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.
You’re telling me that those who were born into a headstart and didn’t have to live through the struggle of their parents, did better than others? Wow, what a find!
It’s not just that you did not see your parents struggle. The academic world Is fiercely competitive, the positions are extremely precarious and badly paid until tenure.
It’s no surprise that those that do not have to worry about their economic situation can take higher risks and survive more failures than those who do not.
I think this is significant for two reasons. First, the size of the effect: I think we’d all have guessed that it would skew pretty heavily toward the top of the income distribution, but the degree to which it is skewed to the very, very top is still pretty staggering. Second, I think there’s still a popular perception–both among the general public and parts of the scientific establishment itself–that science is the ultimate meritocracy: it doesn’t care about who you are or where you come from so long as you’re smart and interested in The Truth. This blows that narrative out of the water, which is a good thing.
Anyone who believes that narrative is a complete rube
As someone who used to believe this narrative, yup! Complete rube combined with very sheltered upbringing will sure do it!
Here’s a fun (not really) fact that really put the final nail in the coffin on this idea for me: you know how grad students are supposed to be poor? Like, that’s the stereotype, as a grad student you’re super poor but then later you get a high-paying job making the years of poverty worth it. Well. Grad students really aren’t that poor. When I was a grad student, my partner worked at the same university I did, as a groundskeeper. His coworkers were mostly middle-aged guys with families. I made more money as a grad student than he did as a groundskeeper. Sure, compare a grad student stipend to a tenured professor salary and the stipend looks tiny, but compare it to the yearly earnings of a non-faculty employee and suddenly you see that grad students are actually fairly well paid.
So, how does this fact (grad students aren’t actually that poor, relatively speaking) have any bearing on the narrative that science is open to everyone and doesn’t care about your background? Well, if that narrative were true then you’d have more grad students coming from poorer families who would not feel that a grad student stipend is a tiny pittance. But you don’t. Most grad students feel like they’re living very cheaply, even if that’s not really true.
None of this is to say I think grad students should be paid less. Most of them are underpaid and overworked. It’s simply to say that the non-faculty employees of a university should be paid much, much more.