Why did they omit the first three years,
"The Foundation Years"?

Anonymous wrote:Your premise seems to be that parents calculate that someone staying how will lead to better outcomes for their children. I think most people are calculating the cost of daycare and impact on lifestyle.

You also seem to have the premise that there's some "conventional wisdom" about "maternal" involvement. That would be flat-out wrong.

This poster hit the nail on the head.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it says income and mothers educational level are the most important factors in their longitudinal study, that trumps both quality and quantity

It's embedded in the article, since it's not as interesting as your take-home message

Thanks for sharing

So my kids hit the jackpot because they have an MBA mom who stays home and lawyer dad who makes a ton, and we all eat dinner together? Nah, they are just average kids with average parents just doing their best like everyone else.

Humblebrag score: 7.6

Parenting requires a parent to be around---to say quality trumps quantity is deceiving. I teach Child development now, have taught preschool and kindergarten and I can tell there is no substitute for a parent who takes time with their child at all ages. Critical brain development of course occurs from birth to three, but continues on, motor skills, emotional and social coping strategies, they make it sound like hey once the child turn three you are basically good to go as long as you spend a little quality time with them till their 11---if you want a relationship with them at that age and after you better have put the time in beforehand.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it says income and mothers educational level are the most important factors in their longitudinal study, that trumps both quality and quantity

It's embedded in the article, since it's not as interesting as your take-home message

Thanks for sharing

So my kids hit the jackpot because they have an MBA mom who stays home and lawyer dad who makes a ton, and we all eat dinner together? Nah, they are just average kids with average parents just doing their best like everyone else.

And the opposite courtesy of Sweden: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lynzybilling/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-men-are-allowed-to-take-60-d#.ukpDYDoqG

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Table 3 shows the relationship between time and children’s outcomes when controlling for demographic and time diary characteristics. Once control factors are added to the models, there are no statistically significant associations between time and children’s outcomes. Social class, on the other hand, as measured by mother’s education and family income, has a stronger
relationship with children’s well-being. Family income is positively associated with children’s general health (p<0.001) and math achievement (p<0.01) and negatively associated with children’s behavioral and emotional problems (p<0.01). Mothers’ education is positively associated with children’s health (p<0.05) and self-concept (p<0.001) as well as their performance in reading (p<0.001) and math (p<0.001).

I honestly can't believe the time, energy, and money that went into this study. Common sense, anyone??

Do people living in DC really not understand how policy gets made? You need evidence to support policy changes. It is very difficult to get support for policies that help women work outside the house, in part because so many people don't really believe, deep down, that it is something that should be incentivized. Studies like this can provide support for policy changes (in government and in business) that may help women better balance work and home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The short years you spend with young children are the sweetest of your lifetime . When you come home as a father and your children have been taken care of by their mother there is no greater joy in this life.

I love my children, but the young child years are the sweetest of your lifetime? Bullshit. I wager they are the hardest on marriages and finances. I treasured every minute, but as they get older it gets better and better.

Although I notice you say this from the perspective of a father working out of the home. If they are so sweet, why don't you stay home and let your wife work?

Don't you know you're responding to a troll? I'm a SAHM and think my years at home with the kids really are the sweetest in my life - you may disagree, but you don't have to call bullshit on it. As for the "father coming home," etc. etc. - clearly troll bait.

Anonymous wrote:I think Brigid is a terrible reporter/writer. Its amazing to me how low the quality at the Post is considering how competitive the journalism field has become. (petula dvorak is another parenting writer who just is terrible).

I totally agree.

Anonymous wrote:And the story provides no link for erudite readers of The Post to go read the findings themselves.

This is the third time this week I've read a silly article in the Post that was completely slanted and poorly researched. Did anyone see the article about how Milennials are rejecting the stuff that their parents want to give them bc they are not as materialistic? What is up with all this one-sided gibberish? Is this what happens when an e-commerce tycoon buys a newspaper?

This study has nothing to do with the way children perceive their childhood, with how close they feel to their parents, with how safe and well taken care of they felt during their childhood, with what kinds of emotional and social problems they might have experienced with little parent time, etc. etc...and those are all the actually important things when it comes to "Did I raise my children well?" Sad.

To pp:

There's a ginormous difference between a working mom and your workaholic-always traveling-mom. Had your mother been home and engaged with you and your brother by dinner time every night, you wouldn't hold the resentment you clearly do. And to point out the obvious: the study (as well as commonsense) supports that kids with working moms are no different from kids of stay at home moms...as long as mom is well educated and has money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all know, deep in our guts, that a certain level of quantity matters.

I know a couple of kids who are now in their 20s that spent a significant part of their childhoods with nannies because their parents had high profile careers and traveled often. A great nanny or caretaker is fine. I think you just need to make yourself feel better; that you mean something to your child.

I grew up with parents who both worked tremendous hours - my mother could easily have stayed home with my brother and me. (And I say my mother because my dad made an enormous salary and there was no need for her to work). Instead, she chose to pursue her own career. Nothing wrong with that, taken at face value. However, she traveled constantly and when she was in town, she was constantly at her office, or at home working on "projects" - both of them worked late every night. We were left with a nanny, actually three by the time I started high school. I grew up never really knowing either of my parents that well and my brother and I grew quite resentful as we got older and realized the raw deal we were getting. I decided to SAH with my children and my mom simply can't understand why. It's really pathetic that she still doesn't realize how their absences (and I'll be honest - mainly her absence) negatively affected our childhood. I've talked with her about it before, but she just shrugs it off. Very sad.

Anonymous wrote:Table 3 shows the relationship between time and children’s outcomes when controlling for demographic and time diary characteristics. Once control factors are added to the models, there are no statistically significant associations between time and children’s outcomes. Social class, on the other hand, as measured by mother’s education and family income, has a stronger
relationship with children’s well-being. Family income is positively associated with children’s general health (p<0.001) and math achievement (p<0.01) and negatively associated with children’s behavioral and emotional problems (p<0.01). Mothers’ education is positively associated with children’s health (p<0.05) and self-concept (p<0.001) as well as their performance in reading (p<0.001) and math (p<0.001).

I honestly can't believe the time, energy, and money that went into this study. Common sense, anyone??

Anonymous wrote:I think we all know, deep in our guts, that a certain level of quantity matters.

I know a couple of kids who are now in their 20s that spent a significant part of their childhoods with nannies because their parents had high profile careers and traveled often. A great nanny or caretaker is fine. I think you just need to make yourself feel better; that you mean something to your child.