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)