Social mobility

Rising sons

How the well-off and well-educated pass their advantages on to their offspring

See article

Readers' comments


Peter in Buenos Aires

I must confess, as a CORF (Certified Old Retired Fart) here in Buenos Aires that this chart doesn't do credit to my old dad's comment that when someone becomes rich in his own generation, it's very common for the grandchild (not the immediate child) to be "back in dungarees" (workingman's clothes). How does one describe it? Easily: Granpa gets rich; Son works equally hard, makes more money; and Grandson pisses it all away, complaining as he goes down the chute.

In my experience and observation, what often happens is either that the third generation becomes uninterested in money and "get-ahead" behavior (just the things that made is pa and granpa rich) and turns instead either to non-rich-making work or general sloth.

This comment is probably vastly unhelpful, but something about it seems true to me.



Call it favoritism, nepotism, cronynism, elitist practises or what-you-will, but the well-off & well-educated, sure pass on their "financially advantaged" genes to their progeny, freely, openly & unabashedly.

It's the right of inheritance as old as human nature itself.

Lucky offspring!!


It's all about the networking, always has been. The same courses are taught; but, if you major in English at the University of Hawaii, you get a job teaching the the public schools. If you major in English at Harvard, you get a job writing script for a television program or movie producer. Every once in a while, the Economist publishes a "Well Duh!" article. this in one of those.

1. why "sons"? (title and photo)
2.why fathers not family?
3.where are daughters and mothers?


I emphatically agree with Liao Shi. The article seems to imply there is something undemocratic about families that preserve the advantage of education for their descendants. Of course educated people are going to want their children to be educated. That sort of no-brainer hardly merits magazine space. Obviously eductated people are likely to achieve a higher standard of living. The challange is not to place obstacles in their path but to seek ways to extend educational opportunity to children who are not empowered by parental advantage.


mnat, I agree with you that this graph is confusing. I also think it is misleading.

What is the correlation of "percentage points" in acquiring university degree and "percentage increase" in wage? Did the two pieces of information came from the same group of subjects or did them come from mashed up census data?

The implies the editor drawn from the graph is also inappropriate. "That other factors alongside education—social networks and employment markets that disproportionately reward those at the top—contribute to the cascade of advantage through the generations, too." How about traditional values and cultural acceptance? Britain, Portugal and the Netherlands are known for their adventurous entrepreneurship, it is possible that education background is not valued as much as in Greece. Thus, wages do not reflect the person' level of education.


Let me toss in some controversy. To what degree could this also be a reflection of genetics? Sorry but it is true. IQ & EQ have a large genetic component. What does this due to our conception of a fair society? We have an aristocracy of well-educated, genetically smarter individuals who marry amongst themselves (of course not all, far too broad a generalization - but you get the point).

Classically, justice is defined as "giving to each his own". How do we reconcile this with our conception of an equal society? Must we even try to reconcile this or is it the natural thing?

Deep thoughts no easy answer.


this graph and article could have been longer and take into account a host of other reasons why children do better in the next generation in terms of education. the way it is right now people are reading more into it than the data presents.


There was a similar study in the US looking at university graduation rate. The two highest correlations by far were 1) Parent's education 2) Access to money - not parent's necessarily - but also scholarships, loans, and the like. US university education has gotten very very expensive - few can work thier way through on thier own any more. There is still the odd place where a rich parent can buy a degree (G. W Bush) but that is the exception.
I don't think it is just parent's education - but respect for education which also often comes from 1st generation immigrant parents who may not be educated but see it as the path to success for thier kids. It can also come through mentoring programs.


Thank so much for posting this article. I'm portuguese and I live this drama that affects the country economically and psychologically... I urge to The Economist to investigate thoroughly this matter because I'm sure that in here rests a major source of Portugal inefficiencies... I remember being a teenager sharing stories with a dear friend of mine, by them we conclude that we need to give our best to be on the "shine side" not only for us but for our kids. Now that the blanket is once again to short we know who is going to suffer: public education is getting worse, public health system is getting worst and when you add the effect of the "cunhas" (so politically correct called social network on the article) it's becoming unbearable...


This seems like common sense. In the USA parents pay for their offspring's post-secondary education. It, therefore, seems more likely that a university educated parent would in turn pay for their child's university education. My father has a master's degree. So, does my mother. I too have a master's degree. Given my fathers sage advice I went into a field that pays well. So, it does not surprise me that my wages correlate with his. I have never benefited from nepotism or my father getting me a job. That's rare in white-collar USA, and much more common in trades, government, union jobs or family businesses.

What is more astonishing (to me) is that my father's father left school when he wasn't even a teenager. He was a smart guy and did well in life, but he was never a scholar. Despite a lack of pedigree my father was able to work his way through University and achieve what he achieved.

This can still be true today with anyone. It just takes a drive that modern Americans (fathers and sons) lack. The only hope it seems is that parents with strong work ethics pass it down to their offspring, relatives, and community.


I haven't quite worked this one out. But I'm nearly certain that Ireland is at the top of the table because it has a much bigger participation in tertiary education compared with competitor countries. And, crucially, that participation has seen a bigger increase than other countries. Austria is at the bottom because participation is low.

Children of rich parents in Britain have greater earnings because the tax regime allows them to hang onto more inherited wealth.


"Why does China not feature in this chart?"

The source of the data is the OCDE, it's a study for and about its members. China is not mentionned because she is not a member of OCDE.

lao shi

It seems that the underlying message is that it is somehow unfair that sons of well-educated fathers become well-educated and well-paid themselves. But how did the fathers become well-educated? Possibly because their own fathers were in turn well-educated. But also probably because they were brighter than average, and were brought up in families where education and effort were valued.

Children born to bright parents are likely to be bright. Children brought up to work hard to achieve their goals are likely to pass these values on to their offspring. It can hardly be surprising that those favoured by both nature and nurture will do better.

The question is then, so what? The implication of the study is that "something ought to be done." Already, university places are being reserved for those not educated outside the state school system. Like any quota system, this is morally wrong and certain to lead to a general lowering of standards.

Any country is best served by giving everyone the best opportunities that the country can afford. But not by putting obstacles in the way of those whose families have been most committed to doing the best for their children. The stupid and the unmotivated will fail, no matter what. Or are we hoping for a statistical miracle, as in the old myth of the Southern States senator, who reportedly said that we shouldn't be satisfied until all children's academic results are above average?

Sensible GaTech Student

Obviously, the graph is not all-inclusive because the Economist is trying to select variables to make a point.

Although that's academically dishonest, I'll bit. What's the point?


This data without explaining how the indexes are calculated barely mean anything. I might be convinced, that it shows a persistence in education, but it is not a revelation.
However nothing can be said about wages, since higher education may have such a great impact on it, that education persistence may be enough to explain it. In any way it is much to little data to see by ourselves, that there are some other factors than education contributing to wages.
Summarizing. Here you have some picture and believe us, that it means what we wrote. In data from roscoe taylor's link it is exactly the same.


What about mothers and daughters? can not believe the articles missed more than half of the highly educated group. All over the Asians and Europeans, girls are more educated than boys. Mother pass more smart genes to children.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Alibaba's IPO: Shocked, shocked!
Schumpeter -60 mins ago
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00


Products and events



