I just read this fascinating article. Let me know what you think after you read it.
Jobs & Birth Order
Oldest, Middle, Youngest: Who’s More Successful?
By KATE LORENZ, CAREERBUILDER.COM EDITOR
All men may be created equal; but a look at their pay stubs will tell you that their incomes are not.
Blame it on social class, education — even luck, but according to Dalton Conley, New York University professor of sociology and public policy, inequality begins at home. In his book ‘The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why,’ Conley says that 75 percent of the income inequality between individuals in the United States occurs between siblings in the same families. He points to the diverse fortunes of Bill and Roger Clinton, and Jimmy and Billy Carter as examples.
Research shows that first-borns (and onlys) lead the pack in terms of educational attainment, occupational prestige, income and net worth. Conversely middle children in large families tend to fare the worst. (Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!)
“A child’s position in the family impacts his personality, his behavior, his learning and ultimately his earning power,” states Michael Grose, author of ‘Why First-Born Rule the World and Last-borns Want to Change It.’ “Most people have an intuitive knowledge that birth order somehow has an impact on development, but they underestimate how far-reaching and just how significant that impact really is.”
Conley concedes that birth order is significant in shaping individual success, but only for children of large families — four or more siblings — and in families where finances and parental time are constrained. (In wealthy families, like the Bushes and Kennedys, it has less effect.)
Here’s a look at what impact your birth order may have on you:
First-Borns: More conscientious, ambitious and aggressive than their younger siblings, first-borns are over-represented at Harvard and Yale as well as disciplines requiring higher education such as medicine, engineering or law. Every astronaut to go into space has been either the oldest child in his or her family or the eldest boy. And throughout history — even when large families were the norm — more than half of all Nobel Prize winners and U.S. presidents have been first-born.
Famous eldest children include: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, J.K. Rowling and Winston Churchill. And macho movie stars are First-Born, too, including Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and all the actors who have played James Bond.
Middles: Middle children are more easy going and peer-oriented. Since they can get lost in the shuffle of their own families, they learn to build bridges to other sources of support and therefore tend to have excellent people skills. Middle children often take on the role of mediator and peacemaker.
Famous middle children include: Bill Gates, J.F.K., Madonna and Princess Diana.
Youngest: The youngest child tends to be the most creative and can be very charming — even manipulative. Because they often identify with the underdog, they tend to champion egalitarian causes. (Youngest siblings were the earliest backers of the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment.)
Successful in journalism, advertising, sales and the arts, famous youngest children include Cameron Diaz, Jim Carrey, Drew Carey, Rosie O’Donnell, Eddie Murphy and Billy Crystal.
Here is the full article.
Do you agree with the findings?
I’m not sure if I buy it but I have to admit that it sounds interesting.
The logic fails in many cases as in Polgar Sisters.
But it is very interesting and it reminds parents to give their time to children for their better future.
I agree 100%. I have lived it.
I am a 39 yr old middle child, with an older brother and younger sister. My brother was a narcissistic bully and my sister was a spoiled youngest child who always got her way. My brother does make more money than I. He was more of an achiever than I.
He thought he was entitled to everything because he was the oldest.I am more of a people pleaser. I wish I was an only child. At least I have my chess. lol.
Not very convincing. I think Bill Gates is more an achiever than any other.
It might be true especially if the parents are un-conscious of how they r bringing up their kids. The eldest always gets more responsibilities and more respect and he owns his little siblings in every possible way. They can kick aas if u don’t obey. But, i think this is utter rubbish, if u can be aware of life and not fall in habitual thinking patterns of mind.
How does the analysis stand up with the Polgar sisters as the subject?
Voodoo science. Bleh.
Tennis babe Ashley Harkleroad to appear in August Playboy?
THANK YOU GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fact that oldest child has a head start on younger sibling is so obvious that it should not require any research.
Note that Bill Gates or the Polgar Sisters do not apply as they do not belong to large family. The Polgar family is also an exception in the way Lazlo went about providing the same training to all three kids. In this peculiar case we see natural ability will transcend birth order.
Birth order is even more important in poor family where limited resources force parents to make hard choices. It is always the first child that ends up with an education while the youngest sibling end up with limited or no education.
This dynamic does not totally escape rich families. The Kennedys and Bushes are a prime example where the youngest children had to wait their turn to run for President. George Bush is another one that benefited from the pecking order even though his younger brother Ted Bush is more intelligent. In addition the oldest sibling got to enjoy 100% of their parent time.
Sure there are some exceptions but they do not negate the rule.