What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[Luke]

Not really. Doctors do use the information to chart childrens' growth and to make sure that they are developing properly. For example, my daughter, as an infant, was in the 50-60th percentile for height and weight, but later dropped to the 30-40th percentile. This was cause for concern, and we monitored her for a while after that to make sure that she kept growing on pace. (She did.)

"Developing properly". You can put a number on that?

Alright, forget what I said earlier and let's do the math.

Let's say a couple gives birth to a healthy young girl with one arm. How does that factor in?

Breaking it down to brass tacks:

This percentile grading on kids, concerning "development" is terrible. You rank people on achievements, and effort. We are talking about grading children who have no idea how to not shit all over the place. This isn't a study of any reason. This is ego stroking and more unnecessary appointments.

This is apples to oranges math, and is shameful. *Still doing my research, but so far this is all a crock* You don't place a number on a kid that hasn't has the chance to grow up. These numbers do not account for ANY SOCIAL, NOR PHYSICAL VARIABLES!

If I and my wife are lucky enough to have a kid, no fucking way will someone grade them. What is to gain by doing so?

[prfsnl_gmr]

"Developing properly". You can put a number on that?

Alright, forget what I said earlier and let's do the math.

Let's say a couple gives birth to a healthy young girl with one arm. How does that factor in?

Breaking it down to brass tacks:

This percentile grading on kids, concerning "development" is terrible. You rank people on achievements, and effort. We are talking about grading children who have no idea how to not shit all over the place. This isn't a study of any reason. This is ego stroking and more unnecessary appointments.

This is apples to oranges math, and is shameful. *Still doing my research, but so far this is all a crock* You don't place a number on a kid that hasn't has the chance to grow up. These numbers do not account for ANY SOCIAL, NOR PHYSICAL VARIABLES!

If I and my wife are lucky enough to have a kid, no fucking way will someone grade them. What is to gain by doing so?

Uh...OK...It sounds like you have your mind made up. Nonetheless, I will provide two scenarios where I think that the information provided by growth charts might be useful.

Let's say you have a son who measures in the 90th precentile for height and weight when he is six months old. When you bring him in for a check up at nine months, he is bigger than he was at six months. Nonetheless, he has dropped to the 20th percentile for height and weight. The sudden drop in height and weight percentile would indicatate that he is not growing as much as you would expect him to grow, and it would be cause for further inquiry into his eating habits, nutrition, etc.

Conversely, let's say you have a little boy in the 15th percentile for height and weight when he is six months old. When you bring him in for a check up at nine months, he is much, much bigger than he was at six months, and he has risen to the 99th percentile for height and weight. This sudden and extremely rapid movement from one percentile to another also indicates that the child is not following an expected growth path, and it would also be cause for further inquiry in to the child's eating habits, nutrition, etc.

In sum, one percentile is not "better" than another. (That is, there are perfectly healthy babies at all percentiles, and a giant baby is not "better" than a petite one.) Looking at movements between percentiles over time, however, is helpful in determining whether a baby is following an expected growth path, and a drastic movement between percentiles may be cause for further inquiry into a child's eating habits, nutrition, etc.

[Jmustang1968]

Not really. Doctors do use the information to chart childrens' growth and to make sure that they are developing properly. For example, my daughter, as an infant, was in the 50-60th percentile for height and weight, but later dropped to the 30-40th percentile. This was cause for concern, and we monitored her for a while after that to make sure that she kept growing on pace. (She did.)

"Developing properly". You can put a number on that?

Alright, forget what I said earlier and let's do the math.

Let's say a couple gives birth to a healthy young girl with one arm. How does that factor in?

Breaking it down to brass tacks:

This percentile grading on kids, concerning "development" is terrible. You rank people on achievements, and effort. We are talking about grading children who have no idea how to not shit all over the place. This isn't a study of any reason. This is ego stroking and more unnecessary appointments.

This is apples to oranges math, and is shameful. *Still doing my research, but so far this is all a crock* You don't place a number on a kid that hasn't has the chance to grow up. These numbers do not account for ANY SOCIAL, NOR PHYSICAL VARIABLES!

If I and my wife are lucky enough to have a kid, no fucking way will someone grade them. What is to gain by doing so?

Obviously if a child is missing an appendage that would be factored in...

This isn't a grading of kids at all. If you have a kid you will take them to the Dr, and the Dr gets height and weight measurements of your kid. That is where the %s come from. Tracking height and weight is important when tracking the health of a child, especially so since they cannot communicate illnesses or issues well or at all. Doing otherwise would be negligent.

You are completely missing the point here or are trolling.

[Fragems]

: Going to have to go to the credit Union and see whats up with my Auto Loan doesn't look like they took the payments out of the account like they were supposed to in July and August . Seriously getting ticked at these guys this will be the second time their automatic payment system has flubbed on me if my statement is accurate.

: Apparently they for whatever reason transferred the auto pay to my Dad's checking account without notifying me. So I had them transfer it back over and I need to transfer $422 to him to cover the past 2 months . Really not impressed with Star Credit Union at least the payments weren't missed but this is the second fudge on their part in the past 4 months.

When I'm looking for home loans I'm definitely going to skip their loan department . Might check and see if I can combine my auto and home loan at the local City National I have all my other accounts at. It would save me a couple miles drive and they would probably cut me a better rate.

: Got a nice wooden work station and a small metal file/supply cabinet for $30 at Restore. Will make my crafting a little easier since I won't have to take over the kitchen table anymore.

[mjmjr25]

That's a lot of <---Those, fraggy.

[Fragems]

My life on average=

[Luke]

You are completely missing the point here or are trolling.

Neither*.

I've been having a back and forward with a few of my friends who are physicians psychiatrists, and parents, and the consensus agrees with me: these percentages are ego stroking nonsense.

A child missing an appendage is NOT always factored in, nor required.

There is no formula that can predict child development, be it mental or physical.




*It's possible I am completely missing the point.

[prfsnl_gmr]

It's possible I am completely missing the point.

I'd say it's more than just possible.

[mjmjr25]

I've been having a back and forward with a few of my friends who are physicians psychiatrists, and parents, and the consensus agrees with me: these percentages are ego stroking nonsense.

I am glad your physician friends have psychiatrists - most of them don't; though they are often needed. Regardless - I would love to see one of your friends post their thoughts in a medical journal. They often have op ed type pieces. It would be the first such professional opinion to suggest growth chart value is simply for parental ego-stroking - and I get almost every national medical journal each month.

[BoneSnapDeez]

My last comment was snarky, but seriously - measuring height and weight of children is essential, as is accurately tracking their growth and development.

That said, I get Luke. This percentage "rating" system can be viewed as problematic due to the implication that higher (closer to 100%) is "better." Perhaps a more abstract type of terminology would be beneficial here. And yes, parents bragging about "large" babies/toddlers is annoying, and having a "large" kid doesn't correlate to much.

Doctors can be lazy with the data too. My lil "1%" daughter's pediatrician once lectured me, asking if I fed Iris enough, while completely ignoring the fact that my daughter's low current weight is largely due to the fact that she was born early and thus had a very low birth weight.

So yeah, data is important, but for whatever reason many folks don't seem to be able to correctly interpret what their little one's size really signifies.