So when The New York Times published an article on last year’s most popular baby names, I was pleased to see that my picks weren’t at the top of the list. Something about being an “Ashley” in a second-grade class of, like, seven Ashleys, really scarred me. (Violens, right? Life is so hard.)
Anyway! Moving on … According to the Times piece, “Emma” has knocked “Emily” out of the #1 spot for baby-girl names. Apparently, “[Emma] has ranked in single digits since 2002, as it also did in the late 19th century.”
For the baby boys, “Jacob” continues to lead, as it has since it bumped “Michael” from #1 in ’98. Interestingly: “Jacob was also the only name to be given to 1 percent or more of the babies born in 2008.”
Despite Barack Obama’s popularity, there were too few baby Baracks to get the name included in the 1,000-most-popular-baby-names ranking. “Sasha” and “Malia,” however, rose to 363rd and 345th, repectively. “Michelle” dropped to 1o3rd — the name was 94th in 2007.
Hillary (as in Clinton) jumped to 715 during last year’s presidential campaign from 961 in 2007. Jayden, which was No. 75 only five years ago, was 11 last year, thanks, in part, to Britney Spears, who chose the name for her son born in 2006.
Among twins, the most popular names were Jacob and Joshua for boys and Gabriella and Isabella for girls.
In my home state — Texas — the #1 baby-boy name was “Jose,” though on a national level the number of Hispanic baby names has declined, which the Times attributes to “a greater effort at assimilation.”
So — unless you’re a nasty name-hoarder, like me (totally understandable) — what are your picks?