I would seem to me that there's a lot  of nepotism going on in such a university, so, no, I don't think it is a good sign. The father professor should actually discourage his son to apply for a faculty position in his own university because it may be perceived by outsiders as nepotism. If his son is really brilliant, the son should not have any problem finding a faculty position elsewhere. In such a case, the father may be doing his son a disservice if he encourages his son to get a position in his own (the father's) university, as there will likely be a prejudicial perception of nepotism, when in fact the son is actually just brilliant.

Thanks for the answer; it appears to be just many single cases at scientific institutions like universities, where the professors son gets privileges, like the PhD student gets his personal technician, or appears as first author on a manuscript the supervising postdoc made more than half of the contibutions (that postdoc fighted successfully to become first author in her publication, but a year later her trainee became "his" first authorship in a Cell paper and the postdoc stopped her scientific carreer due to lack of carreer options...).

So to reduce the visibility of nepotism, it may be "best" if, for example, biophysics professors just exchange their sons, perhaps in a triple carusel to make three full professors fast and with reduced risks?

In my experience, pedigree is important. You might better compare the chances to advance for students in the same discipline from the different universities across Germany than to ask about the chances to advance due to the blood-lineage of students.

Nepotism in higher education is not only continuation of blood-lines (father/mother to son/daughter). It is also the continuation of internal pedigrees. All else being equal, innovation is always greater when a group has a diversity of backgrounds. Of course, this is predicated on the professional ability of the group to get past their own personal politics. But, I did say ... all else being equal.

Thank you, Jeffrey, for your contribution.

It might be just about networking over generations or within academic clans, and professors' sons just get easier access to important information to advance faster and better in academic environments than the average student; but shouldn't there be - theoretically - equal opportunities, at least in non-private universities? I understand that some universities choose their own preferences who to promote better than others.

I am wondering how (and if) one could determine the advantage factor of professors' sons above the average male student to become professor himself. My guess would be that there is a privilege factor of 1.000 to 100.000.

You ask an entirely different question I see. Certainly, just as royalty begets more royalty, family habits can pass down as well. I would venture to say that you are asking the same question as whether the son/daughter of an insurance salesperson (or a used car salesperson or a real estate magnate or an accountant or ...) has any distinct advantage over those of the same generation. Of course they do, when they so desire to follow that path. Can it be quantified? I'll leave that to the social scientists and suffice to say it is of no interest to me to know the numerical value in any case. Is it a good sign for those who look only to employ the family? I would venture to say, this depends on the company.

Many decades ago, I had a friend many who followed his father's footsteps to an insurance company. The advantages for him and the client base where significant and mutual. It was "continuity and experience in a family business" that was promoted, even though his company was otherwise a big name insurance agency in the US. Should a university, in Europe or the US or elsewhere, try the same thing? I think not. I will again claim that, innovation grows better as new blood is continually re-introduced in academia. The security of a sure thing (employing the son/daughter of an already established faculty) may bring an initial boost, but I would claim that it also has an inbuilt if implicit sense of stagnation.

As a closing note, you speak as though only males are of concern on both sides (i.e. father/son). Recalling my sense of the Germany academic system being weighted that way more so than the US system, perhaps the gender bias is truly unintentional.

Sorry for my bad englisch. Using the term (male) professor and son wasn't UNintentional, just since I do not think there are many examples where the daughter of a (male or female) full professor became professor, especially not in physics, where I think the starting ratio is 9:1 for male students, but also Germany does not seem to be good in promoting women, but that wasn't my point. Since almost all universities in Germany are NOT private universities their professors are public servants with certain levels of integrity to the state, i.e. a totally different aspect than, for example, selling insurances or any family owned business in a free market. Therefore, there should be better mechanisms in place to allow the "underprivileged" students a similar chance to advance into an academic carreer. But Germany - to my very personal view - appears to select the next generation of professors in a questionable stipend mechanism which - theoretically - allows poor people, as well as professors kids, to get financial support, usually from the beginning of their studies; but, as some are saying, to support one poor student is as costly as to support 6 professors kids with (much lesser stipend) for just buying books...

PS:

In my first years of medical a full professor of physics (Prof. Josef Bille) and one of biochemistry (Prof. Hans Schimassek) had recommended me to two major stipend giving institutions, although the biochemsitry professor added, they never ever took one of his recommendations, although those have shown to become professors. At the end of a long weekend seminar I was told by a biophysician I definitely would get the stipend, but should tell again how much support I would need; unfortunately, I mentioned that I would need full support, i.e. incl. (cheap) housing. Obviously that was too much, i.e. 6x as much as professors' kids would need as book support. Well, the other stipend giving organisation was too much for nuclear reactors (that was before Tchernobyl), so I was surprised being invited, but was told to be one of the very best, except my political opinion was too much for protecting nature. Interestingly, many of the "independent" leading journalists I knew from TV were part of that selection process. So, I think one can recommend young students to choose the most influencial lobbyists and to support professors kids as much as possible to be opportunistic enough to achieve a professorship ?

> Sorry for my bad englisch. Using the term (male) professor and son wasn't UNintentional, ...

Iheren English ist sehr gut. Drüber sollen Sie keine Sorge machen.

Making statements entirely from a male-dominate perspective is OK as long as you recognize that they are prejudicial because the system you are in is itself acting as such. Otherwise, we may be left to believe that you don't know any better. At least you've now acknowledged why your statements were continuing to show bias.

> Therefore, there should be better mechanisms in place to allow the "underprivileged" students a similar chance to advance into an academic career.

By "underprivileged" students, you mean of course the typical or "normal" students.

We can forever argue the pros/cons of taking a social-engineered versus a market-driven approach to this problem. But ... This is a Research Forum. Let's at this point therefore defer and agree to take continued discussions off-line or to other public avenues (e.g. LinkedIn).

I've enjoyed the discussion!

OK thanks for the discussion. Sorry about the confusion: of course, I supported and recommended colleagues to other universities, no matter of whatsoever. I even made it possible for three colleagues to get officially accepted at Stanford (two were women, only the man became professor in Germany); I also recommended successfully several students to Switzerland - and I tried to support two of the rare female physics students to proceed in a scientific carreer, but as far as I know, they didn't continue.

Since I was at Stanford, I think that is not the optimal for the average, normal German to use it as a carreer boost - it can be just the opposite.

Since this is a research forum, maybe others have their points as well?

My thesis is: the Germany lost many brilliant scientists 80 years ago and meanwhile a lot of more or less invluencial networks abuse the system.

A few years ago, Germany's minister of defense had to step back due to a fake doctoral thesis in Bavaria - of course, he was not a scientist at all, but he even got the highest and very rare best degree for his dishonesty; if I remember right, his family relatives sponsored the related university hospital by one million Euro..., but this was probably just a coincidence.

The problem for the mid-european societies is: such a corrupt system can not provide the best brains to become professors and found start-up companies. Now, with Germany's car industry perhaps going down in the next decade, there is no replacement of industry to compete with Asia and the US.

Hi Robert, what historical statistics do you have pertaining to this matter?  Doctors sometimes beget children who end up in doctors, but I've never actually met anyone in academia whose parent was a professor in the same discipline. Maybe Deutschland is and was different?

Mark