Study in the UK claims to distinguish between high and low genetic tendency for academic achievement by using “genome-wide polygenic scoring - a statistical technique which adds up the effect of DNA variants - to test how inherited genetic differences predict children’s educational success”.
Percentage of kids who go to university, according to the study:
| Genetic Tendency For Academics | High SES High Education Parents | Low SES Low Education Parents |
|---|---|---|
| High | 77% | 47% |
| Low | 62% | 21% |
Hmm. I wonder how much of an impact genetic ability really made. From reading the study it seems like Nurture was a much greater factor. Of course there are other confounding variables like do both parents work, or quality of education before university, but I think that anyone can learn. Was there a true impact from Nature/genetics at all?
Having a genetic makeup that makes you more inclined to education does make a child from a disadvantaged background more likely to go to university, but not as likely as a child with a lower genetic propensity from a more advantaged background.
Very interesting study though.
I wonder where our cross section of high education and low SES fit into their study. I would be interested in reading in more detail because the claim, on its face, seems very hard to believe.
I don’t think there is much new here. I think the study does underscore the fact that there are students from lower SES who are not getting the resources that the students from higher SES families do. We need to work on that.
@Dunshire - the “both parents work” factor isn’t really relevant by itself. Comparing a family situation in which both parents work multiple, low paid jobs and have few resources to a family in which both parents are working highly compensated professional jobs is comparing apples to oranges.
I think that both parents working is important. If both parents work low income jobs then they will have less time to look after their kids, compared to a family in the same income category, but has one parent at home who can look after their kids. Also kids in a higher income category with both parents working often can afford a tutor to make sure their kid succeeds.
I think it depends on the interaction of the parent/s rather than whether or not they are working (except where the hours are such that a parent is rarely home. For example: I worked outside of the home for several years after my kids were born , then took a break for several years and then returned to the paid workforce. I never paid for a tutor. When working or not , I read to my kids every single night. We were highly involved with our kids and promoting education and related activities regardless of work status.
Yeah, I agree. The study is really large (5,000 kids!), so there’s bound to be conflicting variables.
I agree that there is nothing new. It is interesting that charges were made for university education for the first time in 1997, and that year was also the last for which a greatly diminished, non-repayable maintenance grant was available. Many young people from poorer families are debt averse, in which case paid apprenticeships are much more attractive. On the other hand, wealthier well educated families will be able to afford extra help for their children and often have a better grasp of the opportunities available. Family tradition plays a part.
Going back decades to when passing the 11 plus exam to gain a place in the academically selective grammar schools was necessary, the more aware and the wealthier often sought ways to improve their children’s chances. Many of the less academic schools had an academic stream which entered them for O levels and were so very popular choices among those of all classes who were aware. There were also many small, non-selective private schools which publicised their O level successes, popular with those who could afford them.