SG as a Class Warrior: Am I doomed?

I am proud of my college degree. I was the first person in my family (parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles) to get a degree. I'm the only one to have a professional degree (juris doctor).

But neither of my degrees were from prestigious schools. I'm still proud to be an alumna of both of them because it was hard work no matter what the name or location of the school was. I made the most out of situations. I'm still paying for my own way.

So it maddens me to see this. According to this study, it still matters more where you went to school than what you did. I know this is true. Someone who went to Harvard makes more than someone who went to my undergraduate school, Eastern Michigan University. But should they? Should someone with the advantage of getting to a school like Harvard automatically be given a free pass to bigger bucks and more opportunities?

What does this mean? Do we have to perpetuate the stereotype that an Ivy League degree is automatically better than a liberal arts college degree by sending our kids to better-named schools even if we don't agree with the proposition?

I guess this changes nothing--I've always made my own opportunities and have never been ashamed of what I've accomplished no matter where the school is. But at the same time, it gives me big Class War debate fodder. How many of these Ivy League graduates are people whose parents already had it easy? How many of these Ivy League graduates didn't have to work through school or take out student loans? Sure, I know there are the exceptions, but the Ivy League status is this country's "landed gentry". But should it be?

This gal thinks not.

Tell Mom and Dad Grace That I Was Right

A new study out confirms what I've always complained about after 1985 (the year Brother Grace was born)...the older kid in the family gets shafted. Well, not completely--they get more discipline and less leeway.

Now, a new study has confirmed what first-borns like Joshua have always suspected: The oldest kid in the family really does bear the brunt of parental strictness, while the younger brothers and sisters generally coast on through.

A ha! Let's read on...

“The folklore is that parents punish the older child more than the younger ones,” says Lingxin Hao, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University and an author of the study, published in the latest issue of the Economic Journal. “But it isn’t just folklore — this is a national pattern.”

Told you!

But there's an upside to this...

The study showed that older siblings were much less likely to drop out of school or, in the case of girls, get pregnant, than the youngest in the family, perhaps because they’ve had a lifetime of being held to higher standards.

That stricter parenting style often shapes the first-born kid into a play-by-the rules perfectionist, so parents tend to rely more on their oldest child than the younger kids, says Kevin Leman, a Tucson, Ariz., psychologist and author of “The Birth Order Book.”

This sounds familiar...

“When a job needs to get done, it’s the habit of the parent to call on the first-born, because they’re the most reliable and conscientious,” Leman says. But it's no accident that the oldest has become a responsible wonder child; it's the parenting strategy that made them that way.

Yep, that sounds about right. And so does this:

Younger siblings, the researchers found, really are more likely to take more risks than the oldest kid in the family.

Yowza....I knew that but it's kind of harsh to see.

So all of my complaining and moaning growing up (and let's be honest, still today) is not unsupported. There's actual data to show this. In a of ways the Grace family falls right into this pattern. I was held to a stricter standard when it came to school and such and Brother Grace wasn't and yet he takes more chances than I would ever be comfortable with--yet he's still getting his bachelors 5 years after he graduated high school. Maybe there's a Darwin-ian type balance here after all.

Goes to show you that I'm usually right...

Flawed Flawed Flawed

This piece was on NPR's Marketplace Report yesterday. Some professor did a study of health during economic downturns and found that on a macro level, the health of the area in economic turmoil was better than average. I couldn't help but think of the many huge (and I mean enormous) flaws in this research while listening to the piece.

My comments are in bold/italic.

------

Kai Ryssdal: $3.60 a gallon's gonna be the magic number this summer. The Department of Energy said today that's where gas prices should top out.

Which, if you really think about it, might turn out to be good news, because chances are paying that much will make most of us think twice before we take to the open road. Which'll mean less traffic, less stress, and probably less pollution, too.

In fact, economist Chris Ruhm at the University of North Carolina Greensboro's been studying exactly that phenomenon.

---

Ryssdal: Thanks for being with us.

Chris Ruhm: Thanks. My pleasure

Ryssdal: You know, you'd think that bad economic times would do bad things to your health and to society's general well-being. You're telling me that's not true?

Ruhm: Well, what I'm telling you is that bad economic times are actually good for your health. Now, I'm not saying they're good for society, but they do turn out to be good for your physical health?

Ryssdal: How so?

Ruhm: What we find is mortality rates of all kinds fall when the economy weakens, so total mortality, vehicle mortality, deaths from heart attacks, various health conditions like back problems become less prevalent and then people behave in a healthier manner, that is they smoke less, they drink less, they're less likely to be obese.

First of all--mortality is not the only part to health. There is this little thing called "life" that people must go through and if they're unfortunate enough not to be 100% healthy, that's not really fun.

Second of all--just because "various conditions...become less prevalent" in the statistics doesn't mean they don't exist. Perhaps (and this is a pretty good and solid assumption), people don't report these problems as much in poor economic times because they don't have health insurance. Just a thought.

Third--you all know how I feel about the word "obese".

Ryssdal: Now is that generally just less stress because you don't have to deal with all the craziness at work?

Yeah, Kai--because worrying about finding a job and paying your bills and feeding your kids ain't stressful.

Ruhm: That may be part what's going on. There's also environmental risks like reductions in pollution levels and people have more time, so they might have more time to exercise. Part of it might be an income story too. If you don't have as much money, you don't go out to eat as much. When you go out to eat, you tend to eat fatty meals, maybe you drink and smoke, so it could be a combination of factors

Ryssdal: What about everyday things like traffic loads? I mean, if it takes me 15 minutes to get in because people have been laid off, generally a good thing, right?

Ruhm: That's right, and people drive less. Driving is a risky activity

Ryssdal: Do you have any data on mental health as opposed to physical issues?

Ruhm: A little bit. Mental health is harder to measure and the evidence is much less clear and in fact, it's quite possible that in bad times, people's mental health actually worsens. So, for example, we find that suicides increase when times are bad.

Oh, and mental health isn't at all related to physical health, is it? Oh wait...

Ryssdal: Probably ought to take a step back here and make sure everybody understands we're not talking about individual episodes of good or bad health. It's more on a macro scale.

Well, that may be true, but you've been talking about it like it was individual results and then you try and tell me it's on a macro scale. Make up your mind.

Ruhm: That's right. This is looking at population-wide averages. Essentially what I was doing is using each state as an experiment, so I was comparing what was happening in one state, say in Massachusetts or Texas, relative to what was going on in other states, so if the Texas economy was weakening at a time when other states' economies were strengthening, how were, say, mortality rates in Texas changing relative to other states and the result was just very robust, the result that health got better during bad economic times.

Ryssdal: It's kind of counterintuitive though.

And kind of wrong.

Ruhm: It is to most people and certainly it was not what I initially expected, but there are a number of plausible mechanisms. I might also add there was research over a half a century ago where people looked at mortality rates and found results that were consistent with this and actually couldn't figure out what was going on and after a number of years just sort of ignored their own results, but actually, there's been evidence on this for a long time.

Ryssdal: Chris Ruhm is professor of economics at the University of North Carolina Greensboro. Professor, thanks a lot.

Ruhm: Thank you.

SG: No thank you.

Come on already

This article dares to say that fat women die more during childbirth than non-fats.

Here's my problem with the article. The article claims than "more than half" of all women who die during childbirth are "obese." "Obese" is a horribly derrogatory and medical term which is often overused improperly. I have problems with that term in and of itself.

Second of all, I'm going to assume that because they say "more than half" but not "two thirds" or "three-quarters", that it's damn near a half. That means if half the women who die during childbirth are "obese," half are not. So tell me, Dr. Spock, isn't that just as great of a risk factor if you take that statement for what it's worth.

I get what the point of the study was and I get the dangers, but I think we need to be more cautious when running our mouths about the "dangers" of being "obese" so that we're telling the absolute truth and not exaggerating.

sidenote: My other problem is that they had a picture of some random fat person sitting on a chair in an airport as their big photo for the article. I hate those generic fat people photos.

It's called "Hoes Ain't Got Time."

This asinine study shows that the higher a married woman's income the less likely she is to do housework.

The study, which is published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, showed that for every $7,500 in annual income a married woman earned, she performed one hour less of housework each week.

This is the most ridiculous thing ever. EVER. So the fuck what? Have they ever done a study about this regarding men? Of course not...because men aren't traditionally the ones to "do" housework.

What a crock of crap. Just angers the hell out of me. And here's the kicker:

"The negative side of it is that it shows just how divided households remain by gender. It emphasized how much housework is the woman's responsibility."

Um...I think the fact that the study was done in the first place is fairly gender biased. It shouldn't all be the woman's responsibility--that's the dang problem. Do a study on that. Ya fucks.

Guess how women are being screwed this time? (And the answer isn't missionary style)

It's by this study which shows that it's more socially acceptable for women to take time off from work than it is for men. Why is this bad? Listen to the experts:

A new study formally links the data and the norm, indicating women miss more work than men because that's what society expects. This seemingly benign "policy" could foster workplace discrimination in wages and advancement for women, the study authors suggest.

"The results suggest that a distinct absence culture exists for women that might legitimize their absenteeism, but it might also perpetuate gender stereotypes and lead to gender discrimination," said researcher Eric Patton of Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

Legitimate absenteeism=not worried about women being there as much=woman aren't valued in the workplace as much. I'm not arguing a slippery slope here, just inferences that are legitimately drawn from such a stereotype.

Another piece of research that is a brilliant waste.

Apparently men are taken more seriously than women when they cry.

Um...this comes as a surprise to whom and for what reason? Men are taken more seriously than women ALL the time...this isn't news.

You've got to be kidding me

There has been a study to end all studies: Apparently, curly hair tangles less than straight hair.

Money, time and effort were wasted on this endeavor.