This paper examines the impact of family background on children’s schooling attainments. It outlines the discussion in the economic community presenting studies that give empirical evidence of several important characteristics as parents’ education, income and other environmental factors that lead to a higher level of children’s schooling. Based on a research that claims to have quantified genetic influence on schooling using data of adopted children, this paper discusses possible methodological problems arguing that the authors’ estimation seems to ignore an important intervenient variable, the age of the adopted children at adoption.
Table of Contents
Abstract
1 Introduction
2 Literature screening
3 A more detailed look at the genetic aspect
4 Some comments on genes
5 Conclusion
References
Research Objectives & Key Themes
This paper examines the influence of family background and genetic factors on children's educational attainment, critically reviewing various economic studies to evaluate how parental characteristics and environmental factors shape academic success.
- Theoretical models of intergenerational human capital transmission.
- Empirical analysis of parental education, income, and family structure.
- Methodological critique of studies assessing genetic versus nurture-based influences.
- The role of socioeconomic community environment in educational outcomes.
- Assessment of estimation biases in adoption-based genetic research.
Excerpt from the Book
3 A more detailed look at the genetic aspect
Using an intergenerational sample PLUG and VIJVERBERG (2003) try to estimate the amount of skills/ability that is transmitted genetically i.e. not nurtured. The data is collected in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey containing a group of students from 1957 who were interviewed in 1964, 1975 and 1992 about their career, family and so forth. These interview data are combined by the 1957th test results of students’ IQ (PLUG and VIJVERBERG 2003: 612). Therefore PLUG and VIJVERBERG (2003) are able to include an operationalized measurement of intelligence in their estimates.
To consider the impact of genes PLUG and VIJVERBERG (2003) use data from adopted children. The authors argue that using these data they can isolate the impact of genes comparing parents’ own offspring to ‘external’ offspring (adopted children) who are raised and socialized in the same family environment. The authors assume a model of intergenerational mobility of human capital – a variation of the already mentioned framework by BECKER and TOMES (1986) (see also section 2, BECKER and TOMES (1986), ERMISCH and FRANCESCONI (2001) and AGEE and CROCKER (2002)).
PLUG and VIJVERBERG (2003: 618) broadly discuss several reasons for biases and their strategy to treat them. First, there are indirect nurture effects caused by income that is included as an exogenous variable. The authors then try to figure out what part of income is created by ability (the IQ determined part of income) and to adjust the estimation. Second, parents’ own offspring and adopted children are treated differently and the authors assume that parents either invest less money in adopted children who are in average less intelligent and reinforce this deficit or invest more money in them to compensate (PLUG and VIJVERBERG 2003: 620). A third reason for a possible bias is that children are not randomly given up for adoption and not randomly assigned to foster families.
Chapter Summary
1 Introduction: This chapter contextualizes human capital formation within economic theory and outlines the paper's focus on the impact of family background on educational attainment.
2 Literature screening: This section reviews existing empirical research regarding how parental socioeconomic status, income, and education correlate with children's academic performance.
3 A more detailed look at the genetic aspect: This chapter analyzes the methodology used by Plug and Vijverberg (2003) to isolate genetic influence on intelligence using data from adopted children.
4 Some comments on genes: This section provides a critical discussion of potential methodological flaws in genetic research, specifically regarding adoption age and socioeconomic biases.
5 Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the findings on family influence and highlights the need for further research into the gender-specific impacts of parental employment on children's education.
Keywords
Human capital, Family background, Educational attainment, Intergenerational mobility, Genetic influence, Nurture, Socioeconomic status, Adoption, Parental income, Education policy, Labor economics, Cognitive skills, IQ, Wisconsin Longitudinal Survey, Estimation bias
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines how family background, socioeconomic factors, and genetic endowment influence the educational attainment of children, based on existing empirical economic literature.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The central themes include the intergenerational transmission of human capital, the debate between nature and nurture, and the critical evaluation of econometric studies attempting to quantify these effects.
What is the main objective of the research?
The objective is to synthesize existing empirical evidence and provide a methodological critique of studies that attribute significant percentages of educational attainment to genetics.
Which scientific methods are utilized by the cited studies?
The studies reviewed utilize various econometric methods, including Ordered Logit Models, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Two Stage Least Squares (2SLS), and Generalized Least Squares (GLS/3SLS).
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers theoretical models of human capital (Becker and Tomes), empirical investigations into parental education/income, a detailed look at genetic transmission models, and a critique of inherent biases in these estimations.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include human capital, intergenerational mobility, parental background, socioeconomic status, and genetic influence on education.
Why does the author criticize the Plug and Vijverberg (2003) study?
The author argues that the study fails to account for the "age of adoption" as an intervenient variable, which likely biases the results regarding the influence of the home environment versus genetics.
What is the significance of the "age of adoption" for this paper?
The author suggests that if children are adopted at an older age, their early life experiences in potentially unstable environments influence their schooling, a factor that is missing from the genetic estimation models discussed.
- Quote paper
- Henner Will (Author), 2009, The Value of Family Background for Educational Attainment , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/147004
