Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 334 posts

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#131

Post by chrchang523 »

thrown_22 wrote: post #86
brutusborn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly like that, but close. As % of people with college degrees approaches 100%, all students will have parents with a college degree, so it will approach 5/5. The logic in the parent comment still stands.

What you care about is how much more likely a person with parents who had degrees is to have a degree over one who doesn't. In 1970 4% of people had degrees and 20% of degree holders had parents with degrees. That means that children of degree holders got 5 times as many degrees as children of non-degree holders. In 2020 14% of people have degrees and 66% of degree holders have parents with degrees. That means that c…

The math is trickier than that:

- If 4% of parents have degrees, something like 7% of the next generation has at least one parent with a degree. Because children have two parents, and only one of those two parents needs to have a degree. So the correct number to compare 20% against is ~7%, not 4%.

- Suppose a child of a degree-holder is 3 times as likely to become an economics PhD as a child of no degree-holders. Then, if 7% of children have a degree-holding parent, you would expect (7 * 3) / (7 * 3 + 93) = 21 / 114 = ~18.4% of economics PhDs to have a degree-holding parent, not 21%. If 25% of children have a degree-holding parent, you'd expect (25 * 3) / (25 * 3 + 75) = 75 / 150 = 50% of economics PhDs to have a degree-holding parent, not 75%.

Eyeballing the last few numbers, it does look like the value of having a degree-holding parent may have increased significantly, from a ~3.3x multiplier to almost 6x. But the error bars on this back-of-the-napkin analysis are pretty wide.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#133

Post by verisimi »

I object to the use of the word elite!

Someone with a degree is not elite! (Even if that term flatters my educational level.)

Elite is someone who's parents have ever increasing amounts of money through the holdings they already have, who do things like take degrees, etc as a lifestyle choice not because they need a job, and have aspirations over the job they get.

Typically elite families would be billionaires, political leaders, bankers, etc.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#134

Post by hocuspocus »

fsckboy wrote: post #30
anon291 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

STEM PhDs in industry are not really in 'academia', as their research is typically not arbitrary.

i think what he meant was, pursuing a PhD opens the possibility of entering academia, and if not, the time and attainment is not wasted financially. also, he might include that STEM professors earn higher than other academics and have many opportunities to earn high rates of consulting pay, and or spin off to found companies, etc.

It's very hard to come back to high-tier academia from a PhD in industry. Let alone becoming a professor. And clumping STEM together is always a bit silly when we're discussing such topics, not all fields are the same. The opportunity cost and ROI of a PhD in CS is going to be vastly different than one in biochemistry, for instance.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#135

Post by fsckboy »

aj7 wrote: post #96
frognumber wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been affiliated with MIT in one way or another for more than a quarter-century. What's been astounding is the change in faculty. Historically, MIT faculty were nerds into neat tech problems. New MIT faculty are slick politicians with an increasing sleazy Enron-style vibe. That's true of MIT leadership as well.

I’ve suspected this. There was always some seed corn of this type at MIT, even in the old days. I got SB, 1968-72. Hacker was a new word, and nerd was often spelled with a “u.” It would have been unthinkable to try to prosecute Jonathan Swartz then.

Aaron Swartz you mean.

though Jonathan Schwartz did get metoo'd (not prosecuted) and kicked off WNYC

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#136

Post by klqp »

oofnik wrote: post #102

Why is this at all surprising? In any status-conscious society (read: any human society), given enough time, the people who make it to the top will invariably maximize opportunity afforded to their affinity group (i.e. offspring) at the expense of everyone else. This process manifests itself regardless of the role merit plays in the sorting algorithm. If the rules are relatively meritocratic (and relatively stable),…

This is an excellent explanation, but I have one small remark:

Diversity and equity is taught at elite cadre schools and used as a distinguishing marker from the proletariat. This gives elite children a wedge to get into Ive League institutions without high test scores.

Think of it as the new "extracurricular activity" on steroids. Diversity and equity have been co-opted by the elites and are a powerful tool (smoke screen).

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#138

Post by carlob »

oofnik wrote: post #102

Why is this at all surprising? In any status-conscious society (read: any human society), given enough time, the people who make it to the top will invariably maximize opportunity afforded to their affinity group (i.e. offspring) at the expense of everyone else. This process manifests itself regardless of the role merit plays in the sorting algorithm. If the rules are relatively meritocratic (and relatively stable),…

A small caveat: nepotism was the practice when cardinals (who were celibate) would push their nephews into positions of power. So, strictly speaking, it is the other way around: celibacy caused nepotism, otherwise we would have had filism (from filius/son rather than from nepos/nephew).

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#139

Post by meetingthrower »

lordnacho wrote: post #99
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Harvard went away, I would be VERY happy. Schools like Tsinghua, IIT, and C9 are much more meritocratic. Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible, and given the history of the early US, it's not surprising that this insular Victorian / London culture of poshness also permeated into 17th / 18th century Ivy League schools in the Puritanical US. I'm amazed at what abject conditions Easte…

> Oxford / Cambridge are also very "exclusive" in the worst way possible I went there, and I didn't see anything but ordinary people. Something like Classics will naturally skew towards secondary schools that have a Latin class, but apart from that admissions are close to a dice roll among qualified kids. Certainly the impression I got was that dons were jealously guarding their right to decide, on their own, who wou…

Can confirm. Just went to open days at Oxford and Cambridge with my son. We are Americans. Both my wife and I are double ivy grads.

Totally different than the US and much more meritocratic. Steps are:

1. Be qualified to apply. In UK this means at least AAA if not more. Varies by course. US equivalent is have at least three 5s on AP and above 1450 on SAT. This is roughly equivalent to top 10% of uk graduates.

2. Take the entrance exam. Huge weed out. This really separates the grinders vs the smart kids as the tests are based on what you intend to study, but most are more intelligence based and cannot necessarily be prepped for.

3. Assuming you make it past that, you get two sets of interviews. They are testing for the ability to go toe to toe in an intellectual conversation on your subject. This is obviously biased toward a certain "type", but given the small group tutorial teaching, it is really a responsibility of the student to engage this way to provide a good experience for all. No sitting in the back of the room taking notes!

4. There are some additional crazy things like applying to specific colleges, and wildly different admit rates based on the course you choose. But the overall impression I got was that for a well prepared and smart kid, it is much more straightforward than the so called elite US schools.

Re: People from elite backgrounds increasingly dominate academia, data shows

#140

Post by mr90210 »

oofnik wrote: post #102

Why is this at all surprising? In any status-conscious society (read: any human society), given enough time, the people who make it to the top will invariably maximize opportunity afforded to their affinity group (i.e. offspring) at the expense of everyone else. This process manifests itself regardless of the role merit plays in the sorting algorithm. If the rules are relatively meritocratic (and relatively stable),…

> Why is this at all surprising?

That's exactly my reaction. It's like concluding that 1+1 is equal to 2.

Post reply on HN