Is having 4+ kids a status symbol?

[Anonymous]

Even the religious people I know don’t have 4+ children.

Who wants to drive around a school bus?

I assume anyone with more than 3 children either had an accidental pregnancy or used fertility treatments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even the religious people I know don’t have 4+ children.

Who wants to drive around a school bus?

I assume anyone with more than 3 children either had an accidental pregnancy or used fertility treatments.

You must not know Irish Catholic families. People have 3+ kids for many reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, they better be rich. They are going to have to pay over a million dollars in college tuition alone.

Parents should help kids with it if they can, but there’s no law that parents “have to” pay for any college. I wish that were a law; I wouldn’t be drowning in state school loans still!

Yep, several posters here with large families cannot afford to pay for college. Then you read on the money & finance board how hard it is to get ahead, the overwhelming feeling of not being able to afford a house, the envy for those who got a better start because of family resources.

This is national and international research. There is simply not enough attention to go to some many kids and they suffer

Researchers from the University of Houston and the London School of Economics recently evaluated 26 years of data for the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit think tank. They found siblings had lowered cognitive abilities and increased behavioral problems with each added child in the family. Girls tended to suffer more cognitive setbacks and have a higher risk of teen pregnancies; boys developed more acting-out behavior.

And, the researchers found, those difficulties persisted into adulthood. Adults from large families tended to have lower levels of education, lower earnings, and more criminal behavior, according to The Washington Post.

But what constitutes larger families? I’m not convinced 4 kids trigger poor outcomes.

I’m one of 4 kids. Everyone got a degree. Nobody is struggling. Two of us make six figures, the other two are SAHPs.

I have 4 kids. My kids have passports and love to travel.

More than 3 is large family. The academic achievement drops significantly with the 3rd. Search pubmed.

More: "Empirical studies have consistently reported a negative correlation between number of children in the family and intelligence test scores (Belmont 8c Marolla, 1973; Dandes 8c Dow, 1969; Eysenck 8c Cookson, 1970). Research relating family characteristics to academic performance found the same pattern as with intelligence, with children from smaller families having higher achievement test scores or grades than children from larger families (Eysenck 8c Cookson, 1970; Schachter, 1963). "

"Theory suggests a trade off between child quantity and 'quality'. Family size might adversely affect the production of child quality within a family. A number of arguments also suggest that siblings are unlikely to receive equal shares of the resources devoted by parents to their children's education. We construct a composite birth order index that effectively purges family size from birth order and use this to test if siblings are assigned equal shares in the family's educational resources. We find that they are not, and that the shares are decreasing with birth order. Controlling for parental family income, parental age at birth and family level attributes, we find that children from larger families have lower levels of education and that there is in addition a separate negative birth order effect. In contrast to Black, Devereux and Kelvanes (2005), the family size effect does not vanish once we control for birth order. Our findings are robust to a number of specification checks."

Again, I'm the PP who knows a family of 6 successful adults. The answer was hundreds of million of $ trust fund, individual nannies and tutors and Deerfield boarding for all. The drawback was one of the daughters doing so much coke in college, because nannies are not parents. It's impossible to have quality one on one time with more than two. Just some bedtime reading and homework help would get to 1 hour per child, so that's 4 hours daily minimum. Add dinner, jobs, sports, school etc.

This is the only family you know with more than two kids where the kids are doing well?
My mom is one of ten. She grew up on a farm in rural Ohio. All ten kids are more or less successful. 6 are very successful in DCUM terms and are professionals and business owners. The other four are a teacher, bank manager, builder/contractor, and farmer. They all have long lasting marriages and kids are doing well.
My babysitter is one of 10. All of her older siblings have gone to college, and she will go too. The oldest two are married to really nice people and have children of their own.
I can think of a few large families where one or two siblings are messed up, but I can think of a few small families where that’s true as well.

Yes, but I'm younger. The wealth gap has increased significantly since the 1970s and the college costs are out of control. What worked in the 1970s - 1990s is no longer sustainable now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilomaldonado/2018/07/24/price-of-college-increasing-almost-8-times-faster-than-wages/

Yep. A lot of parents posting here had kids from 1996-2005ish, and that’s a different generation.

Shrug.

I had my 4 kids between 2004 and 2012.

In-state tuition is still affordable.

I honestly think the silver spoon approach to parenting two kids can be detrimental. Kids won’t learn to hustle if you helicopter and placate their whims.

$35k/yr for most people, especially x4 kids and 4 years each is not affordable for most people and means loans. Bless your heart.

UMD is around $12K without room and board for books and tuition. There is no excuse a parent doesn't help with that who can afford it and isn't lower income (under $80-90k). You start slowly saving at birth. Every birthday/holiday gift goes into the 529 and you put what you can in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even the religious people I know don’t have 4+ children.

Who wants to drive around a school bus?

I assume anyone with more than 3 children either had an accidental pregnancy or used fertility treatments.

4 kids fit quite fine in a minivan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have four kids.
I do bedtime reading with all of them together. We roll out sleeping bags on the floor, and I sit in the poang chair in my oldest son’s room. After that, the younger two go to bed, and DH and I talk for a while with the older two, sometimes all together. Sometimes 1:1.

I usually make dinner and help with homework simultaneously. Kids don’t need you hovering over them while they do their homework, but they need you to be available if they have questions.

They do have to be more independent than some of their peers. We taught them to ride bikes early and showed them how to get places they want to go. They have to be responsible for a lot of their own things. They have to help out around the house.

You really aren't parenting them much based on what you are saying compared to many other parents. No support with homework, they are responsible for their own transportation, things and needs. They are treated as a group rather than an individual. Some of the kids rarely to never get 1-1, which should be daily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, they better be rich. They are going to have to pay over a million dollars in college tuition alone.

Parents should help kids with it if they can, but there’s no law that parents “have to” pay for any college. I wish that were a law; I wouldn’t be drowning in state school loans still!

Yep, several posters here with large families cannot afford to pay for college. Then you read on the money & finance board how hard it is to get ahead, the overwhelming feeling of not being able to afford a house, the envy for those who got a better start because of family resources.

This is national and international research. There is simply not enough attention to go to some many kids and they suffer

Researchers from the University of Houston and the London School of Economics recently evaluated 26 years of data for the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit think tank. They found siblings had lowered cognitive abilities and increased behavioral problems with each added child in the family. Girls tended to suffer more cognitive setbacks and have a higher risk of teen pregnancies; boys developed more acting-out behavior.

And, the researchers found, those difficulties persisted into adulthood. Adults from large families tended to have lower levels of education, lower earnings, and more criminal behavior, according to The Washington Post.

But what constitutes larger families? I’m not convinced 4 kids trigger poor outcomes.

I’m one of 4 kids. Everyone got a degree. Nobody is struggling. Two of us make six figures, the other two are SAHPs.

I have 4 kids. My kids have passports and love to travel.

More than 3 is large family. The academic achievement drops significantly with the 3rd. Search pubmed.

More: "Empirical studies have consistently reported a negative correlation between number of children in the family and intelligence test scores (Belmont 8c Marolla, 1973; Dandes 8c Dow, 1969; Eysenck 8c Cookson, 1970). Research relating family characteristics to academic performance found the same pattern as with intelligence, with children from smaller families having higher achievement test scores or grades than children from larger families (Eysenck 8c Cookson, 1970; Schachter, 1963). "

"Theory suggests a trade off between child quantity and 'quality'. Family size might adversely affect the production of child quality within a family. A number of arguments also suggest that siblings are unlikely to receive equal shares of the resources devoted by parents to their children's education. We construct a composite birth order index that effectively purges family size from birth order and use this to test if siblings are assigned equal shares in the family's educational resources. We find that they are not, and that the shares are decreasing with birth order. Controlling for parental family income, parental age at birth and family level attributes, we find that children from larger families have lower levels of education and that there is in addition a separate negative birth order effect. In contrast to Black, Devereux and Kelvanes (2005), the family size effect does not vanish once we control for birth order. Our findings are robust to a number of specification checks."

Again, I'm the PP who knows a family of 6 successful adults. The answer was hundreds of million of $ trust fund, individual nannies and tutors and Deerfield boarding for all. The drawback was one of the daughters doing so much coke in college, because nannies are not parents. It's impossible to have quality one on one time with more than two. Just some bedtime reading and homework help would get to 1 hour per child, so that's 4 hours daily minimum. Add dinner, jobs, sports, school etc.

This is the only family you know with more than two kids where the kids are doing well?
My mom is one of ten. She grew up on a farm in rural Ohio. All ten kids are more or less successful. 6 are very successful in DCUM terms and are professionals and business owners. The other four are a teacher, bank manager, builder/contractor, and farmer. They all have long lasting marriages and kids are doing well.
My babysitter is one of 10. All of her older siblings have gone to college, and she will go too. The oldest two are married to really nice people and have children of their own.
I can think of a few large families where one or two siblings are messed up, but I can think of a few small families where that’s true as well.

Yes, but I'm younger. The wealth gap has increased significantly since the 1970s and the college costs are out of control. What worked in the 1970s - 1990s is no longer sustainable now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilomaldonado/2018/07/24/price-of-college-increasing-almost-8-times-faster-than-wages/

Yep. A lot of parents posting here had kids from 1996-2005ish, and that’s a different generation.

Shrug.

I had my 4 kids between 2004 and 2012.

In-state tuition is still affordable.

I honestly think the silver spoon approach to parenting two kids can be detrimental. Kids won’t learn to hustle if you helicopter and placate their whims.

$35k/yr for most people, especially x4 kids and 4 years each is not affordable for most people and means loans. Bless your heart.

UMD is around $12K without room and board for books and tuition. There is no excuse a parent doesn't help with that who can afford it and isn't lower income (under $80-90k). You start slowly saving at birth. Every birthday/holiday gift goes into the 529 and you put what you can in.

That’s your opinion. In most states college tuition is really expensive and I guess you’re fine with making your kid live at home all 4 years, because rent costs money and so does room and board. Go look up tuition and r&b in PA, Vt, IL, NH, and Maine and come back. $12k/yr x 4 years x 4 kids is not affordable for most people.

[Anonymous]

Why do that to the environment though? Like there aren't enough people on earth already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do that to the environment though? Like there aren't enough people on earth already?

Seriously. Even Gisele and Cindy Crawford stopped at two, even with their amazing genes.

[Anonymous]

I think having four kids is a signifier of patience more than money, unless there is a full time nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do that to the environment though? Like there aren't enough people on earth already?

Seriously. Even Gisele and Cindy Crawford stopped at two, even with their amazing genes.

I would not call Crawford’s offspring “amazing.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do that to the environment though? Like there aren't enough people on earth already?

Seriously. Even Gisele and Cindy Crawford stopped at two, even with their amazing genes.

It’s clear Crawford isn’t interested in actually parenting her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do that to the environment though? Like there aren't enough people on earth already?

Seriously. Even Gisele and Cindy Crawford stopped at two, even with their amazing genes.

I would not call Crawford’s offspring “amazing.”

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do that to the environment though? Like there aren't enough people on earth already?

Seriously. Even Gisele and Cindy Crawford stopped at two, even with their amazing genes.

This is a bizarre response since the lifestyles of people like this are equal to having a dozen kids. Call me when one of them gives up their multiple, enormous homes, the constant international travel (often by private jet), and all the other things people like this do to consume far more fossil fuels, water, plastic, space than an entire neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Better no one has that many kids. The world is already over populated.

But if you must, I would rather rich people have 4+ kids than poor people.

[Anonymous]

Why would anybody in their right mind want 4 kids?????