The Paradox of High Earning Parents

A recent NYT column made mention of "the paradox of high earning parents" - suggesting that in wealthy households, parents pay more lip service to equality, but in fact they act in more traditional ways when it comes to roles within the home. The reference cited for this is a book from 2014 about the schedules of physicians, nurses, EMTs, and CNAs, called Unequal Time. Without being able to look inside the book, it's hard to refute this argument, but it is hard to see how the NYT article can draw conclusions about all wealthy households based on the literature related to doctors who are, according to the book blurb, "largely male" and reportedly have the flexibility to fulfill traditional roles as breadwinners by leaning on their wives and domestic workers. Although I haven't conducted research on the subject, I do have a great deal of life experience as a physician mother who is highly networked via social media with other physician mothers, and I can easily say anecdotally that physician moms also fulfill the breadwinner role by leaning on family members and domestic workers for childcare. The book also claims that largely male physicians work long hours "because they gain respect from colleagues for doing so", while the largely female CNAs also work long hours but mainly because the penalties imposed for not doing so are very high for them. Try surveying physician moms and I very much doubt that you'll find the top reason for working long hours to be gaining respect from colleagues. In fact, I've never heard a colleague of mine admit to working long hours for any reason other than actually enjoying their work, or money.

Back to the "Upshot" article, entitled "Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math: Rich, White, and Suburban Districts." It's relevant to the so-called paradox of high earning parents because this article describes a Stanford study, the results of which are quite succinctly explained in its title. The study was not designed to investigate the reasons behind this phenomenon, however it speculates that in areas where men tend to have more high powered science and math based jobs, boys may receive the message that they should also aim to succeed in math and science. It would be very interesting to hear more about what effect having a mother in a science or math based career may have on children in high earning families. In another fascinating snippet, the authors cite a study done on data from about 20 years ago showing that high earning families enroll children in more stereotypical extracurricular activities. I'm currently conducting an informal poll in a group of 71,000 physician moms to see what they say about this. Based on what I've seen of how children's media and toys have changed in the past 20 years, I believe that norms have significantly shifted in that time, even though most people probably don't feel there have been great strides made in increasing gender equality since the year 2000.

Can You Resist Eating a Marshmallow? And Does It Matter, Anyhow?

I've read that if a child can resist eating something sweet placed in front of them, with the promise that willpower will lead to a reward of more sweets, it suggests that they have inner strength and are destined for life success. My response to this, since becoming a parent, is a despairing eye roll, because it is abundantly clear to me that neither one of my children would pass this test, even for a moment. In fact, my children are willing to risk significant negative implications to steal candies, should the opportunity present itself. I have decided not to guess what this might mean about their destiny.

A study that has just come out by Watts, Duncan, and Quan, suggests that this type of test (classically termed "the marshmallow test") is not an accurate predictor of either future stamina or achievement. Instead, it's a reflection of the child's privilege. In other words, a child is willing to wait to eat a marshmallow if he or she comes from a wealthier household, or one with more educated parents.

At first glance, this seems like a very rational realization with regard to the original study. Of course, if kids are poor, they'll be hungry and used to scarce resources, and want to eat any nearby marshmallow right away instead of waiting. The original authors were foolish not to more carefully account for the effects of income level on children's abilities to delay gratification. As I considered it further, though, I've known many privileged and wealthy children who don't seem to have much ability to delay gratification at all. Isn't that the definition of being "spoiled"? What's the difference between a spoiled kid and a rich kid who can delay gratification?

I've known many privileged and wealthy children who don't seem to have much ability to delay gratification at all. Isn't that the definition of being "spoiled"? What's the difference between a spoiled kid and a rich kid who can delay gratification?

The Atlantic Article I linked to above ["Why Rich Kids Are So Good At The Marshmallow Test", June 1 2018] notes "This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in." Thus, the spoiled kids and those who were rich but 'unspoiled' were equally successful by the measures of this study. I would be interested in an deeper exploration of the these two groups to investigate whether there were actually differences beyond those two measured variables. In the meantime, though, perhaps the easiest thing is to conclude that 4 year olds can't resist marshmallows, and that's no cause for concern.

All material © Alison Schroth Hayward, MD. All rights reserved.