[gtmitchell]

I think this result is obvious to anyone who has spent any time in the academic world, although it is nice to see some solid numbers behind it.

The harsh truth is that key to academic career advancement is who you know much more than what you know. I every single person I knew in graduate school who got a postdoc position did so through informal means (i.e. knowing someone who knew someone), and having letters of recommendation written by the right people from the right departments at the right schools opens all sorts of doors to the academic hierarchy that would otherwise be closed.

[Ar-Curunir]

I think you overstate this effect. At least in CS, it’s better to get a strong letter from a good (but maybe not superstar) researcher than it is to get a lukewarm letter from a Turing award winner.

reputation is a currency in academia, and even people in prestigious positions arent usually going to spend it to get someone mediocre into a top position.

[cvwright]

Yeah. I used to think it was all nepotism / corruption, but (at least in STEM fields) there’s a bit more to it. My phd advisor is one of the most intense, hardcore people I’ve ever met. If he says someone is a good researcher, that counts for A LOT with anyone who knows his standards. There is no amount of stuff on a resume that could outweigh the word of someone like that.

[bee_rider]

There also seems to be a lot of cheating and/or metric abuse in academia, so it is hard not to over-emphasize this one signal, if it is all you are going to get anyway.