I never had anyone ever wake me up for school either. My parents were 16 and 17 when I was born. We lived it whats called shacktown here in my city. They partied all the time never caring whether my younger sister or myself had food or clothing. I took care of my sister, even babysitting so that we could eat. I never was able to study because I had to take care of the house and had to make money to feed us. I never had the supplies for school I needed. I made sure both my sister and I graduated. We both went to college. I am a teacher, and she is in the medical field. So I think it's bs that not every person can succeed because of how they were brought up.
Teresa has it right (sounds like we may be in similar fields professionally??)
Statistics only tell you the probability of something happening, not whether or not it will certainly happen. So if we look at the variable "the consistent presence of a caregiver waking a child up to go to school" and see that there is a correlation between that and poverty level, then all we "know" is that some people (or type of people) who were represented by that study's sample will be more likely to avoid poverty if they had this type of caregiving. That is very different than saying that everyone who does not have a caregiver to wake them for school will necessarily be doomed to live in poverty.
The fact that you were able to "beat the odds" is a great example of this. The original study (and I'm using that term loosely... I didn't read the study so am not sure of the validity of it) is listing what we call
risk factors for poverty. Risk factors are very different than causative factors. Just because a study demonstrates a relationship between these factors and poverty does not mean that one causes the other, but rather that they are related in some way.
In social sciences it is often very difficult to rule out confounding factors, so always interpret such statements very critically. The way that these three factors are listed make it seem as if a person can just
simply do these three things, and then they will have really great odds of avoiding poverty, while the truth about poverty is that it is incredibly complicated and there are no simple solutions. So much of what each of the pps' have said can be correct, but it's just that each piece of knowledge and experience is a small part of the puzzle or perhaps only applies to certain people. In other words, each person's story, successful or not, is anecdotal evidence which neither confirms nor disproves any statistical conclusions drawn from these types of studies.
What we do "know", from decades of research (and what Teresa was pointing out) is that there is not one path to avoid poverty nor one particular risk factor or set of factors that will guarantee poverty, but rather it is the additive effect of risk factors that increases one's
chances of being impoverished. So, as we can see from tavettava's story, growing up in poverty without sensitive, responsive parents does not necessarily mean a person will never escape it, but we have countless studies that demonstrate that it will be much harder for most people to do so. And we also "know" that the opposite is true also... a child can have numerous risk factors (poverty, poor schools, live in a violent neighborhood, etc) but can be protected from all of these things by having a secure-enough relationship with a sensitive, responsive caregiver who instills trust and confidence into the child.
So how did tavettava escape it and do so well? I don't know, of course, but there had to have been some sort of protective factor(s) present to counteract these risk factors... perhaps she/he is cognitively above average or gifted, was naturally resillient, had a caring teacher or neighbor or someone to instill a sense of trust and self-confidence in her, etc... there was some reason, whether it was her natural abilities or something in her environment/opportunities, that assisted her.
Think of a child who experiences any one of these risk factors: growing up in poverty, being prenatally exposed to alcohol or drugs, growing up with a mother always passed out from substances, experiencing abuse or neglect, not receiving (for one reason or another) an education, being raped/sexually abused, having cognitive limitations due to prenatal exposure or neglect, etc... There is no way to say which one of these horrible things will lead to poverty, but they are ALL, among other variables, risk factors for poverty (and other things, such as mental illness... hey, another risk factor for poverty that hard work can't easily overcome!) Add chronicity to any of these variables and it becomes more likely that the child will always be impoverished. Add several of these risk factors together and it becomes even more likely. Take away protective factors and it becomes even more likely.
Is it possible that a child can be raised with all of these factors and still escape it? Yep. But it's not as likely. And that is why, for many people, these three rules may as well be a thousand, because they are just out of reach for some eople.
And in anticipation of responses protesting hand outs and other bail-out type programs, I, and any other person very familiar with the complicated dynamics of poverty, will agree that that is not the way to end poverty. But neither is the philosophy of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, because some people just aren't born with boots.