Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site ittvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!allenm
From: allenm@ittvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: SAT scores affected by number of siblings
Message-ID: <1585@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 11:45:34 EST
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1585
Posted: Thu Jan  3 11:45:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 01:54:30 EST
References: <98@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: ITT-ATC, Stratford Ct.
Lines: 62

I think many siblings correlates with low income level, which correlates
with low test scores.

> Recent studies suggest that kids with many siblings get LOWER SAT scores
> than do kids with fewer brothers and sisters.  The proposed "theory" is that
> less time is spent with or available from "adults".
> 
> [Let's avoid discussing the "studies" which are clearly lacking adequate
> control groups for quality of interactions, spacing of siblings, 
> environmental factors, etc.]
> 

Often a reaction to a study is to disagree with the conclusion and to
propose a different one based on personal obversation or "common
knowledge".  This is surely not science.  Why not discuss the
statistical or sociological methodology?  Why not propose alternative
conclusions based on similar studies?

> Can Scolastic Aptitude Tests that measure `common sense' and what was once
> thought to be inate ability or lack of it really be affected by degree of
> exposure to `adults' or adversely affected by substituting exposure to
> siblings?

You are arguing here with the reasoning for what you claim is the
hypothesis ("The proposed 'theory' is that less time is spent with or
available from 'adults'.")  for the statistic ("Recent studies suggest
that kids with many siblings get LOWER SAT scores than do kids with
fewer brothers and sisters.").  I agree that such reasoning should be
supported by additional data, were it to be seriously advanced.  Who
actually proposed this theory?

> ...   My observation is that siblings 4 to 5 years older often supply
> better inputs to their younger siblings than do adults! Often because they
> share or can relate to similar interests (like drawing, playing with dolls,
> playing with cars) than adults can supply.  
> 
> Personally I blame the last 20 year drop in SAT's on TV, which is a better
> sitter for several kids than for one. With smaller families perhaps kids are
> spending less time with the TV and more time with their parents? Whatever!

Your hypothesis is at least as unsupported as the one you are attacking.
Do you believe that people will agree with you on the basis of personal
"observation" or what you want to "blame"?  

How about a plausible alternative hypothesis, even with missing
citations?  I recall reading about high correlation between large family
size and low income level (plausible, but no reference).  From there, a
connection between low income level and low standardized test scores
also seems plausible.  

Since I'm not a Sociologist, I'm satisfied with such reasoning.  Since I
believe in the scientific method, I think such correlations are capable
of being checked.  I don't think it would be easy (possible?) to check
whether siblings give "better input" to each other than adults do.  And
the effect TV may well be independent of family size (that may be
possible to determine).

-- 
			Allen Matsumoto
			ITT Adv. Tech. Center, Stratford, CT 06497
			203-385-7218       
			(decvax!ittvax!allenm)