Swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns

Yardicus · 01-23-2006, 10:12 AM

...and more interesting facts

"Freakonomics" is a book written by one of the brightest economists in the US. He takes 2 seperate issues, finds a common link, and uses it to teach everyday life lessons. some excerpts:

What do you consider more dangerous to a child, a house with a gun, or a house with a pool?

In any given year, there is 1 child drowning per 11,000 residential pools in the US(with 6 million pools in the US) meaning ~550 kids die each year in pools

In the same time, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million guns(with 200 million guns), meaning ~175 kids die yearly from guns

hence

the likelihood of a child dying from a swimming pool is 1 in 11,000, versus 1 in 1 million for a gun, makign the kid roughly 100 times more likely to die ina swimming pool rather than from a gun

same goes for flying and driving...the media overplayed the fact that many more people die in a car(40,000/year) than on a plane(1,000). but people also spend alot more TIME in cars than on plane. the per HOUR death rate of driving versus flying is almost exactly equal, making them equally unlikely to result in your death

another funny myth the book dispells is that the type of high school a kid goes to determines their outcome in life. Awhile back the Chicago public school system(3rd largest in the nation) decided to allow kids to choose which high school they attended. due to high demand for 'good" schools, there was alottery system. This turned out to be a perfect real-life experiement, as 1000's of equally educated and intelligent kids went to "good" schools while the same amoutn went to "bad" schools. Of course, the media and popular thought would have you think the ones who went to "good schools" did better..right? WRONG ! The students at the "good" school did NO BETTER than equivalent students at the "bad" schools. No child left behind? The students "left behind" in "bad" schools continued to test at the same levels are before this lottery.

In other words, going to a "good" or "bad" school does not affect graduation rates, intelligence or test scores. Don't believe the hype.

Yardicus · 01-23-2006, 10:13 AM

the book does later go into grade school numbers. Based on a late 1990's US Dept. of Education study from across the nation in all walks, races, etc of life, they developed data to the max on kids from pre-school through 5th grade. the study included all the typicals(age, gender, family structure, economic status, etc) but also went beyond that to interviewing parents, teachers and administraors, intensive personal questions, spanking, hours watching TV, museum trips, etc

This compiled an incredibly rich set of data, thats also on the surface difficult to navigate. However, using regression analysis(a complicated means of studying data by looking at only 2 pieces of all that data, and holding all the others to an artifical constant, and then looking at how they co-vary.) I used it a bit in stats classes, but basically it's very complicated to explain, but known to be a true method to look at statistics

anyway, back to grade school kids. here is what the numbers from an accurate representation of American families and kids show:

Matters: A child with highly educated parents
Doesn't matter: an intact family

Matters: Parents with higher socio-economic status(this relation between earnings and education shows true across the board in all studies)
Doesn't matter: Parents recently moving to a better neighborhood

matters: Mother's age at first birth
doesn't matter: mother not working between birth and kindergarten

Matters: Child being proper birthweight
Doesn't matter: "Headstart" eg: preschool\

Matters: The parents speak English in the home
Doesnt matter: The child regularly goes to the museum

MAtters: parent involvement in PTA
doesnt: children frequently watching TV or using a computer

Matters: Child has many books in the home
Doesn't: The child is read to nearly every day

"to overgeneralize a bit, the things that matter are what parents ARE, the things that don't matter are the things that parents DO. Parents who are eduated, successful and healthy tend to have kids who do well in school. For parents and parenting experts who are obsessed with child-rearing technique, this may be sobering news. The reality is that technique looks to be highly overrated....In this regard, an overbearing parent is alot like a political candidate who believes that money wins elections(proven false earlier in the book), whereas in truth, all the money in the world wont get someone elected if voters don't like him to begin with."

Basically it states, and the numbers show, that what you do as a parent doesn't matter as much as who you are, but can be the difference on the edge. Not following all the "experts" advice wont make your kid into a delinquent.

01-23-2006, 10:12 AM	#1
Yardicus Cutting Yardie Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 918 Recipes: 0 Rep Power: 26	Swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns ...and more interesting facts "Freakonomics" is a book written by one of the brightest economists in the US. He takes 2 seperate issues, finds a common link, and uses it to teach everyday life lessons. some excerpts: What do you consider more dangerous to a child, a house with a gun, or a house with a pool? In any given year, there is 1 child drowning per 11,000 residential pools in the US(with 6 million pools in the US) meaning ~550 kids die each year in pools In the same time, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million guns(with 200 million guns), meaning ~175 kids die yearly from guns hence the likelihood of a child dying from a swimming pool is 1 in 11,000, versus 1 in 1 million for a gun, makign the kid roughly 100 times more likely to die ina swimming pool rather than from a gun same goes for flying and driving...the media overplayed the fact that many more people die in a car(40,000/year) than on a plane(1,000). but people also spend alot more TIME in cars than on plane. the per HOUR death rate of driving versus flying is almost exactly equal, making them equally unlikely to result in your death another funny myth the book dispells is that the type of high school a kid goes to determines their outcome in life. Awhile back the Chicago public school system(3rd largest in the nation) decided to allow kids to choose which high school they attended. due to high demand for 'good" schools, there was alottery system. This turned out to be a perfect real-life experiement, as 1000's of equally educated and intelligent kids went to "good" schools while the same amoutn went to "bad" schools. Of course, the media and popular thought would have you think the ones who went to "good schools" did better..right? WRONG ! The students at the "good" school did NO BETTER than equivalent students at the "bad" schools. No child left behind? The students "left behind" in "bad" schools continued to test at the same levels are before this lottery. In other words, going to a "good" or "bad" school does not affect graduation rates, intelligence or test scores. Don't believe the hype.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-23-2006, 10:13 AM	#2
Yardicus Cutting Yardie Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 918 Recipes: 0 Rep Power: 26	the book does later go into grade school numbers. Based on a late 1990's US Dept. of Education study from across the nation in all walks, races, etc of life, they developed data to the max on kids from pre-school through 5th grade. the study included all the typicals(age, gender, family structure, economic status, etc) but also went beyond that to interviewing parents, teachers and administraors, intensive personal questions, spanking, hours watching TV, museum trips, etc This compiled an incredibly rich set of data, thats also on the surface difficult to navigate. However, using regression analysis(a complicated means of studying data by looking at only 2 pieces of all that data, and holding all the others to an artifical constant, and then looking at how they co-vary.) I used it a bit in stats classes, but basically it's very complicated to explain, but known to be a true method to look at statistics anyway, back to grade school kids. here is what the numbers from an accurate representation of American families and kids show: Matters: A child with highly educated parents Doesn't matter: an intact family Matters: Parents with higher socio-economic status(this relation between earnings and education shows true across the board in all studies) Doesn't matter: Parents recently moving to a better neighborhood matters: Mother's age at first birth doesn't matter: mother not working between birth and kindergarten Matters: Child being proper birthweight Doesn't matter: "Headstart" eg: preschool\ Matters: The parents speak English in the home Doesnt matter: The child regularly goes to the museum MAtters: parent involvement in PTA doesnt: children frequently watching TV or using a computer Matters: Child has many books in the home Doesn't: The child is read to nearly every day "to overgeneralize a bit, the things that matter are what parents ARE, the things that don't matter are the things that parents DO. Parents who are eduated, successful and healthy tend to have kids who do well in school. For parents and parenting experts who are obsessed with child-rearing technique, this may be sobering news. The reality is that technique looks to be highly overrated....In this regard, an overbearing parent is alot like a political candidate who believes that money wins elections(proven false earlier in the book), whereas in truth, all the money in the world wont get someone elected if voters don't like him to begin with." Basically it states, and the numbers show, that what you do as a parent doesn't matter as much as who you are, but can be the difference on the edge. Not following all the "experts" advice wont make your kid into a delinquent.