[earthscienceman]

Not only that, but I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

It has always been that way. Science was the domain of wealthy white men who came from thoroughbred backgrounds. It's more of a meritocracy than ever, in some ways, in that you can pay to attend a university and you can shoehorn your way into the system. I'm a scientist, I grew up in a single parent family with zero academic background. However, this is not the norm, and it's a rough road full of petty bullshit and gatekeeping... choose accordingly.

I don't know what it is with HN and this fetishism for the past and its superior ethical and technical state. It's, as a general rule, entirely false. Any time you read "things aren't like they used to be" it should trigger intense skepticism. In fact, things used to be awful. It was just accepted as the norm and poorly documented in their reasons for being awful and now we have forums where the public can easily and openly discuss such issues.

[brainmapper]

Yes!!!

1) Before the 19th century science was the domain of the landed gentry or those who could find sponsorship from someone of means. Things have been different since then, but positions have always depended on academic pedigree. It has always been (and likely will continue to be) easier to get a permanent position at a great science University if your academic training ran through a great science University. This makes sense in some ways, but it also reflects residual bias (i.e. the halo effect of great Universities).

2) If anything, the system of recruiting for faculty positions has become MORE objective and meritocratic over the past few decades. Here is a true story that one of my older colleagues tells about getting his first academic job in 1964: a senior Professor called my colleague's Harvard PhD advisor and said, "We need someone in your area. Do you have any good students at the moment?" Six months later my senior colleague had a job at UC. That can't really happen any more (though the system is still far from perfect).

3) One thing that has changed is the ratio of applicants to positions. This has gotten a lot worse over the years. As a result, training has stretched out quite a bit. Postdocs are common/expected in many areas of science now, and they are often fairly long. But many of the most capable and persistent manage to find a way.

4) Always remember, science is ultimately about people. Therefore, it is inevitably political. Heck, if it weren't for the fact that, in the long run, science ultimately has to explain and predict things in the real world, it would be just as dysfunctional as Congress...

[moralestapia]

>If anything, the system of recruiting for faculty positions has become MORE objective and meritocratic over the past few decades.

I don't think one can reach that conclusion (or the opposite one) yet; there's plenty of people who have found new ways to game the system in order to secure their future, so that counteracts many of the systematic measures that exist to create a fair platform for everyone.

[moralestapia]

>I grew up in a single parent family with zero academic background >it's a rough road full of petty bullshit and gatekeeping

Same here, I know the struggle. At some point I just left because of a terrible incident of abuse I suffered that led me to evaluate my options and move to the industry where pay is 10-20x and where I've found a much healthier environment to thrive.

I really dislike people who are unfamiliar with academia that try to push this fetishized/romanticized version of what THEY think academia is, with little to no factual knowledge of what it truly is.

[glofish]

I think your reply confounds two distinct issues accessibility: (gatekeeping) and ability to succeed in the field.

The merit can be thought in two ways

- Can people that want to and deserve to be scientists become one?

- Once you are scientists, will hard work and ability reward you with a satisfying career?

I agree that in the former we made great progress and the situation is better than ever.

But at the same time I also think the latter, which is closer to what the word "meritocracy" means, is in worse shape than ever

[earthscienceman]

You make excellent points and we completely agree. I'm in a huge slump for exactly this. I've spent the last three years building an extremely useful proof of concept for environmental monitoring and being rewarded for it is literally an active fight.

However, this is primarily tied to the incentives in place for judging science. Extremely important work often has no value in the current structure, due to all of the publish-or-perish and University hierarchies that have been written about ad-nauseum but that have yet to significantly change. I have nothing meaningful to add to that conversation in fact. We know what the problems are. We just don't fix them.

[lnwlebjel]

> building an extremely useful proof of concept for environmental monitoring and being rewarded for it is literally an active fight.

It seems that it has always been this way. See "How Innovation Works" by Matt Ridley for many examples - and fight on.

[moralestapia]

>Can people that want to and deserve to be scientists become one?

The problem with that is that it could always be treated as a subjective measurement. And who are you going to appoint for that? The people who are already in the system. Surprise, you have created (again) the perfect conditions for nepotism to arise.

[lnwlebjel]

Well said. My experience is similar to yours, particularly the choose accordingly part. One can choose who to work with and for me, it has made all the difference.