It never fails to baffle me how some people are prepared their whole life for the academy, while most of us literally found out about what a PhD was in college. I was 21 when I learned that you could have a research career. And there are folx who realize that much later in life. https://twitter.com/thetracysimone/status/1316755393515786240

There's honestly nothing wrong with having parents who are academics; I think my frustration, and maybe others agree, is that oftentimes the academy rewards the attributes of academics that are likely associated with children of academics disproportionately.

I also think the academy is not ready to have a conversation about the role of nepotism in who *gets* trained. I remember one summer, I met someone who got an internship with a famous person because '[my mom] knows him'. I mean by all means use your connections, but damn.

Discussing why the academy rewarding children of academics matters because the academy CLAIMS to be a meritocracy.. but how can you be a meritocracy if someone has an entire life head start in preparation for this very specific kind of career?

Let's be honest here, you can't.

And then children of academics move through the pipeline with ease and then make it harder for everyone who doesn't have that same background.

A preliminary study on pre-docs in economics shows that starkly and I know other fields face the same issue: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/08/08/what-it-takes-to-become-an-academic-economist-is-changing

Honestly, I want to see a study that shows how many Nobel prize winners had academics as parents. Not knocking their win, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a correlation....

Anyways, just food for thought.

I have a feeling this might pop off so let me provide some information around [STEM] PhDs:

- Most STEM, business, and quant heavy PhDs are free
- You don't always need a Masters before the PhD
- PhDs pay you to study what you want
- Are you a URM? Check out McNair and LSAMP.

This entire thread applies to professional degrees. I've come across a lot of doctors who are children of doctors.

If you're URM:

Engineering/Math/CompSci: @NSBE
Medicine: SMDEP
Biz: @ThePhDProject
Econ: @AEASPmsu

Also, check out REUs, SROP, and SRI programs for PhD Prep!

At the end of the day, there are gatekeepers, born and bred, before you even think about the gate and that is wild considering that those same people (scientists, PhD holders) are generators of knowledge.

And this is why diversity matters. Homogenous experiences =/= innovation.

To be COMPLETELY honest, when I find out that leaders in a field are children of past leaders in said field, I kind of cringe- not because they aren't brilliant, but because some of those people pretend like their parents being who they are didn't help them get to where they are.

Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a drag just an observation that boils down to one fact:

Academia is not a meritocracy. It's less of a meritocracy than you can even possibly imagine. And that's a hill I'm willing to die on.

For those who need a visual of what I mean by having academic parents v. non-academic parents:

If you've ever been on a freeway with an HOV lane (a lane that basically bypasses traffic), having an academic parent is like driving 80 mph in the HOV lane through the academy.