Talk:Socioeconomic status

Missing Chart and Irrelevant Reference

Under the Education section, a sentence is mentioning a chart to support its statement:

Education also plays a role in determining income. Median earnings increase with each level of education. As conveyed in the chart, the highest degrees, professional and doctoral degrees, make the highest weekly earnings while those without a high school diploma earn less.[...]

However, there's no relevant chart on the page, much less the section. I would like to fix this, however, I do not believe I can simply tack on a chart that supports this claim because I don't know the exact chart used to make the claim. However, it would probably be silly to leave this omission alone. What should be done about this?

To add another concern, this may digress from the topic above a little, but is ultimately relevant. The next sentence of the quoted paragraph does have a reference:

Higher levels of education are associated with better economic and psychological outcomes (i.e.: more income, more control, and greater social support and networking).[1]

This reference doesn't contain a chart, but the bigger problem is that the referred article is talking about Disability & Socioeconomic Status, is written in the context of psychology, and doesn't directly support the claims in the first place. The article ultimately say that disability cause lower SES, and low SES cause the disabled to suffer from poverty, education barrier, and also poor health and well-being. This doesn't say how education affects SES, but alludes that SES affects education, which is an important distinction. I can also go on about how the reference has a hint of advocacy agenda in it, but I would like to stop here.

Anyhow, for this reason, I believe that this reference should be removed, which would leave this paragraph without a reference. I'm not entirely sure if this paragraph would need to be rewritten from scratch with a new reference or not in that case though. Rirish (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risrish (talk • contribs)

Lack of secondary sources

A lot of the sections in this article rely upon to a huge extent primary sources. This requires significant clean up and replacement with secondary source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius Obsequium (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible Non-Neutral Point of View

In places, this article reads like an opinion piece:

Educators need to help overcome the stigma of poverty. A student of low SES and low self-esteem should not be reinforced by educators. Teachers need to view students as individuals and not as a member of an SES group.

This is likely a cause for revision. 108.185.2.137 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. While some of his comments are beyond debate, others show a bipolar approach to classification: Either "High SES" or"Low SES". No middle ground. 108.227.225.226 (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong use of the abbreviation?

Came here because i saw "SES status" written down in a WikiJournal article, and wanted to make sure it was wrong before suggesting a edit. The word "status" already is part of the SES abbreviation, so the on at "SES status" is redundant, literally meaning "SocioEconomic Status status" , right?

Well, this article didn't help much, the term is used "correctly" almost in its entirety, save for two instances of "SES status" in the same sentence, probably written by the same person.

At Physiological > Literacy development > Home environment:

“「···」 Children of low SES status are read to less often and have fewer books in the home than their high SES peers, which suggests an answer to why children of low SES status have lower initial reading scores than their high SES counterparts upon entering kindergarten. 「···」”

Since these are the only instances of this abbreviation being used like this in the whole article, and they are in the same sentence, written by the same person at the same time, and also taking in account the lack of quality being pointed out by everyone ; i'm strongly inclined to believe that this is a mistake, the same mistake made by that WikiJournal article i mentioned. But of course, being strongly inclined to this conclusion was already my position way before i ever opened this article, so... nothing changed.

So, i made this topic instead of outright editing the alleged typo out, so someone smarter could answer this question that is pertinent both to me and this article it seems.

If you think im being overcautious, this being obviously a mistake, with no need of a discussion at all; well, thats what i thought, until i searched "SES status"(with quotation marks) on google... Weirdly enough, its used very frequently, and in some serious publications , including the one that started this whole thing for me. And this small detail , nagging me that there might be more to this story, is what alone stops me to assuming its just a mistake and forgetting about it . Nilanz (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments, 100%. If we can't standardize on semantics, how much can we believe in the research? (opinion). As it stands in 2023, we can't even standardize on what 'data source' is the official source for SES data in the US. (FEMA, for example) and other agencies cherry pick, to steer their agendas. Very very dangerous in statistical modeling. BunnyToot (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

SES Standardization - Data Source

SES is increasingly used in the methodology for statistical modeling in risk assessments and resiliency of geographic areas. Official methodology data needs to be approved and designated for all official use when the results will be used in obtaining funding or setting policy or law. BunnyToot (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Clean up and further information

Through evaluating this page I have found some things that would benefit from work to further develop this page and include more valuable information. In the Education section there needs to be more of an unbiased tone when discussing the information. Relaying the information without making any assumptions or coming to any conclusions is needed to make this section stand up with the others.

Further evaluation has shown that the Political Participation section needs to be further developed with information and sources. If it is not able to be added upon then it would most likely be more beneficial to remove the section since it does not really add to the article as it is now. JessRosie26 (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)