has that education, it no longer works, and employers have to rely on even more education. As a financial investment, most schools now have less of a return on investment than if you were to put that money in the stock market (typically considered 11% annually).
Got a little OT there, my bad, but what I thought was interesting in the link you posted is that as kids got older, the link between maternal education and reading/math abilities went down, while the link between maternal education and behavioral problems went up with age. More educated parents tend to intervene somehow if their child is causing a behavioral issue, I presume.
My understanding is the study measured changes in the same kids at two points in time. Since they were already ahead when younger, I would think that the gains would be smaller as they get older. I know I saw this in my daughter (she's an exaggerated case but a fitting example here). She read on a 9th grade level in 3rd grade and now reads on a 12th grade level in 8th grade four years later. She was already, impressively, ahead so gains later were smaller. Had she continued the same pace she had from kindergarten to 3rd grade, she'd have to be reading at a post doctoral level but she has no need for that. It stands to reason if they're ahead, they're not going to gain as much for the second snapshot just becuase of limited exposure. The reason my dd took 4 years to jump from a 9th grade reading level to a 12th grade reading level was need. The 9th grade reading level was more than she needed for a few years. It's only now that she's in honors high school classes she needs the higher reading level so she's jumped again. She'd appear to have made smaller gains (actually gone backwards in that she's not as far ahead now as she was in 3rd grade) but she's still way a head of the game.
What's interesting is it's education at the time of birth not eventual education so it's not the ability to get one but, rather, actually getting one before having kids. I find that rather interesting. I can see an ability/genetics link but timing seems to matter so it's not ability/genetics at work here. They matter but, for some reason, so does actually getting a degree before your kids are born. When they correct for both maternal age and income they see better outcomes in the children of educated moms not educatable moms but ones that are actually educated at the time they have their children. You don't see these gains for children whose mother, eventually, goes to college.
I have to admit that college changed me. I grew a lot in college. It's interesting that that translates into better outcomes for my kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
