Privilege
Arnav Bhardwaj
6 April 2018
R Markdown
PARENTING BEHAVIOUR VS PRIVILEGE VS SUCCESS
priv.df<-read.csv(paste("priv.csv", sep=""),na.strings=c("NA"))
summary(priv.df)## Gender Current.institute.of.study
## Female: 63 IIT Roorkee :158
## Male :282 IITR : 52
## Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee: 22
## IIT R : 15
## IIT roorkee : 12
## IIT ROORKEE : 12
## (Other) : 74
## Word Place School
## Awesome : 10 Tier-1 City: 74 Government school: 56
## Hardworking: 10 Tier-2 City:151 Private School :283
## Honest : 10 Town : 87 Self-Taught : 6
## Lazy : 9 Village : 33
## Naive : 7
## Ambitious : 6
## (Other) :293
## Discrimination Disc_no access_to_books museum
## None :201 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000
## Caste : 27 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:0.0000
## Gender : 27 Median :0.0000 Median :0.0000 Median :0.0000
## Ethnicity : 16 Mean :0.6725 Mean :0.4377 Mean :0.3014
## Race : 15 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.:1.0000
## Race, Gender: 10 Max. :4.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000
## (Other) : 49
## summer_camps trips
## Min. :0.000 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.000 1st Qu.:0.0000
## Median :0.000 Median :0.0000
## Mean :0.287 Mean :0.3797
## 3rd Qu.:1.000 3rd Qu.:1.0000
## Max. :1.000 Max. :1.0000
##
## Which.of.the.following.people.worked.at.your.home.while.you.were.growing.up.
## None :179
## Servant : 76
## Servant, Gardener : 21
## Servant, Cook : 18
## Servant, Cook, Gardener : 9
## Servant, Guard, Gardener: 9
## (Other) : 33
## servants skip_a_meal tablet accessory_no
## Min. :0.000 A few times: 66 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.000
## 1st Qu.:0.000 Many Times : 46 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:1.000
## Median :0.000 Never :233 Median :0.0000 Median :2.000
## Mean :0.829 Mean :0.1681 Mean :2.254
## 3rd Qu.:1.000 3rd Qu.:0.0000 3rd Qu.:3.000
## Max. :4.000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :4.000
## NA's :168
## coaching new_clothes pocket_money dine talk_to_doctor
## No : 61 No : 78 No :226 ONCE A MONTH : 68 Min. :0.0000
## Yes:284 Yes:267 Yes:119 ONCE A WEEK : 76 1st Qu.:0.0000
## RARELY :108 Median :0.0000
## TWICE A MONTH: 93 Mean :0.4551
## 3rd Qu.:1.0000
## Max. :1.0000
##
## doubts comm permission_hesitation punish_frequent
## Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.:0.0000
## Median :0.0000 Median :0.0000 Median :0.0000 Median :0.0000
## Mean :0.4087 Mean :0.3797 Mean :0.4522 Mean :0.3623
## 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.:1.0000
## Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000
##
## percent_10 percent_12 english_advanced advanced_rank
## Min. : 8.60 Min. : 8.70 No :221 Min. : 280
## 1st Qu.:10.00 1st Qu.:87.00 Yes:124 1st Qu.: 2186
## Median :10.00 Median :92.60 Median : 3500
## Mean :28.38 Mean :88.74 Mean : 4495
## 3rd Qu.:10.00 3rd Qu.:95.00 3rd Qu.: 5100
## Max. :98.60 Max. :98.40 Max. :30000
##
## mains_score leadership
## Min. : 0.0 Joint Secretary/Equivalent : 63
## 1st Qu.: 175.0 Junior Member/Equivalent :104
## Median : 211.0 None : 91
## Mean : 271.7 President/Secretary/Equivalent : 25
## 3rd Qu.: 239.0 Senior/Executive Member/Equivalent : 44
## Max. :7900.0 Vice President/Additional Secretary/Equivalent: 18
##
## no_of_groups debating magazine programming
## Min. :0.00 Min. :0.00000 Min. :0.000 Min. :0.000
## 1st Qu.:1.00 1st Qu.:0.00000 1st Qu.:0.000 1st Qu.:0.000
## Median :1.00 Median :0.00000 Median :0.000 Median :0.000
## Mean :1.51 Mean :0.07826 Mean :0.258 Mean :0.113
## 3rd Qu.:2.00 3rd Qu.:0.00000 3rd Qu.:1.000 3rd Qu.:0.000
## Max. :5.00 Max. :1.00000 Max. :1.000 Max. :1.000
##
## What.campus.group.s..or.section.s..are.you.a.part.of..
## None : 79
## Fest Management Team : 23
## Campus magazine : 12
## Robotics Section : 10
## Campus magazine, Debating Society: 9
## Campus magazine, Quizzing Section: 9
## (Other) :203
## Where.do.you.see.yourself.in.the.next.10.years...Not.more.than.one.sentence.
## Consultant : 6
## A great job as a Manager, or maybe my own startup, and having a gorgeous wife/girlfriend!: 4
## Developer at an MNC : 4
## Happily married along with one good job that I'll be proud of. : 4
## I see myself working on nano materials in a hi-tech laboratory. : 4
## I want to see myself as a self dependent person with a good position in society. : 4
## (Other) :319SECTION-1:- PARENTING EFFECTS ON BEHAVIOUR OF KIDS
- DID YOUR PARENTS ENCOURAGE YOU TO TALK TO THE DOCTOR ON YOUR OWN? We observe that it was only in Tier-1 cities that the number of respondents, who were encouraged to talk to the doctor on their own, was higher than those who weren’t. The contrast is the starkest in case of respondents residing in villages, since the number of respondents talking to the doctor on their own was significantly lower than those who didn’t. Even within the same place of residence, we observe a contrast between those who could afford annual family trips versus those who couldn’t. In towns, those who weren’t encouraged to talk to the doctor on their own, had very few people who could afford family trips. This shows that within towns, it was mostly privileged parents, who were encouraging their children to talk to the doctor on their own.
## Warning: package 'ggplot2' was built under R version 3.4.3## Loading required package: scales## Warning: package 'scales' was built under R version 3.4.3
- ANNUAL FAMILY TRIPS VS TALKING TO DOCTOR
tbl=table(priv.df$trips, priv.df$talk_to_doctor)
tbl##
## 0 1
## 0 138 76
## 1 50 81chisq.test(tbl)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data: tbl
## X-squared = 21.647, df = 1, p-value = 3.277e-06- PLACE OF RESIDENCE VS TALKING TO DOCTOR
tbl=table(priv.df$Place, priv.df$talk_to_doctor)
tbl##
## 0 1
## Tier-1 City 35 39
## Tier-2 City 81 70
## Town 48 39
## Village 24 9chisq.test(tbl)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data: tbl
## X-squared = 6.0299, df = 3, p-value = 0.1102tb<-aggregate(priv.df$advanced_rank, by=list(Place=priv.df$talk_to_doctor), mean)
tb## Place x
## 1 0 4375.649
## 2 1 4637.191t.test(priv.df$advanced_rank~priv.df$talk_to_doctor)##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: priv.df$advanced_rank by priv.df$talk_to_doctor
## t = -0.55166, df = 261.84, p-value = 0.5817
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -1195.0816 671.9973
## sample estimates:
## mean in group 0 mean in group 1
## 4375.649 4637.191Talking to doctor is strongly related to talking to the doctor
tb<-table(priv.df$leadership,priv.df$talk_to_doctor)
tb##
## 0 1
## Joint Secretary/Equivalent 44 19
## Junior Member/Equivalent 50 54
## None 65 26
## President/Secretary/Equivalent 6 19
## Senior/Executive Member/Equivalent 14 30
## Vice President/Additional Secretary/Equivalent 9 9chisq.test(tb, simulate.p.value = TRUE)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test with simulated p-value (based on 2000
## replicates)
##
## data: tb
## X-squared = 36.879, df = NA, p-value = 0.0004998Talking to doctor had a strong correlation with better English
tb<-table(priv.df$english_advanced,priv.df$talk_to_doctor)
tb##
## 0 1
## No 134 87
## Yes 54 70chisq.test(priv.df$english_advanced,priv.df$talk_to_doctor)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data: priv.df$english_advanced and priv.df$talk_to_doctor
## X-squared = 8.6737, df = 1, p-value = 0.003228While the place of residence does not seem to significantly affect the chances of punishment, the ability to afford new clothes seems to be having an effect on the punishing frequency of parents. In Tier-1 cities, towns and villages, it is observed that parents who couldn’t afford clothes were more likely to punish their children.
library(ggplot2) #factor converts it to categorical,0 and 1 #labs gives title for legend
require(scales)
ggplot(priv.df,aes(x=punish_frequent,fill=factor(new_clothes)))+geom_bar()+facet_wrap(~Place)+xlab("Were you frequently punished by your parents?")+ylab("Number of respondents")+labs(fill="Did you buy new clothes on festive occassions?")+ggtitle("Place")
tbl=table(priv.df$new_clothes, priv.df$punish_frequent)
tbl##
## 0 1
## No 55 23
## Yes 165 102chisq.test(tbl)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data: tbl
## X-squared = 1.6251, df = 1, p-value = 0.2024Frequent punishment seems to be deterioating communication skills
tbl=table(priv.df$english_advanced, priv.df$punish_frequent)
tbl##
## 0 1
## No 151 70
## Yes 69 55chisq.test(tbl)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data: tbl
## X-squared = 4.993, df = 1, p-value = 0.02545Frequent punishment does not affect advanced ranks.
tb<-aggregate(priv.df$advanced_rank, by=list(Place=priv.df$punish_frequent), mean)
tb## Place x
## 1 0 4316.123
## 2 1 4808.912t.test(priv.df$advanced_rank~priv.df$punish_frequent)##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: priv.df$advanced_rank by priv.df$punish_frequent
## t = -0.99635, df = 226.08, p-value = 0.3201
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -1467.3988 481.8203
## sample estimates:
## mean in group 0 mean in group 1
## 4316.123 4808.912library(ggplot2) #factor converts it to categorical,0 and 1 #labs gives title for legend
require(scales)
ggplot(priv.df,aes(x=permission_hesitation,fill=factor(servants)))+geom_bar()+facet_wrap(~tablet)+xlab("Did your parents hesitate in giving you permission to party?")+ylab("Number of respondents")+labs(fill="The number of servants in your house")+ggtitle("Place")
tb<-aggregate(priv.df$percent_12, by=list(Place=priv.df$punish_frequent), mean)
tb## Place x
## 1 0 91.04509
## 2 1 84.69120t.test(priv.df$percent_12~priv.df$permission_hesitation)##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: priv.df$percent_12 by priv.df$permission_hesitation
## t = -2.875, df = 228.71, p-value = 0.004421
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -6.797720 -1.269101
## sample estimates:
## mean in group 0 mean in group 1
## 86.91915 90.95256tb<-table(priv.df$leadership, priv.df$permission_hesitation)
tb##
## 0 1
## Joint Secretary/Equivalent 27 36
## Junior Member/Equivalent 58 46
## None 57 34
## President/Secretary/Equivalent 7 18
## Senior/Executive Member/Equivalent 34 10
## Vice President/Additional Secretary/Equivalent 6 12chisq.test(priv.df$leadership,priv.df$permission_hesitation)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data: priv.df$leadership and priv.df$permission_hesitation
## X-squared = 25.491, df = 5, p-value = 0.000112SECTION-2:- EFFECT OF PARENTING BEHAVIOUR ON SUCCESS Questions to be answered:- 1)IS PARENTING BEHAVIOUR AFFECTED BY PRIVILEGE? 2)DOES PARENTING BEHAVIOUR AFFECT SUCCESS? PARTY PERMISSION VS PRIVILEGE 1)TABLET If you had access to a tablet at home, you were more likely to communicate issues to your parents.If you went to annual family trips too, the probability increased even further.
library(ggplot2) #factor converts it to categorical,0 and 1 #labs gives title for legend
require(scales)
ggplot(priv.df,aes(x=comm,fill=factor(trips)))+geom_bar()+facet_wrap(~tablet)+xlab(" Did you have access to a tablet in your home?")+ylab("No of respondents")+labs(fill="Annual Family Trips")
2)TABLET ACCESS VS FREE COMMUNICATION AT HOME Access to a tablet seems to be strongly correlated to free communication at home.
tb<-table(priv.df$tablet, priv.df$comm)
tb##
## 0 1
## 0 202 85
## 1 12 46chisq.test(priv.df$tablet,priv.df$comm)##
## Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data: priv.df$tablet and priv.df$comm
## X-squared = 48.5, df = 1, p-value = 3.303e-12COMMUNICATION VS JEE RANK The chance that your parents hesitated, if you are female, is higher.
tb<-aggregate(priv.df$advanced_rank, by=list(Place=priv.df$skip_a_meal), mean)
tb## Place x
## 1 A few times 4348.924
## 2 Many Times 3724.870
## 3 Never 4687.931fit <- aov(advanced_rank ~ skip_a_meal, data=priv.df)
fit## Call:
## aov(formula = advanced_rank ~ skip_a_meal, data = priv.df)
##
## Terms:
## skip_a_meal Residuals
## Sum of Squares 37363762 6115904803
## Deg. of Freedom 2 342
##
## Residual standard error: 4228.802
## Estimated effects may be unbalancedPARTY PERMISSION VS SUCCESS 1) 12th BOARD PERCENTAGE The board percentages were slighly lower for kids, who had hesitating parents for parties.
aggregate(priv.df$percent_12, by=list(DebSoc=priv.df$permission_hesitation), mean)## DebSoc x
## 1 0 86.91915
## 2 1 90.95256- MAINS SCORE Kids, who had hesitating parents, had higher scores in their Mains exam.
aggregate(priv.df$mains_score, by=list(DebSoc=priv.df$permission_hesitation), mean)## DebSoc x
## 1 0 202.7302
## 2 1 355.2115- LEADERSHIP Presidents had less chances of parents hesitating than Senior Executive Members.
aggregate(priv.df$permission_hesitation, by=list(Position=priv.df$leadership), mean)## Position x
## 1 Joint Secretary/Equivalent 0.5714286
## 2 Junior Member/Equivalent 0.4423077
## 3 None 0.3736264
## 4 President/Secretary/Equivalent 0.7200000
## 5 Senior/Executive Member/Equivalent 0.2272727
## 6 Vice President/Additional Secretary/Equivalent 0.6666667- JEE ADVANCED RANKS The advanced ranks were better for kids, whose parents had no hesitation in allowing them to party.
aggregate(priv.df$advanced_rank, by=list(Permission=priv.df$permission_hesitation), mean)## Permission x
## 1 0 4180.910
## 2 1 4874.801EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS ON FREQUENT PUNISHMENT VS PRIVILEGE Kids, who went to annual family trips, were slightly more likely to be punished.
aggregate(priv.df$punish_frequent, by=list(Trips=priv.df$trips), mean)## Trips x
## 1 0 0.3691589
## 2 1 0.3511450Kids, who had tablets or walkmans while growing up, were less likely to be punished.
aggregate(priv.df$punish_frequent, by=list(Skip_a_meal=priv.df$tablet), mean)## Skip_a_meal x
## 1 0 0.3693380
## 2 1 0.3275862There does not seem to be a definite trend between dining out and chances that the kid’s parents punish him/her frequently.
aggregate(priv.df$punish_frequent, by=list(Place=priv.df$dine), mean)## Place x
## 1 ONCE A MONTH 0.2647059
## 2 ONCE A WEEK 0.2368421
## 3 RARELY 0.4351852
## 4 TWICE A MONTH 0.4516129Kids, who grew up in Tier-1 cities, were much less likely to be punished frequently.
aggregate(priv.df$punish_frequent, by=list(Place=priv.df$Place), mean)## Place x
## 1 Tier-1 City 0.2972973
## 2 Tier-2 City 0.4370861
## 3 Town 0.2873563
## 4 Village 0.3636364Privilege does not seem to have a definite correlation to the chance of frequent punishment.
FREQUENT PUNISHMENT VS GENDER Frequent punishment seems to have been reserved only for males, with no girl reporting frequent punishment as a kid.
aggregate(priv.df$punish_frequent, by=list(Place=priv.df$Gender), mean)## Place x
## 1 Female 0.2539683
## 2 Male 0.3865248PUNISHMENT VS SUCCESS Kids, who were punished, had marginally higher board percentages.
aggregate(priv.df$percent_12, by=list(Punish=priv.df$punish_frequent), mean)## Punish x
## 1 0 91.04509
## 2 1 84.69120People, who were punished frequently, were likely to be in more groups.
aggregate(priv.df$punish_frequent, by=list(No_of_groups=priv.df$no_of_groups), mean)## No_of_groups x
## 1 0 0.3048780
## 2 1 0.3232323
## 3 2 0.3297872
## 4 3 0.5510204
## 5 4 0.3888889
## 6 5 1.0000000Kids, who were punished frequently, had better ranks than those who weren’t.
aggregate(priv.df$advanced_rank, by=list(No_of_groups=priv.df$punish_frequent), mean)## No_of_groups x
## 1 0 4316.123
## 2 1 4808.912EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS ON PRIVILEGE VS ASKING DOCTOR ON YOUR OWN The trend shows that as the number of gadgets you grew up with increase,the chance that you will question the doctor increases too.
aggregate(priv.df$talk_to_doctor, by=list(Gadgets=priv.df$accessory_no), mean)## Gadgets x
## 1 0 0.7500000
## 2 1 0.3846154
## 3 2 0.5625000
## 4 3 0.3125000
## 5 4 0.7000000Kids, who went on annual family trips, were more likely to be asked by their parents to talk to the doctor on their own.
aggregate(priv.df$talk_to_doctor, by=list(Trips=priv.df$trips), mean)## Trips x
## 1 0 0.3551402
## 2 1 0.6183206The difference is even more stark incase of dining trends, with 86% of kids, who went out to eat once a week, having their parents question doctors on their own, compared to only 37.5% among those who rarely went out.
aggregate(priv.df$talk_to_doctor, by=list(Dine=priv.df$dine), mean)## Dine x
## 1 ONCE A MONTH 0.4558824
## 2 ONCE A WEEK 0.5131579
## 3 RARELY 0.4074074
## 4 TWICE A MONTH 0.4623656SUCCESS VS ASKING DOCTOR ONESELF The class 12th percentages vary marginally, with kids who didn’t communicate to doctor on their own, with marginally higher percentage.
aggregate(priv.df$percent_12, by=list(DebSoc=priv.df$talk_to_doctor), mean)## DebSoc x
## 1 0 88.90170
## 2 1 88.55287If a kid’s parents asked him to talk to the doctor on their own, which in turn is correlated to privilege, they are 3 times more likely to be in English Advanced
aggregate(priv.df$talk_to_doctor, by=list(English_Advanced=priv.df$english_advanced), mean)## English_Advanced x
## 1 No 0.3936652
## 2 Yes 0.5645161If your parents encouraged you to talk to the doctor, you were much more likely to take up leadership positions in college.
aggregate(priv.df$talk_to_doctor, by=list(English_Advanced=priv.df$leadership), mean)## English_Advanced x
## 1 Joint Secretary/Equivalent 0.3015873
## 2 Junior Member/Equivalent 0.5192308
## 3 None 0.2857143
## 4 President/Secretary/Equivalent 0.7600000
## 5 Senior/Executive Member/Equivalent 0.6818182
## 6 Vice President/Additional Secretary/Equivalent 0.5000000CONCLUSIONS:- 1) Parenting behaviour is dictated to a certain extent by their privileged backgrounds a) Privileged parents were much less likely to hesitate while giving permission for parties. b) Privileged parents were much more likely to let their kids talk to the doctor on their own. c) Punishment seems to be persavive across both the privileged and not-so-privileged parents.
HYPOTHESES:- 2) Parenting behavior maybe affecting the success of kids when they grow up.
Privileged parents were more likely to give permission for parties. Kids, whose parents allowed them to attend parties, may get more comfortable in social interactions and this might be the reason we see them being more likely to take up leadership positions.
Privileged parents were more likely to get their kids talk to the doctor themselves. This might be enabling privileged kids to question hierarchy and this might be the reason, we observe that the likelihood of their taking up leadership positions is higher.
Punishment seems to be a common feature, regardless of privilege. Kids, who were punished frequently seem to succeed more on all fronts, being it getting higher ranks in JEE Advanced or being recruited in more campus groups.This might indicate that parents, who punish their kids, might be indulging them for the better.