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.
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.
Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to
have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that
disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis.[11][12]
[13][14] The scientific consensus is that genetics does not
explain average differences in IQ test performance between
racial groups.[15][16][17][18][19][20]No, you are asking for social reinforcement of your idea to make you feel good about what appears on the outside to be quite unpleasant beliefs that wouldn't fly around educated people.
You are invoking a conspiracy to justify your belief.
However, you are correct - cherry-picking which parts of an article to believe is not very convincing. So let me substantiate my claim:
The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. [2]
That was in 1985. Nowadays, it is done openly: Nature publicly stated they will not publish studies that may "harm" (broadly defined) various groups [3], regardless of validity, and commitments to diversity are officially required by one fifth of academic jobs [4].
Of course, if we're talking about discrimination in academia, we skipped a step: as your own quotation implies ("it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis"), there are group IQ disparities. Since IQ is a useful (if imperfect) measure of academic ability, from that alone we would expect disparate outcomes, even in a perfect meritocracy. It does not matter if the IQ disparities are genetic, cultural, or socio-economic in origin (or some combination thereof).
Though it is strange. Bizarre even. Nearly every other heritable human trait - height, skin pigmentation, lactose tolerance, eye and hair color, bone density, sickle cell trait, muscle composition, high altitude adaptation [5], alcohol metabolism [6], etc., is unevenly distributed among human groups. Yet even though IQ and personality are both heritable [7] and variable, they're the rare exception, perfectly equally distributed among all human groups? Nature truly works in mysterious ways.
[1] https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_p...
[2] https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2
[4] https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_hu...
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.
I have a strong feeling that I am going to regret asking this, but what exactly is your experience?
The kids end up like their birth parents, their economics or social environment makes little difference.
Some kids are so opposed to how their parents are they actually move out (in early teens) and live with other people, and have little contact with their parents.
And despite that, they still end up just like their parents once they are past the teen stage.
It's also amazing to see how some kids are just like their father, some like their mother, and some a mix of both (some traits from one parent, some from the other parent).
But you don't see kids who are unlike either parent.
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.
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.
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.
And as an aside, my cousin’s husband has a PhD and yet none of his kids have graduate degrees, while in my family, out of three brothers, there’s a DVM, and MS and me with a MS and MFA.