[Molten]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I don't mean to bring up a dead thread, but I did go and pick up a copy of Outliers. Even outside of sports, there were clear indications in the studies used by the author that being the eldest among your classmates gives one an initial small advantage that compounds into a much larger one.

For example, on 4th grade aptitude tests a student born immediately following the grade cutoff on average scored 14% higher than students born closer to the cutoff for the following year. If that prevents the student from being placed in an honors/advanced track, that small initial difference is compounded, and can be further compounded in years to come.

We all like to think we (and I assume our kids) are really intelligent/hardworking and are capable of bucking a trend like this. But why have them start with a disadvantage when we could be giving them/ourselves an advantage?

Interesting data, but what is the harm in starting them early and holding them back a grade later on if needed? Wouldn't that give them an advantage over the student that stayed home and waited for a year? I completely agree it isn't a simple choice, but why do you have to pick? Can't you have both to some extent?

Jason