Biggest effect on child success is month of birth?

[Irishman]

Scott Adams (Dibert creator) had an interesting topic on his blog today (Feb 29, 2012). He proposes that the single greatest optional thing a parent can do to ensure the happiness and success of a child is to control the month of conception so to control the month of birth.

My hypothesis is that the month you conceive is the most important factor in a child’s success. And no, I don’t mean horoscopes are important. What matters most is how old a kid is for the class he is placed in. Macolm Gladwell described in his book Outliershow the older kids in a class are identified as gifted athletes, when in fact they are simply older. Coaches give more attention, training and resources to develop the perceived talents of older kids, thus widening the gap over their younger classmates.

He points to the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell, described here.

The essence of the premise is that there are artificial delineations, such as the cutoff dates for registering for school, or for registering for a sports league like hockey or baseball. Within any 1 year period you are going to have kids who just turned, say 6, and kids who are almost 7. That year of age difference correlates to a rather large developmental difference. So kids that are older are observed by the teachers/coaches and selected as “gifted” and then given additional encouragement and direction, but in fact all they really are is older and thus further along their development cycle.

The intent of the argument is that if you time your kid’s birth so that it occurs early in the year, then the kid is older at those sign up dates, and thus more likely to get that extra attention and push, and that adds up to better success in the long run from a consistent advanced attention.

On the face of it, there seems to be some merit to this premise. On the other hand, I regularly work with children from age 5 up, and my personal experience suggests that this isn’t necessarily so. I have seen 5 year olds that have the attention and focus, and 7 year olds that don’t. Yes, their coordination may not be as good, but their participation skills are not necessarily worse just because they are younger.

Similarly, I know my own nephew has a very tall dad, and he was large for his age. I know in preschool he was advancing rapidly, moved from the infant room at daycare to the next level early, and again from the toddler room to the next room early, based on size but also ability and intelligence.

My feeling is that the assumption that the 1 year age difference will mean a sizeable development difference is suspect, that there is a range of natural abilities. Sure, all other things being equal that 1 year difference in development will mean the older is better, and it may average out that the best performers will be the older kids who also develop faster.

What do you think? Is there merit to this idea? Is it flawed?

[erislover]

I believe the standard deviation of IQ is given as 15. For the sake of argument, if we assume that IQ is some kind of useful measure of something like ability that would be recognized in school activities (including sports, which have a great deal of tactical considerations, dumb jock stereotype notwithstanding), then the question would be whether the additional year of growth in itself would dominate the expected variation in ability already present.

I have no way to know how we’d answer that, even if we didn’t argue over IQ in the first place. But if I had to place my own opinion on what the prior probability is that one year of growth in grade school is more significant than any other factor, I’d put it around 1/2. (Please, frequentists, forgive this temporary lapse into bayesian ass-pulling.) Kids do mature quite rapidly and have a plasticity adults lack.

In the end, though, such late-placed kids would be behind a year. Because young adults are still learning and developing physically after high school age. This would mean that the early-placed kids have the advantage later in school. But I recall Landsburg in either “The Armchair Economist,” “More Sex is Safer Sex,” or a Slate article (wish I could be more specific but it has been a while) make the point that there is a correlation between things like height and success. The argument was that it was actually self-confidence which was related to height. Anyway, the upshot was that this factor was unrelated to actual performance that had been measured (eta: I mean, measures of their abilities were not different, but their economic success in terms of earnings were). So then late-placed kids would be expected on average to be taller and have more confidence due to the way taller people are treated and therefore there really would be a correlation with success.

Unfortunately my books are packed away in boxes so I cannot check this result. Please just ignore me if you’re going to demand a cite, I’m sorry.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

There’s merit to the general concept, but calling it the most important thing is a bit much. I was born on August 20; the cutoff for year groups in the UK is normally September 1. As a result, I was always the youngest kid.

I was smaller and less coordinated than most of my peers, but I was also more intelligent than any of them.

Here’s the thing, though: the most athletic children in my year group were mostly born in June or July, and thus also at the younger end of the scale.

[curioushat]

@Irishman

Scott Adams (Dibert creator) had an interesting topic on his blog today (Feb 29, 2012). He proposes that the single greatest optional thing a parent can do to ensure the happiness and success of a child is to control the month of conception so to control the month of birth.

He points to the book Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell, described here.

The essence of the premise is that there are artificial delineations, such as the cutoff dates for registering for school, or for registering for a sports league like hockey or baseball. Within any 1 year period you are going to have kids who just turned, say 6, and kids who are almost 7. That year of age difference correlates to a rather large developmental difference. So kids that are older are observed by the teachers/coaches and selected as “gifted” and then given additional encouragement and direction, but in fact all they really are is older and thus further along their development cycle.

The intent of the argument is that if you time your kid’s birth so that it occurs early in the year, then the kid is older at those sign up dates, and thus more likely to get that extra attention and push, and that adds up to better success in the long run from a consistent advanced attention.

On the face of it, there seems to be some merit to this premise. ***On the other hand, I regularly work with children from age 5 up, and my personal experience suggests that this isn’t necessarily so. I have seen 5 year olds that have the attention and focus, and 7 year olds that don’t. Yes, their coordination may not be as good, but their participation skills are not necessarily worse just because they are younger.

Similarly, I know my own nephew has a very tall dad, and he was large for his age. I know in preschool he was advancing rapidly, moved from the infant room at daycare to the next level early, and again from the toddler room to the next room early, based on size but also ability and intelligence.***

My feeling is that the assumption that the 1 year age difference will mean a sizeable development difference is suspect, that there is a range of natural abilities. Sure, all other things being equal that 1 year difference in development will mean the older is better, and it may average out that the best performers will be the older kids who also develop faster.

What do you think? Is there merit to this idea? Is it flawed?

No offense, but all I read is blah blah blah when you go off and inject your personal experience into a scientific/social question like this. If the study says so, then it may be. One person’s personal experience does not negate larger scale studies. At the very least they are not a justification for “this is wrong”, “this is right”, “this may be wrong or right”.. etc.. Should I throw out there that I was born at the end of May yet was one of the smartest kids to ever go through my elementary, intermediate, and middle school?

From the literature that I have read, it does have a significant impact. The most impact? I do not know.

It makes sense on the surface and this is not the first time that I have read it. Another factor that goes into success, for men at least is physical prowess, being tall and muscular correlates with success in the workplace. For women it is physical attractiveness, same thing. Now perhaps parents cannot control this.

An interesting question would be, for all of the factors that parents can easily control, is this the most effective way of increasing the likelihood for success? Or on the contrary, is this the easiest method that has a significant impact on success and happiness for parents. And what would happen if parents tried to have children around September or October? Would there be an influx and what would the effects be? Would it become more advantageous to be born in a different time of the year as it is more rare, or even less desirable?

[curioushat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

There’s merit to the general concept, but calling it the most important thing is a bit much. I was born on August 20; the cutoff for year groups in the UK is normally September 1. As a result, I was always the youngest kid.

I was smaller and less coordinated than most of my peers, but I was also more intelligent than any of them.

Here’s the thing, though: the most athletic children in my year group were mostly born in June or July, and thus also at the younger end of the scale.

Same thing as the previous post, I am curious if you are actually skeptical of the conclusion or just wanted to throw in a personal anecdote for the hell of it. And the same goes for you being the most intelligent, well, if you are already much more intelligent than your peers, one more developmental year for them will not make a difference. Your intelligence was recognized because you were a lot smarter than everyone else regardless of whether you were a year younger or not.

[Little_Nemo]

I’ve heard the premise before and it has some merit. But I’ve only heard it applied to athletics where there’s a direct connection to physical development.

Is Scott Adams claiming that the only path to happiness and success is to become a professional athlete?

Granted, that wouldn’t be the dumbest thing he’s ever said in his life but it might be the dumbest thing he’ll say this year.

[QuarkChild]

I read Outliers; my recollection is that Gladwell backs up his claim with actual data, not just anecdotes. Ultimately the data should trump any anecdotes (his or others’).

Incidentally, I went to a teaching workshop last week and learned that 80% of each Harvard class is composed of first-born kids (or only-children). That fact immediately reminded me of Outliers.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

Define success, then I might be able to at least start to form an opinion.

On another note, does Gladwell offer any proof of his arguments in his books Outliers and The Tipping Point? I’ve actually read the latter, but don’t remember much.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@curioushat

And the same goes for you being the most intelligent, well, if you are already much more intelligent than your peers, one more developmental year for them will not make a difference. Your intelligence was recognized because you were a lot smarter than everyone else regardless of whether you were a year younger or not.

I didn’t say “much more intelligent”. I said “more intelligent”. If the premise is that timing of birth is more important than all other factors, it doesn’t matter if I was more intelligent, does it? I’m not just saying I was smarter than the other kids at school; I’m saying my development disadvantage was outweighed by whatever native intelligence advantage I possessed.

Perhaps some background would be more useful. When I was a kid I attended top-tier UK private (“public”) schools, which were streamed*. The other kids in my class were themselves some of the best and brightest, and I was ahead of all of them. In itself, that proves nothing, except that I am not an exceptionally intelligent adult.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Fiddle_Peghead

On another note, does Gladwell offer any proof of his arguments in his books Outliers and The Tipping Point?

Well, that depends. Do you consider selling really well at airport bookstores and being invited to make appearances at TED to be proof?

No, it’s mostly diaphanous horseshit prized for its ability to make you sound brainy at cocktail parties. A pity, but not a surprise, that ol’ Scooter doesn’t recognize this.

[curioushat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I didn’t say “much more intelligent”. I said “more intelligent”.*** If the premise is that timing of birth is more important than all other factors,*** it doesn’t matter if I was more intelligent, does it? I’m not just saying I was smarter than the other kids at school; I’m saying my development disadvantage was outweighed by whatever native intelligence advantage I possessed.

Perhaps some background would be more useful. When I was a kid I attended top-tier UK private (“public”) schools, which were streamed*. The other kids in my class were themselves some of the best and brightest, and I was ahead of all of them. In itself, that proves nothing, except that I am not an exceptionally intelligent adult.

I certainly hope that is not the premise. That premise would imply that it is more important what month you were born than how wealthy your parents are, or how intelligent you are.

The premise is that this is the most important factor that otherwise would have no bearing on the outcome, I believe.

And I did forget that you were “Really Not All That Bright”, lol :smack:

[Voyager]

They do it for horses. For purposes of assigning ages to race horses they act as if all horses are born on January 1. (Cite for this odd fact. That’s for Northern Hemisphere, it is August 1 in the Southern Hemisphere.) Therefore, breeders do their best to ensure that horses are born as soon after January 1 as possible.

For once Adams may have something. It is not a matter of athletics only, but of maturity. Almost a whole year of difference in age might make a big difference in how a young kid performs in school and interacts with others. Of course, different districts have different cutoffs, so you might be shooting for the wrong date depending on your moving plans.

<Anecdote alert> Our second daughter would have been almost the youngest in her kindergarten class, so we held her out of kindergarten for a year. We think it made a ton of difference, even through college. YMMV.

[Hampshire]

I’d like to see some very basic data to show a correlation one way or the other.
Plotting high school graduates class GPA ranking along with their birth dates would be a good idea.
Do you think those graduating in the top say 10-20% of their class are older than the average age of the total graduating class?

[erislover]

@Hampshire

I’d like to see some very basic data to show a correlation one way or the other.
Plotting high school graduates class GPA ranking along with their birth dates would be a good idea.
Do you think those graduating in the top say 10-20% of their class are older than the average age of the total graduating class?

I would rather see a more salient measure of success, like a running average income or something. GPA itself seems kind of incidental, unless I have missed the point of the thread (entirely possible).

[elbows]

If you enjoyed Outliers, I recommend ‘The Social Animal’, it addresses what you’re asking about and quotes a fair bit of research to back it up.

He cites the best predictor of ‘success’ later in life, as the marshmallow test. Shows research that indicates it trumps all aptitude and IQ tests, hands down. I’m sure you’ve heard of the test. They put a marshmallow on the table before a 4-5yr old. Then tell him, if he waits till they come back, and doesn’t eat it, he’ll get second marshmallow.

That ability, to delay gratification, is the greatest predictor for future success, later in life he maintains. He goes on, at great length, about how this is related to play and creativity. The child who didn’t eat the marshmallow, used his creativity, (developed through play), to distract himself. Whereas the child who could not wait, never, ever, even looked away from the marshmallow.

It’s an interesting read with lots of quoted research and much food for thought. Especially concerning how informed choices are really being made, according to the latest research. It’s not hard to read, or overly long, and very engaging.

[Hampshire]

I don’t know how long kindergarten requirements have remained the same but our school district requires kindergartners to be age 5 by September 1 of that school year.
I wonder if most teachers would say their brightest or most athletically talented kids are the ones with Fall birthdays as opposed to those who have Summer birthdays.

[Zsofia]

Well, I skipped kindergarten, so I was always the youngest kid in all my classes by FAR. If I’d been in my normal grade I would have been bored to tears and even more of an underachiever.

On the other side, I suffered socially because of my lack of maturity on that front, so there’s that to it.

[Irishman]

@Little_Nemo

Is Scott Adams claiming that the only path to happiness and success is to become a professional athlete?

No, if you read the article I linked, you would see

When I first heard about the birth month advantage, I assumed it didn’t matter much for ordinary kids who had no plans to be professional athletes. But consider any kids you know, and how much they change, mentally, emotionally, and physically in the course of one year. The youngest kids in a given class are at a huge intellectual disadvantage compared to the oldest. How different is the experience of a kid that breezes through school thinking he’s brilliant, versus the kid who needs a tutor to keep up?

We know that some childhood advantages disappear over time. A recent study showed that raw intelligence was a better predictor of long term income than a child’s socioeconomic starting point. Likewise, maybe the younger kids with talent learn to try harder, and to cope with failure, which has its own advantages later in life.

He’s looking at the broader perspective of arbitrarily defined artificial lines vs perception of performance because of those lines. I found it an interesting question, worthy of discussion, so I asked it here.

I threw in my personal anecdotes, not because I think it trumps data collected from scientific studies, but merely my own “sanity check” on the outcome. It’s one of those “does that make sense?” things. Sort of how engineers use back of the envelope and order of magnitude estimates to get a feel, but then have to actually parse the numbers if they want real answers.

@Voyager

<Anecdote alert> Our second daughter would have been almost the youngest in her kindergarten class, so we held her out of kindergarten for a year. We think it made a ton of difference, even through college. YMMV.

<Anecdote alert> Same for my brother. His birthday is in late September, and my folks chose to hold him back. Rather than being 2 years ahead of me, he was one. Not sure if it made a difference for him, or if personality was a bigger factor.

[John_DiFool]

It’s true for hockey, and is also true for baseball tho a bit weaker. Working against the idea is the notion that a gifted kid (in whatever endeavor) will exhibit more growth against higher-level (i.e. older) competition than he would against inferior or equivalent competition (keep up or quit). I’m sure many of us have younger siblings who had to grow up in a hurry so as to maintain pace with the older kids. But I’m not sure how this would apply to non-athletic activities.

[Little_Nemo]

@Irishman

No, if you read the article I linked, you would see

When I first heard about the birth month advantage, I assumed it didn’t matter much for ordinary kids who had no plans to be professional athletes. But consider any kids you know, and how much they change, mentally, emotionally, and physically in the course of one year. The youngest kids in a given class are at a huge intellectual disadvantage compared to the oldest. How different is the experience of a kid that breezes through school thinking he’s brilliant, versus the kid who needs a tutor to keep up?

We know that some childhood advantages disappear over time. A recent study showed that raw intelligence was a better predictor of long term income than a child’s socioeconomic starting point. Likewise, maybe the younger kids with talent learn to try harder, and to cope with failure, which has its own advantages later in life.

He’s looking at the broader perspective of arbitrarily defined artificial lines vs perception of performance because of those lines.

Yes, but the data only applied to athletic performance. Adams took a study made by Gladwell, in which Gladwell offered a conclusion supported by data, and Adams formed a related conclusion, which he supports by anecdotal evidence.

Suppose I read the surgeon general’s report that concludes that smoking can cause cancer. This conclusion is backed up with extensive data. And when I read this, I think, “Hmmm. Smoking can cause a disease. You know, my uncle and my grandfather both smoked and they both had diabetes. I bet that smoking caused their diabetes.” But my conclusion isn’t supported by real evidence and it would do me no good to point out that there is real evidence of the link between cancer and smoking.

None of this is a surprise. Adams has written things in the past that shows he has no idea what science really is. At least this time, he admits his idea is “unscientific”.