Because tenured faculty members at research universities often have lovely careers. The road there is long and challenging, but the result can be exceedingly rewarding.
Perhaps parents with PhDs pass on genetic traits that support their offspring in the competition for PhDs and faculty positions. Unless the analysis controls for that dynamic, the research cannot correctly measure "socioeconomic" effects. As far as I can tell, the study does not attempt to do so.
I suppose what you're looking for is a study based on children adopted by PhDs.
My intuition says genetics is vastly less important than memetics. Success is almost certainly proportional to ability to manage dopamine and I think nurture is probably vastly more important than nature (although I think nature can assert itself forcefully).
This certainly seems to suggest that genetics probably is not a key factor:
Because things like success are the result of many factors, I think the study is fair even in the absence of genetics. I have a hard time believing that genetics being a dominating factor for outcome would not be an obvious/major/easily discovered and proven finding.
> I have a hard time believing that genetics being a dominating factor for outcome would not be an obvious/major/easily discovered and proven finding.
IQ is 57-80% heritable [1]. It's not the same as probability of getting a PhD, but it's hard to argue it wouldn't be a significant (it doesn't have to be "dominating", as you put it) factor.
Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to
have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that
disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis.[11][12]
[13][14] The scientific consensus is that genetics does not
explain average differences in IQ test performance between
racial groups.[15][16][17][18][19][20]
I think if you stepped outside of your shoes and said "would someone who disagrees with me find the way I have conducted myself convincing?" you wouldn't like the answer.
No, you are asking for social reinforcement of your idea to make you feel good about what appears on the outside to be quite unpleasant beliefs that wouldn't fly around educated people.
You are invoking a conspiracy to justify your belief.
Systemic racial discrimination in academia (despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans 10 to 1 in faculty [1] - curiously few studies look at whether that might be due to discrimination) is a perfectly analogous conspiracy, yet it is accepted by default.
However, you are correct - cherry-picking which parts of an article to believe is not very convincing. So let me substantiate my claim:
The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. [2]
That was in 1985. Nowadays, it is done openly: Nature publicly stated they will not publish studies that may "harm" (broadly defined) various groups [3], regardless of validity, and commitments to diversity are officially required by one fifth of academic jobs [4].
Of course, if we're talking about discrimination in academia, we skipped a step: as your own quotation implies ("it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis"), there are group IQ disparities. Since IQ is a useful (if imperfect) measure of academic ability, from that alone we would expect disparate outcomes, even in a perfect meritocracy. It does not matter if the IQ disparities are genetic, cultural, or socio-economic in origin (or some combination thereof).
Though it is strange. Bizarre even. Nearly every other heritable human trait - height, skin pigmentation, lactose tolerance, eye and hair color, bone density, sickle cell trait, muscle composition, high altitude adaptation [5], alcohol metabolism [6], etc., is unevenly distributed among human groups. Yet even though IQ and personality are both heritable [7] and variable, they're the rare exception, perfectly equally distributed among all human groups? Nature truly works in mysterious ways.
I completely disagree. From my experience it's virtually 100% genetics.
The reason it's not an "obvious/major/easily discovered and proven finding" is because it's basically illegal research. Anyone who tries to study the genetics of success gets their reputation and career destroyed because race and genetics are also linked.
The kids end up like their birth parents, their economics or social environment makes little difference.
Some kids are so opposed to how their parents are they actually move out (in early teens) and live with other people, and have little contact with their parents.
And despite that, they still end up just like their parents once they are past the teen stage.
It's also amazing to see how some kids are just like their father, some like their mother, and some a mix of both (some traits from one parent, some from the other parent).
But you don't see kids who are unlike either parent.
This is a fair point. I think another point about this is how someone is socialized or raised by their parents. It could be that people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds value PhD work more so than others so they are more likely to attempt to do it.
I don't really see the point in making the claim that there is some kind of bias against people from poorer backgrounds. It just inflames things. Maybe people from poorer backgrounds prefer to seek jobs with higher salaries.
> I think another point about this is how someone is socialized or raised by their parents.
Speaking as someone who went through grad school, there is an enormous amount of information that no one will tell you about unless you know to ask. Otherwise, they'll just assume you know. Basic parts of how academia works are not really explained or communicated to new grad students. So people with parents in academia, or with prior experience, can offer their children huge gains by simply explaining how certain processes work or what it actually means to excel as a grad student to prepare for the job hunt. It's not always "do good research", it could also be "make sure you make a relationship with so-and-so". Asymmetrical information can be a powerful explainer and tool.
Same thought here. They could look at children of PhDs versus children of MBAs/JDs. If you compare with the whole US population you're missing a lot of nuance.
Eugenics has been shown time and time again to be junk/non science. This is like criticizing a dermatology study for not "controlling" for the possibility of lizard people.
GP isn't referring to eugenics. GP is pointing out that there may be heritable traits that lead one to be more successful in a PhD program. This could be grit, determination, ability to focus, or ability to recognize patterns. It would be surprising if there were no heritable traits that affected success in PhD programs.
GPs comment is no more eugenicist than someone pointing out that children of NBA players are more likely to play in the NBA because height is somewhat heritable.
Or it could be that children of PhDs come from an environment where they know what’s required to get a PhD. Neither of my parents had bachelor’s degrees. I had no idea that any PhD worth its salt would be something that the PhD student was paid to attend rather than would pay to attend.
And as an aside, my cousin’s husband has a PhD and yet none of his kids have graduate degrees, while in my family, out of three brothers, there’s a DVM, and MS and me with a MS and MFA.
No one is debating whether there are environmental factors. Surely there are. The point is that there are also likely heritable factors. These cannot be erased. And without measuring them, we don't know how much of a "problem" it is that many professors have PhD parents.
Possibly, and that's what the whole video is about. The point is that we don't know how much of the difference is behavioral or related to wealth if we don't even try to consider the possible effects of heritability.
I suspect you're correct more broadly, but this article is talking about software jobs:
>The economists — Natalia Emanuel, Emma Harrington and Amanda Pallais — studied engineers at a large technology company. They found that remote work enhanced the productivity of senior engineers, but it also reduced the amount of feedback that junior engineers received (in the form of comments on their code), and some of the junior engineers were more likely to quit the firm.
However, there are major problems with the research. From the research article:
>Our data include peer code reviews of software engineers at a Fortune 500 firm be- tween August 2019 and December 2020.
The study period includes the throes of the pandemic and ignores long-term adjustments.
I enjoy this quote from the 2011 piece. If only someone had forced me to buy bitcoin then. Not exactly a USD- or CAD-style "screwing."
I don't own any bitcoins. I don't particularly want to. If one day I have to own some for some reason, I will buy them at the market rate and get screwed, just as I do today with U.S. and Canadian dollars.
