If you want donors with fancy educations, you have to use a private donor service - not the donors that are part of the local clinics' databases. But that makes the process much more complicated (and much more expensive).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How scientists have tackled this question is with twin studies. From the WSJ:

"More than any other evidence, it was the study of twins that brought about this change. "Born Together—Reared Apart," a new book by Nancy L. Segal about the Minnesota study of Twins Reared Apart (Mistra), narrates the history of the shift. In 1979, Thomas Bouchard of the University of Minnesota came across a newspaper report about a set of Ohio twins, separated at birth, who had been reunited and proved to possess uncannily similar habits. Dr. Bouchard began to collect case histories of twins raised apart and to invite them to Minneapolis for study.

By 1990, he, Dr. Segal and other colleagues were ready to publish their results in Science magazine. By then they had measured the IQ of 48 pairs of monozygotic, or identical, twins, raised apart (MZA) and 40 pairs of such twins raised together (MZT). The MZA twins were 69% similar in IQ, compared with 88% for MZT twins, both far greater resemblances than for any other pairs of individuals, even siblings. Other variables than genetics, such as material possessions in the home, had little influence, nor was the degree of social contact between the twins in each pair associated with their similarity in IQ."

Yes, but. There is a third factor that is rarely considered (and extremely difficult to study)--the environment in utero. Not all of the 69% similarity is genes; some part of it is that they experienced similar gestational circumstances.

Excellent point.
If mom is mostly stressed vs relaxed,
that makes a HUGE difference.

A college education doesn't make you intelligent.

A number of ladies who are egg donors may be smart enough to attend college (including an Ivy) but due to economic circumstance did not have the opportunity. Plus you have the sperm adding to the genetics as well.

I personally think that while intelligence may be more the product of nature than nurture, success is more the product of nature. I will hire someone who works hard and little natural talent over someone with a lot of natural talent who coasts on that talent.

Anonymous wrote:considering donor egg process - but am disappointed with education history of the donors. Very few have even a college education.
What is your take on importance of donor's level of education?

I would focus on the rawest, closest proxies for intelligence, which are standardized tests like IQ, SAT, LSAT, and so on. These all have their problems (rich kids can afford test prep) but have tighter correlations with raw intellect than the quality of college attended, which also depends on parental money, scholarship programs incl athletic, and so on.

Anonymous wrote:The twin studies are intriguing but didn't take into account epigenetics, which makes them less relevant in a donor egg situation.

I don't follow this. The twin studies didn't deliberately address epigenetics, but I assume that's what accounts for at least some of the differences between monozygotic twins. Or fraternal twins for that matter.

When I was with Shady Grove for DE, there were very few college-educated donors, switched to RBA and there were many. Many who were in masters' programs as well.

The size of the pools is about the same, for some reason it seems they're attracting more "traditional" college/grad student donors to the frozen egg bank down there, than Shady Grove is attracting up here, where there are so many students, and so many uber-educated professionals.

As my biology teacher said: children are a product of

100% nature
100% nurture.

That about sums it up!

The most likely predictor for someone to go to college is whether they have a parent who went to college. I think socio-economic level makes more of a difference than raw intelligence for education attainment.

Intelligence is mostly nature, but plenty of smart parents can have dumb kids and vice versa. And plenty of smart people don't go to grad school, Ivies, or even to college. So looking at academic achievements of the mother is only going to give you part of the story. The rest is a crapshoot, just like OE.

We stewed a lot about degrees and level of education when picking a donor. We were using the donor pool with our clinic, so they were known to our medical team.

The donor who matched us best in terms of ethnic background, and proven prior success as a donor, only had a high school degree. The next best match had a masters, but had no track record (yet) of success as a donor. So we were weighing likely success against possible measures of intelligence (for which I think degrees may not necessarily be an indicator anyway.)

When I told our doctor what we were wrestling with her answer was "I know this donor and I have met her child. Do not worry. There is no concern about intelligence."

We took her at her word. We have two seemingly extremely bright kids as a result.

Barring a medical or genetic condition, a child of reasonable intelligence, raised in an economically advantaged household by educated and involved parents, will do very well intellectually.

Parent to both an OE kid and a DE kid. We used a clinic donor at an out of state clinic. Most of the donor pool didn't have college degrees - some were attending college (they are very young after all) and some weren't. We picked a donor who had pretty good SAT scores and who gave the impression of being a nice, kind person who was also intelligent, regardless of education level. Her family health history was great. She was taking community college classes here and there. Husband and I both have Ivy undergrad and grad degrees.

OE child is very bright. I hate even saying what I'm about to say because I do *not* compare my kids, but in the interest of answering OP's question: DE child is as smart as OE child. Maybe smarter. Both are basically the best kids in the world as far as we're concerned, so that's really what matters. Both are sweet, affectionate, social, headstrong (!), but just really great kids.

To put this into context, my sib is very smart. Also an alcoholic who has had drug issues, suicidal tendencies, deep depression and anger issues. In my sib's case, intelligence hasn't been the key to a better life. Sib isn't the only person in my family with possible addiction and mental health issues, and it has occurred to me that it may not be a bad thing that our DE child doesn't have that part of my genetic history.

Whether you're looking at having a child "the old fashioned way", or a child with donor assistance, or adopting, you get what you get. You really don't have a lot of control. It's a tough thing to come to terms with. People who don't have to face giving up the genetic connection probably don't think about or worry about this the way we do.

My advice is go for whatever option you're comfortable with that will get you a child, if you're really sure that the child-free option isn't for you at this point.

Anonymous wrote:How scientists have tackled this question is with twin studies. From the WSJ:

"More than any other evidence, it was the study of twins that brought about this change. "Born Together—Reared Apart," a new book by Nancy L. Segal about the Minnesota study of Twins Reared Apart (Mistra), narrates the history of the shift. In 1979, Thomas Bouchard of the University of Minnesota came across a newspaper report about a set of Ohio twins, separated at birth, who had been reunited and proved to possess uncannily similar habits. Dr. Bouchard began to collect case histories of twins raised apart and to invite them to Minneapolis for study.

By 1990, he, Dr. Segal and other colleagues were ready to publish their results in Science magazine. By then they had measured the IQ of 48 pairs of monozygotic, or identical, twins, raised apart (MZA) and 40 pairs of such twins raised together (MZT). The MZA twins were 69% similar in IQ, compared with 88% for MZT twins, both far greater resemblances than for any other pairs of individuals, even siblings. Other variables than genetics, such as material possessions in the home, had little influence, nor was the degree of social contact between the twins in each pair associated with their similarity in IQ."

Yes, but. There is a third factor that is rarely considered (and extremely difficult to study)--the environment in utero. Not all of the 69% similarity is genes; some part of it is that they experienced similar gestational circumstances.

I don't know if my parents were ever IQ tested, but my dad did well enough at UCLA and my mom went to an art school. Nothing to indicate either eas super smart. I haven't taken an IQ test since I was a kid but I tested in the high 160s - close to official genius level. I have done fine in life, but I think if I could trade a few IQ points for more energy, I would do even better.

You never know how genetics will interact. Plus a lot of success is just hard work, and more and more and more of it.

I remember personal ads looking for donors in my college newspaper (Ivy).