> No recruiter I have ever worked with has done something for me because I was related to them.
This is missing the point of my question. I'm assuming that the daughter has more to her merit than just her father's connections. If she is getting a job she isn't qualified for, different story, and I think everyone agrees with your point. If she is qualified and the dad is simply helping extend her network (like a recruiter) then what is the difference?
If you only look at the surface then you've missed everything important.
> Come on man, are we really that cynical towards meritocracy that we are accepting nepotism as normal?
1) Meritocracy doesn't exist and can't exist. I have several arguments laying this out. It's worth mentioning that the article is also arguing this. The problem is that the system is noisy. Even considering perfect resumes and perfect hiring managers the problem is that merit is so convoluted that evaluation is near impossible. How do you evaluate a software engineer perfectly? Do lines of code matter? Speed in which they work? Ability to get along with the team? Does pedigree matter? Lines of code from others that utilize their lines of code? Ditto but weighted by net profit corresponding to said lines? Can that even be measured?
2) How do you even measure a potential hire where you don't have any of the above metrics? Does pedigree strongly correlate with productivity? (most people argue no. I argue correlate yes causal no) Does it correlate strongly with LeetCode/Whiteboard problems? If yes, then explain the cheater threads that are so common. So what metrics should be used to evaluate? Again, the article argues (in depth) that the process is extremely noisy, nuanced, and complicated.
3) Which nepotism are we discussing? We'll say that a candidate has 2 attributes: merit and nepo. If merit dominates, then nepo is a means to reduce noise as you get information from a trusted source about information that cannot be gathered through resumes or interviewing (this is not different from calling a previous employer, except that there's higher risk in contacting their previous employers (which is why this doesn't happen) and previous employers are not a trusted source). On the other hand, if nepo dominates then no one disagrees with you and we've all been explicitly clear about this. Nepotism is only useful as a means of filtering through already (statistically) equally qualified candidates.
> are accepting nepotism as normal?
Accepting that it is normal doesn't mean you have to like it, it just means that you are recognizing that this is fairly status quo. Should we put in efforts to reduce nepotism and increase our ability to judge a candidate (and current employee) based on their merits? Hell yeah. But it is a fool who believes we have such tools today. And even a bigger fool who perpetuates the system of noisy evaluations. I'd personally love to have a system that is purely meritocratic. But the truth is that Goodhart always wins and if we don't recognize such flaws we are only creating a worse system that is masking as meritocracy. Few people even ask themselves why Goodhart always wins, and doing so also perpetuates this tomfoolery. I've even answered why Goodhart wins, and let's be honest, how many people caught it?