Parental income determines child brain power

[LotusLight]

What I always said... nothing a mother can do better for her child than earning £100k plus. It is not how many nappies you change but your income that really counts at the end of the day.
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3018263/Does-rich-make-SMART-Academic-success-linked-parents-wealth-study-claims.html

So get back to work and out earn men.

Oh Xenia

so if we all have to earn £100k plus to have bright kids does that mean teachers kids are doomed to a life of being thick ?

Can't see how they could quantify this to be honest!

The Daily fail article is actually based on a paper published in Nature Neuroscience yesterday which is a reasonably high impact Journal in it's field. It is a pretty decent piece of scientific research which showed statistical significance in size of areas of the brain related to language and other educational factors between socioeconomic groups.
This was the concluding comment
"As a final point, our results should in no way imply that a child’s
socioeconomic circumstances lead to an immutable trajectory of cognitive
or brain development. Many other factors account for variance
in brain morphometry; indeed, our data show marked variability in
brain structure at all SES levels, including among the most disadvantaged
children. Certainly both school-based40 and home-based41
interventions have resulted in important cognitive and behavioral
gains for children facing socioeconomic adversity, and small increases
in family earnings in the first 2 years of a child’s life may lead to notable
differences in adult circumstances42. As such, many leading social
scientists and neuroscientists believe that policies reducing family
poverty may have meaningful effects on children’s brain functioning
and cognitive development. By elucidating the structural brain
differences associated with socioeconomic disparities, we may be
better able to identify more precise endophenotypic biomarkers to
serve as targets for intervention, with the ultimate goal of reducing
socioeconomic disparities in development and achievement."

I always find it a bit weird that xenia always comes up with "100k" as the starting point for what she considers to be a high salary when frequently threads on mumsnet suggest most people, especially living in London, don't consider that to be a massively high salary anyway.

It's like that £100k figure is just plucked from the sky.

I say that as someone who manages a 2 child family on an income of £16k plus tax credits. My eldest child is 12 and has already exceeded her end of year targets - and she is in the top groups.

The OP is just trying to wind people up. Some wealthy people may have 'big' brains but they also have massively inflated egos and a complete lack of how they come across to other people.

When my daughter was born I stayed at home until she started school, earning nothing. By the time she started school she was a fluent reader (classed as 'exceptionally able') could write a was well above average in maths. Now she is 'gifted and talented' and at 8 is achieving the average 11 year old's level of attainment.

cough cough ahem Xenia.

There is plenty academic research which shows why poverty leads to low academic achievement. Because intellectual pursuits are for the time privileged. People who are so stressed out with the basics don't have energy to do the clever stuff. Plus people with privilege manage to perpetuate it for their children. So the inequalities get ingrained in the generations.

Mebbe OP is secretly calling for Socialist Revolution, do you think?

Xenia, even by your usual standards this is a bit ridiculous. I thought someone of your intellect (or do I mean earning power?) would be way above cutting and pasting from the DM.

I've always wondered what Xenia would do if one of her daughters revealed a long-held dream to be a nurse. Or a primary school teacher. Or a hairdresser.

:muses:

What about those unfortunate rich people that have thick offspring - there are plenty of examples out there and a few famous off spring to boot...

We earn in excess of £100k, we have some decidedly average children.

Stupid generalisation from Los Angeles researchers. Daily fail pick up on it and sensationalise it, picking out bits they think will make a stupid headline. Yawn.

Tweenage - thanks for posting that, it's far more enlightening than the OP's post.

This isn't really about WOHMs v SAHMs or stealth boasts about child geniuses
It's about addressing child poverty, recognising that the playing field isn't level and that more should be done.

While the op is a bit daft there is good research I think showing that the two greatest factors for children's achievements are mother's education levels and family income. This paper is obviously just part of that. Poverty makes it hard to do well at school!

I think the op maybe being ironic.

I maybe wrong !

The OP is not being ironic

Is Lotus the new username of Xenia/Greengrow/JillyR?

Is 'brain power' the only thing we want for our kids, then?

I'm more interested in what I can do to help them be happy and well-adjusted individuals being out of the house all hours earning 100k ain't gonna do that

I don't agree that poverty in itself makes it harder for kids at school, it may be a factor in addition to a lack of parental input.
The poorest people can access the internet even just at a library, they can encourage reading even if books are second hand, or library.
They can teach their own dc through free resources from the internet.
You don't have to be rich to take dc to free museums and galleries.

You can earn 200k and by the time you have paid for a huge mortgage and the lifestyle that comes from having such a well paid job, have less disposable income than a person on benefits. It's not how much you earn but what you do with it that counts.

The parents may be rich, but one of them or both could be really thick and not see the importance of an education for their dc, as they will inherit their wealth anway.

My father brought us all up on £900 a month. He has one daughter who studied at Oxford, another who got in but went to Southampton, and two other daughters who studied St Russell Group universities. My father is very intelligent. My mother is too, but was a 1970s and onwards housewife. Because education was highly respected and prized we did well despite low income.

A big head does not equal a big intellect. What a lot of pretentious crap. I hope OP has posted a wind up otherwise she is suffering from a huge dose of crass egotism. First and foremost a child needs LOVE not megabucks

Is there a threshold? Of disposable income? A threshold for iq? Definitely g wether you're thick or not? Is EI taken into consideration (emotional intelligence) is there an equivalent study regarding the uk? Africa? Asia?

?????

It's all about income yes?

Those silly, silly teachers! I pity their offspring

Thickos

So the quote from the scientific summary above proves of course I am right and this is in the Times too and all over the papers as it is a proper survey.

As for early readers I worked full time from when daughter 2 was 2 weeks old and by 4 she was so good at reading they could not find a school reader she could not read on her entrance test.