Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

enny_el t1_iyn2hl8 wrote

Reply to comment by Pain_Free_Politics in [OC] Birth months of FIFA World Cup players. The top three are January, February and March, possibly due to the "Relative age effect" by desfirsit

I often wonder about this - how birth month might affect academic or sporting performance. Someone must have done this research to some extent, surely? I'm from the UK, had kids in Mexico (where school year cutoff was December at least in our district) and now live in US, where it's October, but where so many parents try to game the system by holding their kids back that some districts are really strict on age/school start dates. It's fascinating.

20

unblockablemid t1_iynfzkv wrote

Outliers by Malcom Gladwell is basically about this and has a section on how kids born at a certain time of year have advantages over others (in sport), as they're more physically developed, and are more likely to getting scouted. Highly recommend if this kinda thing interests you.

47

Anachronism-- t1_iynku3k wrote

He’s done an update on his podcast recently. Now some parents are using his data to intentionally hold their Children back a year to give them an academic advantage. Enough to start skewing the data.

Edit - I don’t think gladwell came up with this idea but he did make it more mainstream.

17

SolemnLoon t1_iynm9ng wrote

It would be easy to enough to adjust for birth year. Instead of just birth month, it would be number of months older than the minimum.

For instance, someone who turns 17 on Sep 1 of their senior year (12th grade) would be considered "0 months" old. The typical range would be 0-12 months if everyone was born in that year, but someone who was held back and turned 18 two months before their senior year started would be "14 months". Your range might be as much as 0-24 instead of 0-12.

6

Anachronism-- t1_iynpcjf wrote

I listened to it a while ago but that sounds similar to what he ended up doing.

2

classybroad19 t1_iyoz3ms wrote

He didn't, in the podcast he talks about the Canadian researcher's wife who noticed it.

2

SolemnLoon t1_iynmqlr wrote

Yep... I loved that chapter. If the sports leagues are really interested in finding the best players regardless of birthdates, they could do a sliding cutoff that changes 3-6 months every year.

That way the "January" kids would sometimes be the oldest in their group, and would sometimes be the youngest. Depending on how they did it, a kid might either spend two seasons in one age group, or skip an age group altogether.

3

timbasile t1_iyo7dr9 wrote

BMX just uses your current age to set cohorts. If you're 8 and it's your birthday later this week, you race the 8 year olds since you're still 8.

Next week, you'll be 9, so then you'll race against the other 9 year olds.

There's still an effect - since at least here in Canada the sport shuts down for the winter, so people born late fall would spend the most race days in the cohort as an older athlete, but I'd imagine it's muted vs other sports using a calendar approach.

Though with an individual sport like BMX, it's easier to do this since it doesn't have the same team forming process . You just show up at races and race whoever happens to also show up.

2

SolemnLoon t1_iyo8xun wrote

Ahh, that works. And you're right that it's much easier in a solo sport than a team sport. It'd be tough on a coach if every time a kid had a birthday, he moved on to the next team.

1

eltos_lightfoot t1_iyo7obi wrote

I always felt he missed talking about the few kids that actually made it from the last months. What made them succeed in spite of being in that cohort? Weren’t they the true outliers?

1

marriedacarrot t1_iyobq5b wrote

In India, reporting the wrong birth month to the school is super common (or it used to be), from parents trying to optimize their kids' chance of academic success.

5

enny_el t1_iyom36a wrote

That's crazy! I could totally see that happening some places here too though.

2

marriedacarrot t1_iyp045e wrote

Come to think of it, I don't remember providing a copy of the birth certificate when I enrolled my kid in kindergarten. I think most American parents are so eager to get their kids out of the house and into free childcare (er, I mean school) that the deception would be more likely to go the other way (pretending your kid is older than they really are).

1

enny_el t1_iyp2iix wrote

I was definitely one of those parents desperate to get my kids to school as soon as possible! But one has a September birthday and is the youngest in his year, and I know that other parents, in a different position (I've, who could afford private childcare) held back their kids with September birthdays because of this idea they would be more likely to get college sports scholarships or do better or whatever. Not being from the US and having gone to uni with people from other countries (who start school at different times and ages), i have always thought this is really weird -- like surely, and compared to kids from other nations with different school systems, surely this can't still be giving intentionally-held-back kids an edge once they are older?

2

marriedacarrot t1_iyp5hs2 wrote

>surely this can't still be giving intentionally-held-back kids an edge once they are older?

That's the weird thing: It does. Being the oldest/tallest/strongest/smartest kid in your cohort means coaches give you more game time, or you gain more academic confidence and skill among your peers in early grades. And it snowballs from there.

3

enny_el t1_iyp5ubm wrote

I just find it hard to believe that that applies universally across countries and cultures and hemispheres and school systems and everything. But maybe I just don't want to believe it because it means I already screwed everything up for my September-born kid! Doomed from birth, poor thing!

2

marriedacarrot t1_iyp8q6g wrote

Which month is the "right" month definitely changes by culture, but the premise that being the oldest in your childhood cohort confers an early advantage seems to hold across multiple countries.

If it makes you feel any better, the magnitude of the advantage conferred isn't huge. I'm a September baby, was almost always the youngest in my class, and (at the risk of bragging) I'm objectively successful. I was never great at sports, but being several inches below average is probably the culprit. :)

1

zedfrostxnn t1_iyomcwd wrote

So do parents in India want their children to be the oldest in class?

1

marriedacarrot t1_iyoztd2 wrote

Yes, according to my co-workers from India. They're pretty upfront about it, too (and pretty upfront about being in arranged marriages).

2

marriedacarrot t1_iyp0d30 wrote

In my neck of the woods (California) the cutoff is September 1, but it used to be December 31. You had a lot of kids going halfway through Kindergarten as 4-year-olds. Now those Sept-Dec babies go to "transitional kindergarten" first.

2

DesmadreGuy t1_izl8jhl wrote

Some recent studies have shown that holding boys back a year is actually beneficial to their success in school, while starting girls at the usual age is suggested, because girls mature faster than boys. Several friends and relatives who have recently had children are seriously considering holding back their boys and letting the girls go as prescribed by the school district. Based on my own children, this seems entirely on target.

1