[ncraig]

Perhaps parents with PhDs pass on genetic traits that support their offspring in the competition for PhDs and faculty positions. Unless the analysis controls for that dynamic, the research cannot correctly measure "socioeconomic" effects. As far as I can tell, the study does not attempt to do so.

[hayst4ck]

I suppose what you're looking for is a study based on children adopted by PhDs.

My intuition says genetics is vastly less important than memetics. Success is almost certainly proportional to ability to manage dopamine and I think nurture is probably vastly more important than nature (although I think nature can assert itself forcefully).

This certainly seems to suggest that genetics probably is not a key factor:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/rich-pe...

Because things like success are the result of many factors, I think the study is fair even in the absence of genetics. I have a hard time believing that genetics being a dominating factor for outcome would not be an obvious/major/easily discovered and proven finding.

[Bran_son]

> I have a hard time believing that genetics being a dominating factor for outcome would not be an obvious/major/easily discovered and proven finding.

IQ is 57-80% heritable [1]. It's not the same as probability of getting a PhD, but it's hard to argue it wouldn't be a significant (it doesn't have to be "dominating", as you put it) factor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

[ars]

I completely disagree. From my experience it's virtually 100% genetics.

The reason it's not an "obvious/major/easily discovered and proven finding" is because it's basically illegal research. Anyone who tries to study the genetics of success gets their reputation and career destroyed because race and genetics are also linked.

[rjsw]

For one example, see Richard Feynman's children.

[onetimeusename]

This is a fair point. I think another point about this is how someone is socialized or raised by their parents. It could be that people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds value PhD work more so than others so they are more likely to attempt to do it.

I don't really see the point in making the claim that there is some kind of bias against people from poorer backgrounds. It just inflames things. Maybe people from poorer backgrounds prefer to seek jobs with higher salaries.

[beezlebroxxxxxx]

> I think another point about this is how someone is socialized or raised by their parents.

Speaking as someone who went through grad school, there is an enormous amount of information that no one will tell you about unless you know to ask. Otherwise, they'll just assume you know. Basic parts of how academia works are not really explained or communicated to new grad students. So people with parents in academia, or with prior experience, can offer their children huge gains by simply explaining how certain processes work or what it actually means to excel as a grad student to prepare for the job hunt. It's not always "do good research", it could also be "make sure you make a relationship with so-and-so". Asymmetrical information can be a powerful explainer and tool.

[crackercrews]

Same thought here. They could look at children of PhDs versus children of MBAs/JDs. If you compare with the whole US population you're missing a lot of nuance.

[yummypaint]

Eugenics has been shown time and time again to be junk/non science. This is like criticizing a dermatology study for not "controlling" for the possibility of lizard people.

[crackercrews]

GP isn't referring to eugenics. GP is pointing out that there may be heritable traits that lead one to be more successful in a PhD program. This could be grit, determination, ability to focus, or ability to recognize patterns. It would be surprising if there were no heritable traits that affected success in PhD programs.

GPs comment is no more eugenicist than someone pointing out that children of NBA players are more likely to play in the NBA because height is somewhat heritable.