Ranking Gladwell

Cars. Colleges. Countries.  These are just a few of the things we routinely rank-- and they are the three examples Malcolm Gladwell draws upon in his most recent New Yorker piece, "The Order of Things." (I'm assuming the alliteration is coincidental.)

His argument, in a nutshell, is that in any ranking system the formula matters.  That means both the variables in the formula that produces the rank and who the people are who write these formulas.  People are inevitably influenced by their own biases, as are the formulas and the rankings themselves. Nothing groundbreaking there.  Besides the element of, "So, what?," what I dislike most about the article is that no alternative is suggested.

The reality is, whether we like it or not, we are always going to have rankings.  And, with better technology available, it is both easier to quantify a range of things and rank them, and to spread the news of those rankings.  We famously now have national rankings for 11-year-old basketball players at sites like The Hoop Scoop and HoopsUSA.

Speaking of children, from the moment they enter this world they are ranked and ordered, by their Apgar score.  After that they routinely receive a number that represents their percentile rank for height/length, weight, and size of head at doctor's visits. Soon enough these kids enter the educational system and they receive percentiles that rank them based on what goes on inside those heads.  And, of course, then comes the all-important SAT score, and the list goes on.

Being ranked is a part of modern life.  Understanding what those numbers and rankings actually mean should be our goal, and list makers should be as transparent as possible about how numbers are produced.  Turning away from rankings isn't realistic at all.  And we should continue to study rankings, especially how institutions respond to them and how those numeric signifiers can actually shape behavior (For great work on this subject check out the work of sociologists Michael Sauder and Wendy Espeland.  Sauder is someone Gladwell should have spoken with-- though, full disclosure he is my officemate, so I'm a bit biased!).

I think Malcolm Gladwell is one of our best writers social scientists-- I certainly rank him in my top three.  But overall, this particular effort, by my evaluation, doesn't rate very high in the order of his work.

Bad*ss (Women) Athletes

After getting some feedback on my blog post on the Iowa State Wrestling Championships, I expanded it into a more complete discussion on Title IX, including a bit on boys playing on girls' field hockey teams. Check it out on The Huffington Post. Please leave comments and share by clicking through!

In related news, I am just so impressed by two female athletes getting a lot of press this week.

1) Justine Siegal- She became the first female to ever pitch batting practice in MLB this week (both for the Indians and also for the A's). Siegal has also coached all-men's baseball teams and played on them. Not only that, she chose to wear a patch to honor Christina Taylor Green, the wonderful child gunned down so horrifically in the Arizona shootings last month. And, on top of all this, Justine's daughter was there to watch her mom pitch in spring training. Like I said, bad*ss.

2) Ida Keeling- She is 95 and runs 60 meters in 29.86 seconds. I can't do that now. Like I said, bad*ss.

Do you know of any other bad*ss and stellar female athletes doing exceptional things?

Beauty and Brains: Cambridge Goes Glitz

This past weekend Miss Boston 2011 was crowned. MIT senior Dianna Leilani Cowern competed, though she lost out to Sara Carlisle.  The coveted crown was placed on Ms. Carlisle’s head by the reigning Miss Massachusetts 2010, Loren Galler Rabinowitz, who also graduated from Harvard in 2010.

Ms. Galler Rabinowitz was second runner-up in last year’s Miss Boston pageant (the first runner-up also had a Cambridge connection, as she is a student at Harvard’s Divinity School).  But she went on to win a different preliminary pageant, Miss Collegiate Area, and then the Miss Massachusetts title. So Ms. Cowern still has a chance to help Cambridge sustain its presence in the Miss America program this year.

Over the past decade Cambridge, but Harvard in particular, has emerged as a site of beauty pageant winners. Who would have thought? But with the scholarships available through the Miss America Pageant, and the rising cost of higher education, pairing brains and beauty has never made more sense.

I’ve been able to identify the following Harvard-MIT Miss America contestants (only those who have made it to the national pageant in Atlantic City/Las Vegas). Do you know of others?

• 1995- Marcia Turner, Harvard, Miss Massachusetts
• 1998- Elizabeth Emerson Hancock, Harvard, Miss Massachusetts
• 2002- Laura Lawless, Harvard, Miss Arizona
• 2002- Carrie Ann Haberstroh, Harvard, Miss North Dakota
• 2003- Laurie Gray, Harvard, Miss Rhode Island (Top 10)
• 2003- Nancy Redd, Harvard, Miss Virginia (and Top 10)
• 2003- Erika Harold, Harvard Law School, Miss Illinois and Miss America (Erika had already been admitted to HLS when she won, so she deferred her entrance and graduated in 2007)
• 2004- Allison Porter, Harvard, Miss Washington
• 2004- Erika Ebbel, MIT, Miss Massachusetts
• 2006- Allison Rogers, Harvard, Miss Rhode Island
• 2009- Anne Michael Langguth, Harvard, Miss Iowa
• 2010- Loren Galler Rabinowitz, Harvard, Miss Massachusetts

This Week in Stage Mothers on Reality TV

Stage moms are taking over the airwaves-- from Fox to TLC to E!. Should we be validating this type of (mis)behavior?

1. The American Idol Moms: If Toddlers & Tiaras was a reality show about 15-16-year-old (very talented) African-American singers

I hope they make it far, as the moms are just so entertaining to watch. Wouldn't want to see those women turn on one another though (especially the mom who was exhaling smoke as she critiqued the group's practice). Then again, if this was "The Real Housewives of American Idol," that would make great TV. Calling Andy Cohen!

2. Speaking of Toddlers & Tiaras... This week's life lesson:





You should watch the whole episode (either on TLC or on iTunes) to see Ashley-Noelle learn to "shake her booty" from her dad and have potty training undone by her mother (in her cupcake dress, she just has to use her pull-up). All of this clearly will help her build confidence so that someday, as her mother hopes, Ashley-Noelle will "just be able to walk up to a stranger and to just be able to tell them about Christ." There is also the requisite pixie stick breakfast with little Lily, along with a new first-- Coke with a sugar packet added!

Also, if you live in Des Moines, Iowa you seriously missed out today. Your daughter could have been in Eden Wood's "Cutie Patootie" video!  As a reminder, click here to see Eden perform on The Talk.

3. My Kid is Gonna be Famous- Starbound Dance Competition (NJ)

Actually, this particular show, and the mothers on it, were so terrible, the Internet refused to keep any clips online.  Unlike T&T, the editors don't have much fun, making the show less interesting to watch.

But E! is re-airing the dance competition episode tomorrow morning at 10 am. A great way to celebrate your day off of work.  You will be shocked, confused, and maybe even horrified at the talent, or lack thereof, at the Starbound competition.  The winners are especially confusing, even for this competition afficionado.

If you can't catch the replay, you can read some of the transcripts here.

Females Down for the Count

How much is a victory worth if you didn't win?

On Thursday Cassy Herkelman had to confront this question as she became the first female to "win" a match in Iowa's state wrestling tournament for high school students.  Her opponent, Joel Northtrup, a favorite in the 112-pound weight class, defaulted rather than face a girl on the mat.  Northtrup cited his religious convictions (he is a student homeschooled by his evangelical minister family, but he wrestles on his local public school's team [the legal fight that allowed homeschooled students to participate on sports teams is interesting, if you are ever interested]).

None of Herkelman's other opponents refused to face her and she was eliminated after losing two matches. The other female competitor, Megan Black, also lost all of her matches, with no opponents declining to face her.  So it's possible Northtrup was afraid to lose to a girl and his religious beliefs were a convenient excuse (I am in no position at all to judge the strength of his convictions, I'm merely suggesting an alternative hypothesis in the tradition of Larry Summers).

Is this Title IX run a muck? Should males and females be segregated even if there isn't a separate but equal system in place?

Based on my research on gender, sports, and injuries, I believe that boys and girls should have separate competitive outlets when it comes to physical sporting activities.  This is especially true after puberty when male and female bodies start to drastically differ in their amounts of body fat and muscle (at younger ages I have actually observed, and some research has shown, a bigger advantage for girls because they tend to have more mental acuity to pick up rules of the game and teamwork than their male peers).  Sure in wrestling there are weight categories, so it is a fairer fight.  But a 112 lb. female body and a 112 lb. male body at age 15 usually look quite different.

However, I certainly do not believe that wrestling should be off-limits to females because it is a "violent, combat" sport-- as described by Joel Northtrup. On the contrary, I believe girls capable of impressive performances in any sport, developing physical strength and character skills that will help them compete with men in other arenas later in life.  When competitive outlets don't exist for females though, they need to face males to develop their skills so they aren't shout out completely, either in the present or in the future.

But as more and more girls hit the wrestling mats, female wrestling tournaments will develop.  Even before this Iowa wrestling story broke, this week the Daily News in Brooklyn ran a story on Wingate High School, which has eight female wrestlers. Their coach recruits females, touting the numerous benefits women get by participating in wrestling in high school.  Two of these young women won conference titles, beating out male competitors, and they will soon be able to compete against many other female wrestlers at the City's first all-female tournament.

By the way, no word if Black and Herkelman ever faced off in Iowa. Given that they were the only two females to qualify,  perhaps they could have wrestled for the female state wrestling title after their elimination.  That would have been a victory earned.

Randomized Chilhdoods

Parents, especially first-time parents, have all kinds of worries and questions. Is it best to breastfeed? Does Baby Einstein really make a difference? The list of anxieties goes on and on as various "experts" bombard parents with mixed messages about vaccines, sleeping positions, parental work, etc.

Last week's New Yorker featured an article by Jerome Groopman, former surgeon general, on food allergies- another anxiety-ridden topic.  The Peanut Puzzle discusses the decision of the American Academy of Pediatrics to advise mothers to limit their young children's exposure to nuts, eggs, and even dairy, to help prevent their kids from developing an allergy.  That 2000 recommendation has now been overturned.  One expert is quoted as saying, "I try to emphasize with my patients not to feel guilty that they did or did not do something that would have resulted in their child having a food allergy.  Even the experts are not certain what to advise."

Why is it that medical experts are not able to offer better advice on important childhood health matters? Shouldn't we be able to establish guidelines, to the best of our current scientific knowledge, on these important questions around childhood development?

As I have studied children and education over the past several years, and child health more recently, I have been dismayed by our lack of knowledge on questions like food allergies, or how children learn best in a classroom.  A big part of the problem is that it takes many, many years to sort out whether a particular situation or action helps or hurts a child in the long-term.  That type of research is costly both in terms of money and in terms of time (especially in a system of higher education that rewards researchers for publishing as many journal articles as quickly as possible-- but that's a discussion for another time!).  It also is quite difficult-- what defines someone as successful and healthy in their twenties? Income? Educational attainment? Marital status?

A group of economists (shameless plug, this group includes my husband, John Friedman), have recently been able to investigate the long-term effects of being in a small kindergarten classroom on all kinds of measures at age 27.  The quick answer is that your kindergarten classroom size, and your teacher and peers, do indeed matter later in life (for the long, academic version of the paper, which is forthcoming, click here; for a condensed NYT version, click here).

But the type of data they have don't come along every day. It is rare to be able to track individuals on so many measures over time. More importantly, especially when it comes to children, it is rare to have such a large number of kids participating in a randomized experiment.  I think this is especially true when it comes to health and education issues. What parent is going to voluntarily enroll their child in an experiment that could place that child at risk in some way? Most parents, with few exceptions (perhaps many economists though!), are going to be willing to take the chance to jeopardize their child's health, even in a small way, or their education.

While much of life, and childhood, is random, we still turn to medical experts and education scholars to guide or decisions, even if their recommendations are based on limited data. Would you be willing to take a chance to advance (social) science?  Even if it turns out 25 years later that your child was randomized into the less effective group, potentially hurting their life chances?

The Eight-hour (play) day?

In last week's post about sports injuries a reader commented, "But how do you regulate the number of hours a kid engages in these activities? For better or worse, it's kind of up to the parents, no?"  The answer to this question is, "Yes, but..."

It is true that in the US the family is recognized both legally and culturally as the institution with the most control over childhood. However, the state plays an important role in two areas--education and employment-- and it has done so for nearly a century.  The state mandates that children go to school (compulsory education in this country became law in 1918) and not work more than a certain number of hours each week (federal child labor laws passed in 1938), both efforts that came out of Progressive-era politics (along with labor protections like the eight-hour work day, passed in 1916). Time spent in these domains is almost always outside of the family home, subjecting it to regulation by the law and non-relative adults.

Child performers historically faced scrutiny, though they received an exemption in the 1938 child labor laws, and this scrutiny continues today-- especially as the boundaries between entertainment, family, and work become more porous (I have written about this issue elsewhere as it relates to reality television shows).  The number of hours kids can be on-set is heavily regulated and monitored by on-set advocates.  Tutors are also provided to help them keep up with their studies.  Earnings are also partially protected, at least until a child turns 18.

Just as the boundaries between entertainment, family, and work have blurred, so have the boundaries between education, work, and play for kids.  I argue that children's afterschool activities should be seen as a new form of child labor (you can read an academic article I wrote on this topic in Childhood), which then subjects participation to regulation by the state, protecting children from overwork, physical injury, or other forms of exploitation.

Knowing there is precedent to regulate children's involvement in activities outside of the family home, what can practically be done? Given the role of the educational system we might think there is some role schools could play. However, many children who are overly involved in a particular activity-- be it chess, academic bees, performing, music, or sports-- are educated outside of the formal school system, as their families opt for homeschooling or special academies (like Spring Creek Academy in Texas or IMG Academies, which I have written about elsewhere).

The onus then falls on those who run afterschool programs. These teachers and coaches would be responsible for proving they are creating a safe environment and that they are certified to run their programs. Currently some small insurance companies that insure sports clubs, gyms, and dance studios fill the void created by the legal radio silence on this issue.

That most athletic coaches and teachers in extracurricular activities often have no formal educational credentials or certifications in their area is deeply problematic.  This remains a stumbling block in legitimating many afterschool activities and should be part of any comprehensive reform of the afterschool hours and how this time should be safely spent.  I will get on my blog soapbox about this particular issue-- which puts children and families at risk in a multitude of ways and hurts those teachers who are superb and dedicated to their students-- about this soon!