"babies born in summer 20% less likely to attend university". Higher Ed Funding Council for England

[miljee]

I cannot remember whether it was here on 'education' or on 'primary' that I made the remark that I'd read somewhere months ago that something like 80% of Oxbridge Entrants are Sept-Dec born, thus supporting the idea that place in a school year DOES influence outcome. Someone (who didn't believe me!) asked for the long gone link but this is something I saw in the paper today. I admit it was The Sun but it goes on to say "The council says students who are very young for their school year tend not to catch up". The email is [email protected] if you want to verify this!

I'm not really banging a drum, here, just pointing out that my Oxbridge remark was probably quite accurate!

sounds like bollox to me

It was in The Times today as well, though actually the article was making the point that "pushy" parents of summer born children were now haggling to get them into the year below (whereas the trend used to be to get your child moved up). Much better to be the oldest in the class than the youngest. That is my 2 screwed then.

well I was a March baby and didn't go to University...........but I did have a place - infact I had 4 unconditional offers to choose from.......was going to go after my Gap Year (I deferred entry) but decided to get married and have a family instead .

I also know of 3 extremely bright girls (2 who sing in my choir, and the twin of one of those girls) who were all summer babies and are "Straight A" students.......so utter nonsense if you ask me.

Lady - I've got 2 that are/will be the oldest (DS1 September, DS2 November) and poor DS3 will be one of the youngest .

I have three boys born September, November and July, and the one with the July birthday has not done quite as well as the other two so far. However, as an Oxbridge graduate with a June birthday I have not lost hope for him

(I don't believe academic success is all-important anyway!)

it doesn't surprise me.

apparently around half of premier league footballers are sep-dec born too.#

thinking of holding ds2 back (aug 31st birthday)

I have 2 born in sept and one in dec - I am glad they avhe these birtdhay despite that fact that I know it is bollox

fannieannie - "20% less likley" doesn't mean "won't"

how do you know it's bollox? do you have access to statistics that the higher ed funding council haven't seen?

Not done DH, BIL, my sister nor my brother any har all born June/July, all been to univeristy and achieved good grades.

Just because we can all anecdotally cite summer-born people we know who did well at school/university doesn't make it not true. I am very willing to believe it and can see early on with my two August-born boys how maturity can make a big difference - not just in academic aptitude, but in an overall approach to formal learning.

(And BTW I am a July birthday with Cambridge scholarship and 1st, yada, yada......)

I can't see it as being the absolute truth, am sure everyone knows of summer born children who are great academic successes and the opposite with winter born children.
I am glad though cause I do see a difference now and would rather them be the oldest than youngest, and not just for academic reasons, tehre is also the social side of starting school, and emotional readiness

it doesn't pretend to be an absolute truth though. It's a statistical probability.

I think when you were born may make a difference in the very early years at school - but not by the time you are part way through secondary school.

But we all know that most stats can be read in many different ways. It is often quite easy to find a set of stats that meet what you want them to say.

But yes I am sure it is also very possible for some summer born children to be less likely to go to university.

statistics are a funny thing - they can show whatever you want them to show!

University isn't for everyone and I certainly think FAR too many people in the UK and N. America go, and many degrees have been devalued as a result.

Have to add, when I was secondary school teaching I could never tell the difference between the oldest and youngest in the class. It didn't seem to make a difference to their academic, or behavioural, progress in class once they were in secondary. IME only I realise.

scottish school years run differently (march or april are the oldest). i'd give more credence to this if anyone could identify a similar (adjested for the different ages) trend from a scottish cohort.

What a load of statistical nonsense. I was going to say what utter b**x but realised, as a summer baby myself I would not be helping the cause of intellectual summer babies!

Statistics can say anything you want them to.

I have nothing further to add other than I got a degree in Politics, (including a module in stats!) and I am a summer babe.

Agree with expat.

I went to Oxford, amongst my group of friends there was a huge cluster of February birthdays. Everyone had a Feb birthday. There were also a number of students who started aged 17 though i.e. a year behind.

Japanese school year runs April- March as well. Think to mean anything this would need to be replicated across systems.

Interesting statistic miljee: I'd always assumed this was rubbish - i.e. that the differential which is apparent in YR and Yr1 disappears over time. (In fact it may well have been me who didn't believe you on another thread )

Like others here I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of high-achieving summer babies; but the statistics obviously go beyond that.

It does imply that our education system is damaging the prospects of a certain group of children; that somehow their confidence or self-esteem is damaged by being the youngest/smallest. It seems likely to me that this happens very early on when the differences are greater in YR, because we send children to formal education so flipping young in this country.

It is possible that it does not apply so much in Scotland because they have a more flexible system so children born between Sep and Feb ( I think) chose whether to be the oldest or youngest in the class. If the Scottish system does not have the same results I would say this is a good argument for introducing such flexibility into the English system.

Interestingly the 4 brightest kids in my dd's Yr 1 class are Sep, Oct, June and Aug birthdays, but the older two are by far more mature and sensible and settle down to their work quickly whilst the other two are messing about!

I have a keen interest in this because so far these stats aren't reflected in our family circs (dh and I, Spring & late summer, both postgrad qualified, ds in June, doing really well at school...). But we have dd, an August child, and despite a very gentle Montessori-based nursery year, we have heard quite a bit of "she does lag behind". Now if she is picking that up at all at school...then my sentiments echo Roisin's last paragraph