What Class Rank Says About Health

Do higher ranked students live longer? Graduation rankings may play a role in lifelong health and wellness.

Do straight-A students live longer?

Researchers have long known that education and good health are inextricably linked. Numerous studies have found that people with more years of schooling and higher education enjoy better health, over all, than those with less. But in a fascinating new report, investigators found that it is not just the number of degrees or years of education that make a difference, but another factor — class rank.

The findings come from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, which has been following more than 10,000 people who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957. Those students who finished in the top 25 percent of their high school class were healthier, decades later, than the ones who finished in the bottom quarter. When they were all in their early 60s, those who had finished in the top quartile were, over all, half as likely to have experienced the declines in health that their peers who graduated in the lowest quartile were experiencing. Asked to assess their health on a scale from ”excellent” to “poor,” the top students ranked their overall health higher, and they were only half as likely to report having a chronic ailment like diabetes, heart disease or respiratory illness.

“What we’ve seen all along in other studies is the link between attainment — years of schooling — and health,” said study author Dr. Pamela Herd, associate professor of public affairs and sociology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. “Here there’s a link between health and actual academic performance.

“Even among those who each had 12 years of education, the person who performed better had better health,” she said. “That’s new.” The study was published online in The Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

Now Dr. Herd, whose research is supported by the National Institute on Aging, is trying to figure out just what it is about class rank that seems to promote good health. Past research suggests people with a higher education get better jobs and make more money than their peers with less schooling, so they can afford to live in safer neighborhoods, eat a healthier diet, go to doctors, maybe join a gym. Jobs requiring more education also tend to involve less physical wear and tear and are less likely to subject workers to toxic fumes and other occupational hazards; they also carry more job security. Educated people also tend to have better habits: fewer smoke, fewer are obese, and more are physically active. And if they do develop a chronic disease like diabetes, they tend to be better at managing it.

But why would grades matter? One explanation is that the same psychological characteristics that make for a hardworking student — like conscientiousness, dependability, good study habits and following the rules — also shape healthy behaviors. But when Dr. Herd examined personality surveys the graduates of 1957 filled out, controlling for variables like family background and childhood health, she didn’t find a strong correlation with health status.

She’s convinced there’s something about the actual mastering of academic material that’s vital — not the algebra and United States history per se, but the process of developing critical thinking skills and improving cognitive function.

“The people who do better in high school — they learn more, they’re more engaged, they’re active learners, and that probably plays out across people’s lives,” Dr. Herd said. “They may have actually potentially learned how to learn more effectively, and that could affect things like how much you keep up with the latest innovations on how to improve your health, both medically and through your behavior.”

There’s a limit to what people can do to maintain and improve their health, she acknowledged, and we tend to oversimplify the extent of our control, “but these skills may be reflective of what we can do.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Could it also bee that people with better health, also do better in school?

If you’re sickly and missing out on school and lessons, getting ranked at the top of your class is going to be pretty hard.

This doesn’t seem like earth-shattering news, and I would guess it’s at least partly related to socioeconomic factors. People in schools where academic success is a cultural value are more likely to try harder, get better grades, go on to higher education, etc. They also may have more money, which means more access to healthy food, safe outdoor environments, and medical care — all factors that help promote good long-term health.

Of course I am speculating, not looking at hard data, so I’ll leave it to the scientists to find out for sure….

Amelia
//www.eating-made-easy.com

Interesting, although of course there are a million confounding factors…

Correlation, not causation.

How does this show that academic performance is more important than higher education generally? I’d imagine that those students who graduated in the top quartile of their high school class (and were healthier) were more likely to pursue higher education than their bottom quartile peers.

Perhaps the causation is reversed -> how does health influence class rank?

This is an inherently flawed study and the NY Times reporting of it in such an uncritical fashion panders to its largely highly-educated readership: Where is the discussion of the socioeconomic factors that contribute to learning and health? What is the demographic of the “healthier” people in this study? What factors contributed to them being at the top of their class? How does their access to healthcare and paid time off compare to participants who placed lower in their academic class? I fear this study perpetuates the U.S.’s skewed sense of meritocracy and “boot straps” theory, when critical education research overwhelmingly shows that schools perpetuate the inequalities inherent within society. I expected higher-quality and more in-depth reporting from the NY Times.

Silly researchers thrashing about to find the “hidden” clues about why the top 25% of a class are healthier than the quarter of those at the rump.
Everyone — well, at least a FEW — know of the secret government program that arranges for special agents to drop into visit “smart” students on lists they get from the conniving, mean-spirited school administrators. Casually the agents drop special “health tonics” into the “smart” people’s water supply that will keep them healthy and are designed to make them live to be 100. Most of these agents are ex-Seals. Though sometimes they are actual seals and for that “smart” people ought to be ready with some fresh fish for a snack when they drop by the health tonics.
It’s also common in areas where there are no convenient agents nearby, the “agency” merely does a clandestine “merge-and-purge” with social networking sites to identify the “smart” people and are able to deliver
the “health tonic” in some encrypted code that the “smart” people can only access by special decoder rings available as party favors at Mensa meetings or in specially marked packages of Mueslix.
Way to go top 25 percenters!! The world wants you to be healthy and succeed!!
The rest of you? Not so much. (Don’t forget to the fish!)

I am amazed and dismayed at the lack of critical thinking coupled with strong opinions regarding health care in some of my acquaintances. They are people who are suspicious of mainstream medicine yet allow themselves to be “cleansed” with dangerous diets, take bizarre substances if they are “natural”, and visit quacks who do suspect procedures. There are no magical solutions to good health.

It’s also quite possible that the top 25% are better at managing stress. Performing under academic pressure at a young age may train you to handle other pressures and stressors later on.

Isn’t the world lucky that we are the only large civilized nation that regularly neglects, actively steers resources away from, and otherwise gets rid of its less fortunate home grown human “products”?
Otherwise, how could we possibly be able to import so many foreign elite???

Quoting PennRWLer

“critical education research overwhelmingly shows that schools perpetuate the inequalities inherent within society. ”
— PennRWLer

Perpetuate — or reflect?

The most simple explanation, like some previous comments have mentioned, is that healthier students tend to do better in school, not that more education increases a person’s health.

The Healthy Librarian December 15, 2010 · 2:05 pm

Thanks, Roni, for reporting on this facinating research!

UCLA coach John Wooden who died this past June at age 99 said it best:

“Once you’re through learning you’re through.”

Couldn’t agree more with the study author’s conclusions.

Active, engaged learners & readers keep up on medical advances–and all those grown-up “hard-working conscientious students” know exactly what they need to do in order to stay healthy.

This research reminds me of the Grant Study, which followed 268 of Harvard’s best & brightest from the classes of 1942, ’43 and ’44 for 72 years!

In this landmark study, these men were examined & interviewed by physicians, social workers, and psychiatrists their entire lives–all in “an attempt to analyze the forces that have produced normal young men.”

Bottom line, the most succesful men–described as “the healthy well” shared these characteristics:

The Happy-Well all had 5 or 6 of these factors in their lives by age 50. This is key:

1. Employing mature adaptations to life’s challenges
2. Education
3. Stable marriage
4. Not smoking
5. Not abusing alcohol
6. Regular exercise – Regular exercise in college predicted late-life mental health better than it did physical health.
7. Healthy weight.

Of the men who had 3 or fewer of these health factors by age 50–none ended up “happy-well”. All became “sad-sick”.

Even if they were in good physical shape–with 3 or less protective factors, they were 3 times as likely to be dead at age 80, than those with 4 or more factors.

For the rest of the summary:

//www.happyhealthylonglife.com/happy_healthy_long_life/2009/05/grant-study.html

I teach in a middle-class suburban high school and I can tell you that the main reason that most kids are in the bottom 25% is laziness–the students themselves will tell you that is the case. Laziness does not generally lead to good health.

“The people who do better in high school — they learn more, they’re more engaged, they’re active learners, and that probably plays out across people’s lives”
Clearly a retarded oversimplification. There aren’t spiritual concerns in life, there aren’t emotions, etc. Sure.

Some research suggests that there might be a link between status in social hierarchies and health outcomes that does not depend on access to healthy food, excercise, etc. Rather, the research suggests that high status in itself is a determinant. The Wisconsin results reported in this article might be evidence of such a determinant. Anyone interested should look up the work of Richard Wilkinson – it is fascinating in its own right, and might go some way toward explaining the relatively poor population health scores in the US despite the very high healtch care expenditures.

Soooo –

people that are conscientious, hard working and self-starters:
a) get better grades
b) get better, higher paying jobs
c) take better care of themselves and are therefore healthier

this is earth-shattering news?

Why no mention of the links between stress hormones, social rank, and long-term health? This reminds me of Sapolsky’s study of baboons and Sir Michael Marmot’s study of the British civil service. Both of those studies accounted for some of the confounds discussed here.

I thought that it had already been made official here in the United States of PC that…

“Everyone is equal and functions on the same level”.

How can there possibly be a top 25%? Why are there class rankings? No matter how one performs, shouldn’t the outcome be graded as Complete?

I’m “offended” that there is even a suggestion that some students and some people are smarter than others.

If some adults are less healthy, it’s the governments fault, and part of an elitist agenda to thin out the herd.

Deborah (#9): I don’t have enough details to know for sure, but it sounds a bit like your friends aren’t the ones with strong opinions and a lack of critical thinking. Everyone in her or her right mind will be suspicious of mainstream medicine, with its cozy relationship with pharmaceutical companies, relentless desire to medicate the population, and “nothing heals like cold steel” attitude towards ridding the body of symptoms rather than addressing root causes of disease.

Darn it, I fell for it. Now I’m the one spouting off generalities! There are amazingly good conventional medical practitioners out there, as well as those who are awful. There are also amazingly good alternative medical practitioners out there (as well as those who are awful).

Thomas at #17 is on the right track. Look into the foundational research of Sir Michael Marmot who studied British civil servants — all had equal access to health care but a significant health gradient emerged based on the classification of the worker (status).

Well, the brain is an organ in the body;if your body is healthy, then your bain tends to be more healthy, too. When my son wasin college I sugggested that drinking alcohol killed a lot of brain cells. Since he was very proud of his intelligance level, he drank very little— did well in school and became a scientist.

Not to throw cold water on this but I had some serious problems when I was in college. I did not graduate in the top quartile of my college class. Not only that but there were a number of students who cheated their way to good grades so this might really be a correlation between cheating and the ability to get a good job due to the alleged good grades.

I really dislike reading articles that don’t offer much in the way of proof but sound good on their face. I enjoy good health now and I am more active than many other adults my age. I also know other adults who did not graduate in the top quartile of their college class: they too seem to be in good health.

The study fails to pinpoint or even to hypothesize about any characteristics that would be similar among those with high class rank and those with many years of education. Both populations have been shown to have better health than their low class rank and low number of education years counterparts.

Also, which characteristics would be different, and therefore not related to health outcomes?