[n1231231231234]

How is academia unfair in that respect? "letters of recommendation, publication in prestigious journals, talks at prestigious conferences" are a reflection of your academic abilities in your field, no?

Sure, there is some noise; papers get rejected where they should not have been. And other papers that should have been rejected, do get in, etc. However, by the time you're applying for a professorship, you're abilities should clearly shine through that noise.

[xamuel]

It's who-you-know, not what-you-know. I should mention, by convention, you do not get to see the letters of recommendation yourself, so you're at the writers' mercy. (At least in my field, mathematics; others might be different.) Papers and conference talks become harder to do if you're no longer affiliated. Your abilities will shine through if you're Albert Einstein, but the 99.99% of "rank and file" professors don't need to be Einstein.

I'm not intending this as an indictment against academia. They're faced with a hard problem: many more candidates than job openings. They couldn't possibly do whiteboard interviews like in software, just because of sheer logistics. I don't know how academia could do it differently. Software can do it better because there's a LOT more money in software.

[meheleventyone]

Nepotistic practices are rife in tech as well. It’s quite possible to skip tech interview hazing by knowing the right people.

[uluyol]

Who you know is very important for academics. The professors I know are always on the lookout for good collaborations and to discuss new problems. You can only be successful in academia if you have good ideas, can articulate them clearly, and know what other people care about.

Being smart and knowing your areas are only some of the requirements for being a professor. Having just those two is insufficient.