Good SAT Scores Lead To Higher Egg Donor Prices 175
alphadogg writes "Analysis from Georgia Institute of Technology of college newspaper egg donor ads showed that higher payments offered to egg donors correlated with higher SAT scores. 'Holding all else equal, an increase of 100 SAT points in the score of a typical incoming student increased the compensation offered to oocyte donors at that college or university by $2,350,' writes researcher Aaron D. Levine in a paper published in the March-April issue of the Hastings Center Report. Concerned about eggs being treated as commodities, and worried that big financial rewards could entice women to ignore the risks of the rigorous procedures required for harvesting, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine discourages compensation based on donors' personal characteristics. The society also discourages any payments over $10,000."
Let the free market decide (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a new phenomenon (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a surprise? Just take a look around any big name campus - there will usually be some kind of ads posted looking for egg donors. I'm a student at Columbia University and I've seen posters offering $18,000 for eggs from any Columbia student for years.
Triumph Of The Nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
This should lead to geeks lessening jocks' reproductive advantages.
Tuition (Score:3, Insightful)
Egg donation: yet another way that a high SAT score help you get through college.
Why discourage this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the worries expressed betray a double standard. How does it make sense to worry about high-SAT women "ignoring the health dangers" of forced ovulation, when you don't worry about low-SAT women ignoring the same dangers and getting a tenth of the money for the ordeal? To be clear: these people don't want women to stop donating eggs. They don't want high-SAT women donating eggs for a lot of money. But the risk in each donation is the same!
In any case, an egg donor will suddenly get a quick and large pile of money. I think the real question should be: How will the money be spent? If the donor gets $50,000 and uses it to help pay for three semesters of her Princeton tuition, I don't see a problem. If another donor, who is not in college, spends $5,000 on shoes and handbags, I don't see a great deal of good having been done.
I know someone who has donated an egg, and she was actually pretty sick for a part of the procedure. Smart women in Princeton, who have other options, will not want to undergo something like this unless you offer them more money. That just seems like a fact. But if the people who want the eggs have the money, and their satisfaction is increased by the knowledge that their donor is academically talented, and the donor herself will use the money to develop her talents further, it's a clear case of "everyone wins."
So why does the American Society for Reproductive Medicine need to shit on this optimal outcome? I think they should be encouraging it!
Re:Numbers don't lie but they are vague. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you missed the part about holding everything else equal.
"all else equal, an increase of 100 SAT points in the score of a typical incoming student increased the compensation offered to oocyte donors at that college or university by $2,350"
So I would presume they would compare across the same schools and adjust accordingly.
Quality (Score:2, Insightful)
You pay for quality, and this is just an example of that. You wouldn't pay $15 for a McD's burger, at least most people wouldn't, but a Red Robin (or similar high end) one could command that sort of price.
I know some people might think that's horrible, but the cold-hard truth is that some people are higher quality than others. We might be equal before the law, and have equal rights, but when people are given a choice in potential breeding partners, they will opt for as high as they can afford. In the social realm, that means relying on their own value as judged by whatever criteria (looks, smarts, social success as measured by wealth, social success as measured by "charm", etc) to get as good a "product" as possible. The pricing in this article just reflects the ability to turn one set of attributes into cash, and people's willingness to pay for certain attributes.
Re:Genetics and prejudice (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you haven't noticed, culture is a pretty significant confounding variable for "race" (which is also a poorly-defined concept).
Re:Genetics and prejudice (Score:2, Insightful)
There has been rigorous research on the matter, but the results aren't politically correct so they're considered bogus.
Re:Let the free market decide (Score:3, Insightful)
That might be an interesting argument if human eggs were necessary for the continued health and well-being of an individual, as kidneys are.
It may be disappointing for someone who is infertile to not be able to have a child, but it is by no means lethal; it certainly is lethal to not have a kidney. As a result, allowing market forces to determine which infertile people get to go to extreme lengths to have a child is much more reasonable and fair than allowing market forces to determine who gets to live or die.
Re:They should be smart enough to understand the r (Score:3, Insightful)
Common Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could actually adopt. That would be the sensible solution.
Re:DON'T DO IT (Score:3, Insightful)
75% success rate of what, exactly?
Getting laid on my birthday?
That, I could believe.