"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!

I heard this on radio five today. Boys with a summer birthday are 25% less likely to get a uni place.
A lot of the findings were to do with attitude to learning and concentration while in class, ie as they get older they settle better. Also they made the point that some younger children, in some schools wouldn't have entered reception until Christmas, missing that first term, and then never really catching up.
My oldest 2 are sept, and bright. The younger is March, and he's just starting to creep up the class.
Interestingly, when reading up on the 11 plus, scores are age marked, with a higher score allocated to younger children. Appeals are statistically more likely to be heard from older (sept+) children.Interesting.

it's not true that statistics can show whatever you want them to show. What's true is that people often use statistics to prove causality, which in most cases they can't. For example, the statistics that show a high proportion of heroin users smoke cannabis have been used to "prove" the slippery slope argument (that cannabis leads to heroin), but actually all they show is that people who like heroin also like other drugs.

In this case however, since you don't choose when you're born, the statistics are highly likely to be reliable, especially if they come from the he funding council, who have access to all loan applications.

I would echo roisin's last para too - DS1 was the youngest in his year (mid July birthday) and spent his entire primary school career feeling small and left out by the big smart Sept-Dec boys (a very significant proportion of the year).

Yes, summer-borns can be high achievers, of course they can, but it seems to come easier all round to those who are soooo much older in relative terms, esp in KS1.

My current dp was an August baby and he has a Masters plus a BEng, my xp is also August-born and is a certified accountant.

FWIW I'm a March baby and went to uni as a mature student with 5 offers for degree places and 1 strange diploma offer from one uni (later upgraded to an offer for the I'd orginally applied for, when my results came out). Not bad for a 'younger' child in the academic year.

I disagree
there are so many conflicting statistics out there for all matter of things.
in this instance I can believe it, but that doens't make it an absolute truth

Just to compound your misery/paranoia

Professional footballers and cricketers are more likely to have autumn birthdays too

I have to confess that I made an effort for my 2dds to be sept, dec babies for this very reason. My eldest is nearly 8 so the theory has been around for a long time. Also they are less likely to be obese as adults apparently. Although that wont work if they eat too much mcdonalds!!

Except in junior sports, the year runs 1 Aug - 31 Jul (which made poor DS1 even littler )

Oh good does that mean I only have to save for one of them for uni?

Took me time to catch up enough to be at uni but am now doing OK.

I think if you have anya dditional needs- like ds3- then its hard being youngest; one of the aminr easons we are delaying his school start until Easter, a late July birthday plus SN = just far tooy oung and immature to cope.

There are of course plenty of kids amture for their age as well. But I do wiosh there were more flexibility.

I think it's important to say that although summer babies are statistically less likely to go to university, this is only 1 factor. So a girl with a supportive family is likely to overcome the disadvantages of a summer birthday whereas a boy with an unsupportive family may find this much harder.

Speaking here as an August birthdayer with 2 June birthday dds!

I do notice that while my dds seem bright for their AGE and are streets ahead of their friends who are only 3 months younger (but will be a whole school year behind) the difference between them and the September born children in their year is marked. Not in terms of 'ability' but in terms of their overall maturity and conceptual understanding.

Those of you who say that the age difference becomes less marked as kids get older are right but the point is that it's already taken its toll by the point where it would naturally even itself out. So apparently the majority of professional athletes and footballers have autumn birthdays, they're therefore likely to be the biggest in the class, they're therefore likely to be faster and tougher than the youngest kids and win races and get picked for football teams etc. By the time the younger kids have caught up (which could be well into secondary school) they've already been put off sport and have less experience etc. This also applies to reading, maths etc. And as has been pointed out, it's a particular concern for boys with summer babies who can be switched off school on the 1st day because they find it hard to concentrate, see themselves as failures etc.

My nephew is desperate to start school, completelyr eady writing his own name , conversing knows the alphabet but he's too young so he cannt. DS3 is a huge issue for the LEA because he isn't ready- there's 10 weeks between them in relaity its just ds3 is older! I'd personally prefer a school satrt age of 6 with more formal preschooling available to those who choose it- and more nursery style palces for those who would be suited. Current LA policy is not to let even SN kids repeat Nursery so it all seems to work against those who would be OK with a bit of flexibility.

In my secondary school there were two classes per year. The classes were divided by age. Average exam results were always a bit higher for the older class than the younger - this was true for all years (not just mine). Of course there were very bright children in both classes, and quite often the brightest child would be in the younger class. Anecdotal evidence means nothing in these circumstances - you have to look at a statistically valid sample to form any conclusions. I think this is likely to be true (it seems an easy enough thing to measure accurately) - but you have to remember that age is just one small thing of many that affects a childs chances of going to university, and many of the other factors are far more important.

I didn't go to University (laziness rather than lack of ability) BUT was always in the top 20% at school and was born in August.

My brother was born in December and always struggled at school.

My dh was born in August and got a 1st at University (in the days when 1sts were rare) and is now a Professor.

Can't see anything about it on the HEFC's website or in any of their oublications.

So what can or should be done about it, if anything? I thought adjustments were already made for summer born children, especially boys?

btw my dh is a Winter baby, that is, he was born in August

That's interesting Hula about yr 2ndary experience.

DS1 is my least able child I guess (partly because he is the oldest and has to blaze a trail, also for other reasons) and he is June b/day. I can certainly see that even in Yr3 he is still behind, struggling with concentration etc. He also had a term less school.
But maybe there's hope for him yet!

If you think of the difference between a 12-year-old and a 14/15-year-old, that's what a summer child is up against with the autumn ones, in Reception - the relative difference does shrink with the years but as blackandwhitecat said, "the point is that it's already taken its toll by the point where it would naturally even itself out".

They do make allowances for the younger ones and expect a bit less of them in terms of behaviour and achievement, but that doesn't last too long.

surely it depends on the child. my ds and the dd of my friend are starting reception in september and they are totally different. my ds is a May baby and totally chomping at the bit to get started. her dd is six months younger and seems to be less ready for it. still clingy, wants to stay with mummy and not go to big school. she starts full-time in september, he starts full-time in january (only half days until then). does it not depend on personality or ability, rather than the season in which they are born???

Individually, yes - statistically, no.

strange. maybe they are making it up...?

More anecdotal stuff, out of my three (still a bit too young to say really) but going on current standards:

DS1, August baby, is highly likely to go to uni.

DS2, October baby, extremely unacademic and unless a minor miracle occurs, very unlikely to go to uni.

DS3, another August baby, unsure, could go to uni if he chooses to.

just thinking of my family....i have 5 sisters and 2 brothers....

db1 - march baby - 1 o level
db2 - may baby - degree
(is it ds or dsis? i will use ds here)
ds1 - march baby - degree
me - march baby - degree
ds2 - march baby - degree
ds3 - december baby - degree
ds4 - december baby - gcses
ds5 - february baby - gcses

i need more born at different times of year... dh has a lot of march babies in his family too

dh - september baby - a-levels
dh db1 - may baby - nvq
dh db2 - march baby - a-levels
dh db3 - march baby - degree
dh ds - march baby - currently doing ou degree course

i shall shut up now. how many do you need to look at before you start seeing the pattern?

ooh interesting. sounds like a good job!!!

95% of statistics are made up on the spot.