No kidding. But seriously,  a new study apparently demonstrates it:

Aaron Clauset, Sam Arbesmann and Daniel Larremore have a new article in Science Advances crunching the data on academic career paths in computer science, business and history. Their main findings are twofold. First, academics’ career success largely depends on the prestige of the department where they did their PhD. Second, the system is so skewed in favor of academics who came from prestigious departments that it’s really hard to explain this by just saying that they are better than people who went to less prestigious departments. The evidence suggests “a specific and significant preference for hiring faculty with prestigious doctorates” even aside from differences in their productivity (which are also more skewed than one would expect if the differences were based on merit alone). The system is also significantly skewed against women in both computer science and business, although there’s no evidence that they’re discriminated against in history.

Posted in

2 responses to “Academia is not a meritocracy”

  1. a friend of Sam’s

    You have spelled Sam’s last name wrong.
    Here is the proper spelling:
    Samuel Arbesman
    It is spelled wrong on the news article about their paper that you link to.
    I once co-authored an article with Sam. I know these things.

  2. The name is in fact correctly spelt in the second link (to the real article in Science Advances).

Leave a Reply to Elisa FreschiCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading