Preprint of a new paper examining the material conditions that give rise to internationally recognized scientists just came out. The authors argue that if we were actually recognizing and nurturing scientific talent, we’d expect the family income distribution of Nobel laureates to be roughly normal (i.e. most Nobel winners would come from families with incomes around the 50th percentile). Their results very much do not bear this out: the average Nobel winner grew up in a household in the about the 90th percentile of income no matter where they grew up, with disproportionately large numbers coming from the 95th percentile and up. This strongly suggests that academic achievement, especially at the highest levels, is not a meritocracy, but rather limited by the material conditions of birth.
I know, but the size of the effect is really staggering.
Roughly uniform you mean? Most people aren’t near the 50th percentile, there’s the same number of people in the 45th to 55th percentiles as the 0th to 10th and 90th to 100th.
Honestly, not really. I think it’s less about wealth directly as it is about the overly particular academic path. I think there is high heritibility among professors because their kids get a much better idea of how to become a professor, and have a built-in network. There’s probably a similar trend with lawyers and doctors.
So you suggest that noble price winners have rich parents?
Yeah, that was sloppy, sorry. Here’s how they put it:
You’re right that that’s not the same thing as a normal distribution on this diagram.
The paper also tracks education rank and parent occupation; income is way more significant than anything else. In fact, the most common parental occupation for Nobel parents is “business owner.” I’m sure the effect you’re talking about isn’t insignificant, but it seems to be dominated by the effect of wealth, at least according to this paper.
This! Simply knowing how to network and having the right peer group are such big factors on how a career in academia goes (or doesn’t go).