I think it would make more sense to have an evidence-based determination for what grade a child should start in, rather than some arbitrary cut-off date like we have now.

It's almost as if we diagnose children with ADHD for acting how healthy young children naturally act.

The problem is that children with ADHD are acting somewhat how healthy - but much younger - children naturally act.

There seems to be another component though. Adults with ADHD can be quite "mature" in most respects, while still having trouble related to the disorder.

Hyperactivity and lack of impulse control are only part of the disorder, and not necessarily that pronounced.

Is there a cut for date for starting school?

Here in Spain, everyone born in the same year goes to the same class, is it different in USA?

> Here in Spain, everyone born in the same year goes to the same class, is it different in USA?

So Spain has a cut date of 1 Jan while the USA is 1 Sept. The overall effect is exactly the same: When a school term begins, some of the students will be nearly 1 year older than some of the others.

As per the article itself, many states implement the "1st of September cut date". A kid born in September has to wait an entire year to start school compared to one born on 08/31.

And in Switzerland, 1st August. Retardness.

How is it a "paradox"? It makes total sense that kids older and bigger will dominate most sports. It will re-enforce their self esteem and confidence and help them get even better. I don't dispute the phenomenon, I've never heard it called a "paradox".

I think what was meant here is the Relative Age Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

Many here probably recall if from Super Freakonomics.

Ah, "effect", of course. This is what I meant

Well, I made a mistake by saying that "NHL players most likely to be born in December" when in fact they most likely to be born in January. December is the horrible month to be born for a future NHL star (https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/birth-month-totals/nhl-playe...). So it is not that obvious, isn't it? :)

Sufficiently unintuitive reality is indistinguishable from paradox.

It's yet another piece of evidence that ADHD is a developmental disorder, it develops over time, and those who are younger have brains which are underdeveloped. Their ability to tamp down disruptive behaviors and use executive functioning to effectively manage planning is reduced compared to other children. So, in younger children, those who are borderline ADHD will appear to be more solidly ADHD, and those with moderate or severe ADHD will seem to have worse symptoms, as we're putting them in a classroom and comparing them with children whose brains have a higher EF capacity. It's also worthwhile to note that the gold standard diagnosis of ADHD involves observation of childrens' behavior in the classroom, where they will be compared to older, more neuro-developed classmates.

Except sometimes it doesn't go away with age.