A ‘secret sauce’ for youths?

The ‘success sequence’ – finish high school, find a job, don’t have children before marriage – may give young people a path to a good life.

Couples take part in a competition during a mass wedding of 64 doctoral student couples at Harbin Institute of Technology, in China June 4.

Good news: If young Americans follow a simple three-step formula they can greatly increase their chances of living the American dream as adults.

Bad news: It isn’t entirely clear whether the formula causes the good results or only reflects other causes. And promoting it won’t be a comfortable task for government when such personal life decisions are involved.

The “success sequence” argues that if youths do three things – graduate from high school, get a job, and wait until after marriage to have children – their chances of financial success will grow by leaps and bounds.

The concept received a boost from a recent study by the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies, which concentrated on Step 3 of the formula: a marriage before a baby carriage.

It found that 95 percent of Americans 28 to 34 years old who married before having children were not poor compared with 72 percent who had children before marriage.

The study also found that the better results from the “success sequence” were seen across income and racial lines, though white youths and youths from higher-income households saw the best results. In low-income families, for example, 71 percent who married before having children reached at least the middle class by ages 28 to 34, compared with only 41 percent who had children first.

Among blacks, 76 percent who married before having children avoided poverty, while only 39 percent of those who had children first did so. The statistics for Hispanics showed a similar margin (81 percent if married first, 54 percent if had children born before marriage).

But is the “success sequence” a cause or an effect? For example, many of those who chose to marry first, before having children, may have strong religious beliefs that contribute to their success throughout their lives in a variety of ways.

Waiting to have children until after marriage may suggest a mature and practical approach to life. But where do youths acquire these skills? At home? In school? Through religious affiliations? What appropriate role might government play in promoting them?

The study also found that a majority (55 percent) of those ages 28 to 34 are having children before marriage – and thus losing out on the benefits of the “success sequence.”

The issues of human relationships – love, marriage, and child-bearing – are complex and intensely personal. It would be dangerous to oversimplify by concluding that the “success sequence” alone guarantees financial stability.

And it would be wrong as well to conclude that single or unwed parents aren’t deserving of support or that they are incapable of being wonderful parents.

Low-income and minority youths face higher hurdles than white and affluent youths in achieving the first two steps in the “success sequence” – completing high school and finding jobs. If the “success sequence” is going to work for all youths these problems must be addressed as well.

Yet youths should be made aware of the greater likelihood of success if they follow the "sequence." The old playground rhyme "first comes love / then comes marriage / then comes the baby in the baby carriage"  suggests that the "success sequence" actually has a long history in American life – and contains valuable advice.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A ‘secret sauce’ for youths?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today