I study/publish on social embeddedness. It's bloody everywhere. We have to accept it's there. Those with parents with academic backgrounds have access to great coaching at all stages of their lives (assuming functional relationships with parents). This cannot be underestimated.
Happens in immigrant niche communities too, in professions like car repair.
It's a fact of life; we can't eradicate it without erasing family structure, which we do not want to do as the evidence is clear that they are very important.
Building social support structures pro actively is a partial answer, but it is not easy.
Nothing to add except that I enjoyed the understatement on family structures being important. Lol
I am curious on your thoughts about the whole "nepo baby" call-out trend.
I've always felt like it's not particularly weird or necessarily wrong that kids of celebrities end up also being celebrities. Like you said, they naturally have direct access to a role model/coach and the connections that arise from being in those spheres. It may be frustrating given the limited and competitive nature of acting, for example, and how impossible it is to quantitatively define talent & thereby say who is truly "deserving" of the limited roles, but it is somewhat inevitable.
We don't get upset by doctors' children becoming doctors because we view medical school as a quantitative measure of whether someone is deserving, but you can't say that the pathway wouldn't be significantly easier if your parent or grandparent was the chief cardiologist at a major teaching university compared to someone whose parents only have blue collar connections.
The "nepo" thing has always been a case in all walks of life. I got my first blue collar jobs in my village due to people knowing my mums family. Heck, I probably got better grades in school due to it too. Then I had no such advantage in academia, but it is what it is. As my friends say: they are happy to follow in their parents’ footsteps and what they call the "educated elite" should stop telling them its wrong to do so. The same goes for other walks of life I suppose. Family matters, it will always matter, and thats OK if society just stops making hierarchies out of things like education
But I think that people are more upset nowadays, because of the overall lack of talent. Nobody got upset in the 90s when Angelina Jolie got a chance, when she's super talented, and the entire industry is full of other talented people. I've heard few complaints nowadays about Maya Hawke, because she's really good.
But there's a lack of talent overall today. They are bringing back movie stars that kinda got forgotten, like Nicola Kidman has a total come-back to A-lister status, because people are desiring good movies, and some movies are made by good actors/actresses. You don't need the best actor for an action movie, but you do need a good actor for a drama or it sucks...and the action movie probably also is better with a good actor.
And with that overall lack of talent, people are getting more upset about nepo-babies because they get the blame for it.
Indeed, but that's not exactly what this paper is about. It tries to separate material advantages that you mentioned (e.g. having better advice, sending kids to better schools, providing more, etc.) with what they described as "social and cultural capital."
Both material and social/cultural advantages come from embeddedness. They are often irretrievably enmeshed (this was my PhD). Waldinger and Granovetter great on this. Thanks for sharing.
Of course, and I agree that separating them is practically impossible. Hence, the challenge in the study, because material advantages can result in actual differences in performance which can explain the disparity in career progress. Being able to measure the difference is central to the discrimination argument they make here:
>our findings suggest some combination of direct and systemic discrimination against lower-SEB academics.
Anecdotally, when I worked at a university I noticed a lot of young academics saying things like “I would never date an electrician” even though a master electrician has as may classroom hours as an MSC plus working experience. Also the experienced electricians I worked with in facilities could do calculus in their heads.
Personally I find traits like curiosity and open mindedness more appealing. I did not always see those qualities in academics, just as I did not always see them in the trades.
I think that if people are serious about classics they need to confront their own prejudices
If children of artists or pro actors follow in their parents footsteps, they have a natural advantage as the parents can help them better navigate the politics and pitfalls of following a career. Even if they don’t use any personal connections having support that really understands your career path must be the invaluable.
stu88sy | 3 hours ago
I study/publish on social embeddedness. It's bloody everywhere. We have to accept it's there. Those with parents with academic backgrounds have access to great coaching at all stages of their lives (assuming functional relationships with parents). This cannot be underestimated.
Happens in immigrant niche communities too, in professions like car repair.
It's a fact of life; we can't eradicate it without erasing family structure, which we do not want to do as the evidence is clear that they are very important.
Building social support structures pro actively is a partial answer, but it is not easy.
FullofContradictions | 2 hours ago
Nothing to add except that I enjoyed the understatement on family structures being important. Lol
I am curious on your thoughts about the whole "nepo baby" call-out trend.
I've always felt like it's not particularly weird or necessarily wrong that kids of celebrities end up also being celebrities. Like you said, they naturally have direct access to a role model/coach and the connections that arise from being in those spheres. It may be frustrating given the limited and competitive nature of acting, for example, and how impossible it is to quantitatively define talent & thereby say who is truly "deserving" of the limited roles, but it is somewhat inevitable.
We don't get upset by doctors' children becoming doctors because we view medical school as a quantitative measure of whether someone is deserving, but you can't say that the pathway wouldn't be significantly easier if your parent or grandparent was the chief cardiologist at a major teaching university compared to someone whose parents only have blue collar connections.
helgetun | an hour ago
The "nepo" thing has always been a case in all walks of life. I got my first blue collar jobs in my village due to people knowing my mums family. Heck, I probably got better grades in school due to it too. Then I had no such advantage in academia, but it is what it is. As my friends say: they are happy to follow in their parents’ footsteps and what they call the "educated elite" should stop telling them its wrong to do so. The same goes for other walks of life I suppose. Family matters, it will always matter, and thats OK if society just stops making hierarchies out of things like education
Short-Cause885 | 31 minutes ago
Not the person you replied too.
But I think that people are more upset nowadays, because of the overall lack of talent. Nobody got upset in the 90s when Angelina Jolie got a chance, when she's super talented, and the entire industry is full of other talented people. I've heard few complaints nowadays about Maya Hawke, because she's really good.
But there's a lack of talent overall today. They are bringing back movie stars that kinda got forgotten, like Nicola Kidman has a total come-back to A-lister status, because people are desiring good movies, and some movies are made by good actors/actresses. You don't need the best actor for an action movie, but you do need a good actor for a drama or it sucks...and the action movie probably also is better with a good actor.
And with that overall lack of talent, people are getting more upset about nepo-babies because they get the blame for it.
[OP] Neither-Remote-3419 | 3 hours ago
Indeed, but that's not exactly what this paper is about. It tries to separate material advantages that you mentioned (e.g. having better advice, sending kids to better schools, providing more, etc.) with what they described as "social and cultural capital."
stu88sy | 3 hours ago
Both material and social/cultural advantages come from embeddedness. They are often irretrievably enmeshed (this was my PhD). Waldinger and Granovetter great on this. Thanks for sharing.
[OP] Neither-Remote-3419 | an hour ago
Of course, and I agree that separating them is practically impossible. Hence, the challenge in the study, because material advantages can result in actual differences in performance which can explain the disparity in career progress. Being able to measure the difference is central to the discrimination argument they make here:
>our findings suggest some combination of direct and systemic discrimination against lower-SEB academics.
SpoonwoodTangle | 2 hours ago
Anecdotally, when I worked at a university I noticed a lot of young academics saying things like “I would never date an electrician” even though a master electrician has as may classroom hours as an MSC plus working experience. Also the experienced electricians I worked with in facilities could do calculus in their heads.
Personally I find traits like curiosity and open mindedness more appealing. I did not always see those qualities in academics, just as I did not always see them in the trades.
I think that if people are serious about classics they need to confront their own prejudices
CyberPunkDongTooLong | 2 hours ago
No shit Sherlock.
TheEquationSmelter | 52 minutes ago
Anyone who denies this is a clown.
EstablishmentIll6192 | 30 minutes ago
If children of artists or pro actors follow in their parents footsteps, they have a natural advantage as the parents can help them better navigate the politics and pitfalls of following a career. Even if they don’t use any personal connections having support that really understands your career path must be the invaluable.