Talk:Socioeconomic status

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics C‑class Top‑importance Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology C‑class High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology C‑class Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Society Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]