LADDER. WITHOUT INTENDING TO DETRACT FROM THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR SCHOLARLY CONTRIBUTION, I COULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ITEM WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE IN ERROR.

BROTHERS

"MY MAJOR DISAGREEMENT REFERS TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF AND SISTERS', PAGE II, STARTING 'COMPARISON OF TOTAL...' THE SURVEY FIGURES ARE BIASED BY TWO MAJOR FACTORS AND A RELATIVELY MINOR ONE, AND THUS ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO CENSUS FIGURES. BIASES INCLUDE:

THESE

"I. THE RESPONDENT IS NOT EQUALLY LIKELY TO BE MALE OR FEMALE; THUS 157 OF THE POPULATION ARE A BIASED SUB-POPULATION.

"2. OUR SURVEY OMITS COMPLETELY ALL-MALE FAMILIES, I.E. FAMILIES CONSISTING ENTIRELY OF BOYS (A VERY LEGITIMATE PART OF CENSUS POPULATION) ARE AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM OUR TALLY.

"3. THERE IS SOME DEGREE (EXTENT UNKNOWN TO ME) OF SEX DOMINANCE IN FAMILIES, E.G. CANTOR'S SEVERAL GIRLS, CROSBY'S SEVERAL BOYS. THUS FEMALE RESPONDENTS TO ANY QUESTIONNAIRE WILL OVER-REPRESENT FEMALE DOMINANT FAMILIES.

"IGNORING FACTOR NO. 3, EXPECTATION RATES PROBABLY COULD BE CALCULATED FOR A SITUATION DESCRIBED BY FACTOR 1 AND 2. AS A ROUGH CHECK ON MY INTUITIONS | SAMPLED THE GIRLS IN MY DEPARTMENT REGARDING THEIR SIBLINGS, ETC., AND THIS SMALL SAMPLE INDICATED A RATIO OF 33 BOYS/100 GIRLS IN THEIR FAMILIES."

M. G., NEW YORK

*

*

-

"CONGRATS ON ANOTHER FINE ISSUE OF THE LADDER SPECIAL THANKS TO GAIL WILLIAMS FOR HER PERSPECTIVE AND UNDERSTANDING IN HER COMPOSITION 'ANOTHER KIND OF LOVE'. (JANUARY, 1960.) 1960.) WELL DONE!

"A NOTE OF INTEREST. WE PRESENTED A GIFT SUBSCRIPTION TO SOME. FRIENDS IN SEATTLE. THEY SAY, IN PART, 'ALL OF OUR FRIENDS READ IT A GREAT NUMBER OF THEM CAME BY DURING THE HOLIDAYS AND IT SEEMED THAT MOST OF THEIR TIME WAS SPENT WITH THEIR NOSE IN THAT BOOK.""

24

S. M., CALIFORNIA