Good SAT Scores Lead To Higher Egg Donor Prices

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."

Comments

Let the free market decide

[cryfreedomlove]

I don't think society has any legitimate interest at stake here that is not covered by allowing the free market to set prices for human eggs. It should be interesting to see what egg buyers will place real $ value on.

Triumph Of The Nerds

[Ukab the Great]

This should lead to geeks lessening jocks' reproductive advantages.

Why discourage this?

[Dr. Spork]

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.

[MyLongNickName]

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.

Re:Genetics and prejudice

[bcmm]

"Intelligence" is a poorly-defined concept and it is very hard to devise a test which gives fair results regardless of the culture of the subject.

In case you haven't noticed, culture is a pretty significant confounding variable for "race" (which is also a poorly-defined concept).