It argues that younger children benefit in that they make greater progress than their peers, but supports findings that they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to their older classmates.
Also interesting:
The benefits of being younger are even greater for those who skip a grade, an option available to many high-achieving children. Compared with nonskippers of similar talent and motivation, these youngsters pursue advanced degrees and enter professional school more often. Acceleration is a powerful intervention, with effects on achievement that are twice as large as programs for the gifted. Grade-skippers even report more positive social and emotional feelings.
The last sentence especially surprised me, as it contradicts what I thought to be conventional wisdom.
EDIT* My situation in Ontario, Canada: the cutoff date is Dec. 31. So if you are born Jan. 1 or later, you are the oldest. If you are born in Dec., you are the youngest.
What a really fascinating topic. I'm reading all this because I now have a 4 month old son (born in early November) and an older nephew born in early January of the same year. My nephew can walk now and my son just drools and hates tummy time - and they will be going to the same school and same grade! Eek.
I thought for sure my son would be at a disadvantage but I realized that both my sister and I were skipped 1 grade when we were 3 and 3.5 years old. (Side note: we did not attend a North American system.) We were always the youngest in class. She was physically the same as the other girls, but I was smaller, so I always lacked confidence growing up as I was always the smallest AND youngest. Thankfully in high school I hit a growth spurt and reached nearly 6 feet. Skinny, but still - I was tall.
Both my sister and I turned out just fine. We always had good marks and went to university. She even has more credentials. We are both extremely social, and she is very mature in the sense that she can negotiate and do business with people with far more experience than her. So no issues there.
All this to say, both of us were skipped grades and we turned out just fine, and we always tried to achieve more than others in our class, and we have more often than not. So if there are any parents out there with young children, don't worry so much about your child being the youngest in the class. Simply reassure them when they it looks like they lack self-confidence and they'll be fine. This is not scientific, nor can I really remember how I felt when I was 4 years old. Just wanted to give anyone else a point of view from a simple grade-skipper who gets bored easily :)
It took many decades and two wars for women to be able to "get away with" wearing pants. They were adopted for practical reasons as women entered the workforce (skirts are more likely to get caught in factory machinery), and abandoned again when women exited the workforce post-war. Until the women's movement, pants on women were only tolerated when they were considered necessary.
I don't understand how men wearing dresses works as a comparison to women wearing pants, as there hasn't been an equivalent attempt by men to adopt dresses as everyday attire.
Regardless of the history behind the current situation, the fact remains that women are more free to wear "male" clothing than men are to wear "female" clothing.
I think you're misunderstanding the previous comment. It says the objective of the monogamous strategy is to increase the chances of survival for a particular set of offspring, not a particular type. That is, if a man partners with a woman and provides for the children they have together, he increases that set of offspring's chances of survival.
The point about marriage and/or monogamy benefitting lower status males is that, in a polygynous system, all or most of the females will be having sex with the few high-status males who can provide for them and their offspring (barring rape). High-status males would have lots of sex partners and opportunities to produce offspring, low-status males would have few or none.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20111646-503544.html