The Son Also Rises
Buy on Amazon — The Son Also Rises
Detailed overview
Gregory Clark’s book uses surnames to attack the comforting modern belief that social mobility is rapid, institutionally malleable, and substantially different across capitalist, social-democratic, caste, communist, and post-aristocratic societies. The opening contrast between Govan and Richmond Drive in Glasgow introduces the moral question, but the book’s method quickly moves away from memoir into surname cohorts. Clark argues that conventional parent-child correlations in income, education, occupation, or wealth measure only noisy partial indicators of a deeper family status; when those noisy indicators are averaged through surname groups, long-run persistence rises to roughly 0.7 to 0.9 per generation.
The book’s first set of cases tests societies that readers might expect to differ sharply. Sweden’s noble surnames, Latinized surnames, and university-educated lineages remain overrepresented despite social democracy, free education, and compressed earnings. The United States, supposedly the land of opportunity, shows slow convergence for Ashkenazi Jewish names, 1923-24 rich taxpayer surnames, pre-1850 Ivy League surnames, Japanese surnames, black surnames such as Washington and Smalls, Native American names such as Begay and Yazzie, and New France names such as Gagnon and Hebert. Medieval and modern England supply the deepest archive: artisan names, locative names, Domesday Norman names, Inquisitions Post Mortem surnames, Prerogative Court of Canterbury probates, Oxford and Cambridge rolls, rare Victorian wealth surnames, and pauper surnames all move toward the mean at a slow pace.
Clark’s theoretical move is the distinction between observed status and underlying social competence. Earnings, university attendance, probate wealth, professional office, longevity, and residence are all treated as noisy expressions of a deeper family property. A lawyer may be richer than a philosophy professor, a UC Davis management professor may earn far more than a music professor, and an individual son’s income may diverge sharply from his father’s; but when many related people are grouped by surname, the errors average away. This is why Clark thinks surname groups reveal an underlying persistence rate that individual studies understate.
The book then tries to break its own proposed law in places where institutions should matter most. India’s caste endogamy and reservation system, Bengal’s Kulin Brahmins and Muslims, Maoist China’s land reform and Cultural Revolution, Japan’s abolition of samurai and kazoku status, Korea’s postwar industrial society, Chile’s Frei-Allende-Pinochet upheavals, and religious groups such as Protestants, Jews, Copts, Muslims, and Gypsies/Travellers all become tests of whether policy, revolution, persecution, or welfare states change long-run mobility. Clark repeatedly concludes that the observed movement is slow unless endogamy, selective migration, selective affiliation, or differential fertility creates group-level exceptions.
The book is unsettling because it presses the biology/culture question without fully resolving it. Clark uses adoption studies, Korean adoptees, Swedish sibling correlations, the Georgia Cherokee land lottery, the Eastern Cherokee casino, fertility patterns in the Darwin family, Galton’s height data, Danish wealth data, and endogamous groups to argue that parental spending and public transfers have weaker effects than many human-capital models assume. He does not simply say “genes explain everything”; he says the observed data behave as if a family-level, inherited substrate persists through generations, and that both genetic transmission and deep familial culture remain plausible carriers.
The conclusion is not a simple counsel of despair. Clark argues that slow mobility does not mean permanent ruling classes, because regression to the mean still works; it only works over ten, fifteen, or twenty generations. The book’s political sting is that public education, redistributive taxation, democratic reforms, and anti-nepotism rules appear less powerful in the surname data than modern political rhetoric suggests. Its practical sting is sharper: if upper-class families cannot buy permanent escape from downward mobility through Dalton School interviews, ERB coaching, SAT tutors, lacrosse, or elite colleges, the remaining way to preserve status is assortative and endogamous mate choice, a conclusion Clark presents with evident discomfort.
Core concepts
Source links
Chapter-by-chapter notes
Preface
Summary: Clark begins by warning that the book will be controversial and by separating his own interpretation from the work of collaborators such as Neil Cummins, Yu Hao, Daniel Diaz Vidal, Tatsuya Ishii, Zack Landes, Daniel Marcin, Firas Abu-Sneneh, Wilfred Chow, Kuk Mo Jung, Ariel Marek, and Kevin Williams. He says the project began as an extension of conventional mobility estimates into England and India, changed when surname evidence showed persistence over five hundred years, and was sparked partly by Nicholas Wade’s suggestion that surnames could test a hypothesis from A Farewell to Alms. He names UC Davis, NSF grant SES-0962351, Ancestry.com, Joel Mokyr, Joe Ferrie, Cormac O Grada, Sam Bowles, Herb Gintis, Gary Solon, and Mishka’s Cafe in Davis as part of the research setting. Source anchors: Neil Cummins, Yu Hao, Nicholas Wade, five hundred years, NSF SES-0962351, Ancestry.com, Mishka's Cafe.
Analysis: The preface matters because Neil Cummins, Yu Hao, Nicholas Wade, and Ancestry.com show that this is a data-collection project built from many national archives rather than a purely theoretical essay. The five hundred years of persistence is the shock that forces Clark away from his earlier optimism about capitalist mobility. The NSF grant, UC Davis, and collaborators also explain why later chapters can range from England and Sweden to Bengal, China, Chile, Japan, and the United States with parallel surname methods.
1. Introduction: Of Ruling Classes and Underclasses: The Laws of Social Mobility
Summary: Clark frames the book through the contrast between a boy in Govan, Glasgow, and the suburban Richmond Drive in Cambuslang, then introduces intergenerational correlation, regression to the mean, persistence rates, the Gini coefficient, and the conventional claim that Nordic countries show rapid mobility. He challenges that picture through rare English surnames such as Pepys, Berners-Lee, Bazalgette, and Rusbridger, noting that at least fifty-eight Pepyses attended Oxford or Cambridge since 1496, only eighteen Pepyses existed in 2012, and four of them were medical doctors. He then states the book’s headline finding: surname estimates for medieval England, modern England, the United States, India, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Chile, and Sweden imply underlying persistence between 0.7 and 0.9, with 50 to 70 percent of variation in general social status predictable at conception. Source anchors: Govan, Richmond Drive, Pepys, Berners-Lee, Bazalgette, 0.7 and 0.9, conception.
Analysis: The chapter establishes the book’s problem by making Govan and Richmond Drive stand for life chances while Pepys, Berners-Lee, and Bazalgette provide the surname evidence that conventional correlations cannot explain. The 0.7 and 0.9 persistence range is not a side number; it overturns the idea that the Old Etonian and slum dweller become cousins within a few generations. Clark turns surnames into Legibility infrastructure: rare names make otherwise hidden family status measurable across centuries, and the conception claim gives that measurement its provocative force.
2. Sweden: Mobility Achieved?
Summary: Clark turns first to Sweden because it is the obvious test case for high mobility: a social-democratic state with extensive taxation, free education, compressed earnings, and strong public support for students. He examines noble surnames such as von Essen, Latinized surnames, Swedish physicians, educational elites, income tax data, house prices, aristocratic and high-status names, and surname frequencies from Statistics Sweden. The chapter argues that Sweden’s conventional mobility looks high partly because earnings are compressed, but surname persistence remains strong: noble and elite names stay overrepresented among physicians, university-educated groups, tax records, and high-value neighborhoods, with persistence rates close to those found elsewhere. Source anchors: Sweden, von Essen, Latinized surnames, physicians, tax records, house prices, Statistics Sweden.
Analysis: Sweden matters because it removes several easy explanations for low mobility. If von Essen, Latinized surnames, physicians, tax records, and house prices still show surname persistence under Swedish schooling and taxation, Clark can argue that low mobility is not simply caused by American inequality or British aristocratic residue. The chapter makes Elite Formation visible under egalitarian policy: elite names keep appearing in medicine, education, tax records, and high-value neighborhoods even when the formal welfare state compresses earnings and expands access.
3. The United States: Land of Opportunity
Summary: Clark tests the American mobility myth through the American Medical Association directory, state attorney records, the 2000 U.S. census surname file, the Social Security Death Index, and surname groups such as Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, 1923-24 New York Times rich taxpayers, pre-1850 Ivy League graduates, Japanese Americans, New France descendants, black Americans, and Native Americans. The chapter names Cohen, Goldberg, Katz, Vanderbilt, Roosevelt, Guggenheim, Rutgers, Rensselaer, Gagnon, Hebert, Washington, Smalls, Begay, Yazzie, and Manygoats, and reports that physicians and attorneys show slow convergence across 1920-49, 1950-79, and 1980-2012 cohorts. It treats anti-Jewish medical-school quotas, Howard University, Meharry Medical College, affirmative action, New France migration from Quebec and Acadia, and Japanese immigrant selectivity as explanations for group differences. Source anchors: AMA directory, 1923-24 rich, Ivy League, Gagnon, Washington, Begay, Meharry.
Analysis: The chapter matters because the AMA directory, attorney records, 1923-24 rich surnames, Ivy League names, Gagnon, Washington, Begay, and Meharry let Clark measure U.S. mobility without relying on self-reported class memories. The Jewish, black, Japanese, New France, and Native American cases show that visible minorities are not exceptional departures from a mobile majority; in his reading, they make slow mobility visible. The chapter also qualifies itself by noting quotas, affirmative action, and immigrant selection, so the surname evidence is tied to institutional history rather than treated as a bare coefficient.
4. Medieval England: Mobility in the Feudal Age
Summary: Clark uses medieval England to push surname measurement back before industrialization, democracy, public schools, and welfare policy. He compares artisan surnames such as Baker, Carpenter, Shepherd, and Smith with locative surnames, Inquisitions Post Mortem names from 1236-99, Norman surnames from the Domesday Book of 1086, Oxford and Cambridge attendance from 1170 to 2012, and Prerogative Court of Canterbury probates from 1380 to 1858. The chapter names Chaucer, Berkeley, Darcy, De Vere, Sinclair, Mowbray, Neville, Percy, Beauchamp, Courcy, Mortimer, and Keats-Rohan, and argues that Norman names remained about 25 percent overrepresented at Oxford and Cambridge in modern times after more than nine hundred years of regression. Source anchors: artisan surnames, Domesday Book, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Oxford and Cambridge, PCC probates, Sinclair, Neville.
Analysis: Medieval England gives Clark a long enough time span to watch regression rather than infer it from two generations. Artisan surnames, Domesday Book names, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Oxford and Cambridge, PCC probates, Sinclair, and Neville show both upward and downward movement, but at a pace measured in centuries. The case also demonstrates that feudalism is not the unique cause of persistence, because the same surname patterns run through Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, electoral reform, and welfare-state periods.
5. Modern England: The Deep Roots of the Present
Summary: Clark shifts to modern England by using rare surnames from the 1858-87 probate register, including rich names such as Brudenell-Bruce, Cornwallis, Courtauld, Leveson-Gower, Sotheby, Bazalgette, Bigge, Skipwith, and Willyams; prosperous names such as De Grey, Pepys, Pigou, and Rothschild; and poor names from an 1861 list of habitual paupers, including Defoe. He tracks wealth at death, probate rates, maximum inheritance tax rates, Oxford and Cambridge admissions from 1830 to 2012, the 1881 census, rare surname frequencies, Galton’s concern with surname extinction, and Alfred de Rothschild’s 1859 petition at Trinity College. The chapter finds rich rare surnames still four times as wealthy and prosperous rare surnames three times as wealthy as average in 1999-2012, despite inheritance taxation and admissions changes. Source anchors: Brudenell-Bruce, Bazalgette, habitual paupers, Defoe, probate register, Oxford and Cambridge, inheritance tax.
Analysis: The chapter matters because Brudenell-Bruce, Bazalgette, Defoe, the probate register, Oxford and Cambridge, and inheritance tax allow Clark to separate visible aristocratic prestige from obscure rare-surname persistence. The use of habitual paupers gives an underclass comparison, not only an elite sample. The survival of educational and wealth overrepresentation after religious-test removal, public support, and inheritance taxation lets Clark argue that reforms changed access rules without greatly changing the underlying speed of regression.
6. A Law of Social Mobility
Summary: Clark states the book’s simple law: observed status y equals underlying social competence x plus random error, while underlying status follows xt + 1 = bxt + et with b near 0.75. He uses Pepys, Brudenell-Bruce, Baskerville, earnings, wealth, occupation, education, residence, health, longevity, Facebook versus Myspace, Harvard admission, UC Davis professor salaries, management professors, music professors, bus drivers, U.S. doctors, Swedish doctors, longevity in England, rare-surname wealth groups, and Oxford-Cambridge probate comparisons to explain why individual measures understate mobility persistence. The chapter says partial indicators have average correlations around 0.43 and that group averages reduce random components. Source anchors: xt + 1, b near 0.75, Facebook, Myspace, UC Davis, bus driver, longevity.
Analysis: This is the book’s mathematical center because xt + 1, b near 0.75, and the observed-status equation tell the reader why surnames can disagree with conventional parent-child estimates. Facebook, Myspace, UC Davis salaries, and bus-driver comparisons make the error term concrete: observed earnings or education can mismeasure underlying status. The chapter sharpens Legibility because longevity, rare-surname wealth groups, and surname averages convert noisy individual outcomes into a record that can expose persistence hidden by father-son correlations.
7. Nature versus Nurture
Summary: Clark tests whether human-capital investment can explain slow surname mobility and finds repeated reasons for doubt. He discusses Sweden’s free tuition, grants, loans, and school meals; his own Cambridge education with no parental fees or maintenance; private-school advantages in A-level results; Lawrenceville School fees of $44,885; Charles Darwin’s lineage through Robert Darwin, Erasmus Darwin, Robert Waring Darwin, and Darwin’s descendants; pre-1780 English fertility, post-1880 elite fertility decline, Galton’s height data, Danish wealth data from Boserup, Kopczuk, and Kreiner, Swedish top 0.1 percent income inheritance, endogamy, Markov inheritance, and the possibility of genetic or cultural transmission. Source anchors: Swedish grants, Cambridge education, Lawrenceville, Charles Darwin, Galton, Danish wealth, endogamy.
Analysis: The chapter matters because Swedish grants, Cambridge education, Lawrenceville, and private-school evidence are the places where a human-capital story should work best. Charles Darwin, Galton, Danish wealth, and endogamy instead push Clark toward inherited substrate explanations, because fertility changes and parental spending do not visibly speed or slow surname regression. The chapter does not settle genes versus culture, but it sets up later cases in which endogamous groups maintain status in a way that ordinary public policy does not undo.
8. India: Caste, Endogamy, and Mobility
Summary: Clark uses India to test caste endogamy, reservation policy, and religious barriers. He describes Independence in 1947, Brahmins, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, depressed classes, untouchables, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward castes, the “creamy layer,” the 1931 British census categories, and All India Institute of Medical Sciences admissions in 2012, where the open-category cutoff was rank 36 and a reserved-category rank reached 2,007. In Bengal he tracks Kulin Brahmin surnames such as Banerjee, Bhattacharya, Chatterjee, Ganguly, and Mukherjee; other elite Hindu names such as Basu, Ghosh, Mitra, and Sen; Muslim names; poor Hindu names such as Shaw, Rauth, Paswan, Dhanuk, Balmiki, and Mahato; scheduled-caste names such as Barman, Biswas, Haldar, Mandal, and Naskar; Kolkata electoral registers; physicians; judges; and police sergeants. Source anchors: Independence 1947, Kulin Brahmin, AIIMS, rank 2,007, Kolkata, Muslim physicians, Mandal.
Analysis: India matters because Independence 1947, Kulin Brahmin names, AIIMS ranks, Kolkata data, Muslim physicians, and Mandal let Clark test both inherited status and deliberate compensatory policy. The reservation system changes some outcomes, especially for scheduled-caste elite surnames, but the chapter says Brahmin and Muslim positions remain highly persistent. Endogamy makes Informal Institutions the causal hinge: caste and religion shape marriage pools outside ordinary policy design, allowing group-level status to resist regression more strongly than in Sweden or the United States.
9. China and Taiwan: Mobility after Mao
Summary: Clark asks whether Maoist revolution broke elite continuity by examining China after Qing collapse, Nationalist rule, Japanese invasion, Communist victory in 1949, land reform in 1946-53, the execution of about 800,000 landlords, the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76, Red Guards, university closure, eighteen million urban youths sent to the countryside, and the restoration of the National College Entrance Examination in 1977. Because Han Chinese have few surnames, he identifies thirteen rare Qing jinshi surnames, compares them with Wang, Li, Zhang and the regional names Gu, Shen, Qian, and tracks Nationalist officials, elite university professors, company board chairs, central government officials, Tsinghua admissions from 2003-2011, household registration data for 1.3 billion people, lower Yangzi surname-place identifiers, juren records, Zhejiang Provincial Archive biographies, and Nanjing University students. Source anchors: Mao, 800,000 landlords, Cultural Revolution, jinshi, Wang Li Zhang, Tsinghua, Nanjing University.
Analysis: The chapter matters because Mao, land reform, the Cultural Revolution, and university closure are the strongest possible institutional shock to old elites. The jinshi surnames, Wang Li Zhang benchmark, Tsinghua, household registration data, and Nanjing University then show that even after executions, exiles, and examination disruption, Qing and Republican elites retain measurable educational and occupational overrepresentation. Clark uses China as Path Dependence and Institutional Drift evidence: revolutionary institutions destroy property and careers, but old family-status signals keep reappearing when examinations and universities reopen.
10. Japan and Korea: Social Homogeneity and Mobility
Summary: Clark uses Japan and Korea to test the claim that homogeneous societies should be more mobile. In Japan he tracks samurai surnames from 1812, kazoku titles from 1869-1946, the loss of samurai privileges by 1871, the loss of kazoku privileges in 1947, the Meiji surname requirement after 1868, common names such as Fujiwara, rare names among medical researchers, attorneys, corporate managers, university professors, scholarly authors, Google Scholar publications from 1900-2012, Japanese-trained physicians in the AMA directory, adult male adoption, and medical researchers in 1965-66 and 1989-90. In Korea he uses Kim, Lee, Park, bon-guan, the Joseon examination system, the 1898 Japanese Family Registration Law, census data from 1955, 1970, 1985, and 2000, district education for ages 25-39, and Christopher Paik’s estimates. Source anchors: samurai, kazoku, 1871, Fujiwara, Google Scholar, Kim Lee Park, bon-guan.
Analysis: The chapter matters because samurai, kazoku, Fujiwara, Google Scholar, Kim Lee Park, and bon-guan let Clark measure persistence in societies without the racial and religious diversity of the United States. The abolition of samurai and kazoku status supplies institutional rupture, while Korea’s postwar industrialization and clan-place identifiers supply a separate homogeneous case. The finding that samurai, kazoku, and Joseon exam lineages remain overrepresented lets Clark reject the idea that ethnic homogeneity itself produces fast mobility.
11. Chile: Mobility among the Oligarchs
Summary: Clark studies Chile through the 2004 electoral register, which gives more than eight million voters’ names, birth dates, professions, and residences. He links occupational income, comuna-level Human Development Index, Mapuche surnames, the Bío-Bío River frontier, the Chilean conquest of Mapuche lands from 1861 to 1883, encomendero surnames such as Oyarzun, Ureta, and Iparaguirre, Basque surnames, 1853 land-tax records, 1920 large landowners from Juvenal Valenzuela, nineteenth-century commercial and mining elites, Italian, German, and French immigrant elites, Eduardo Frei, Salvador Allende, Augusto Pinochet, the 1973 coup, and birth cohorts from 1920-49 and 1950-79. Source anchors: 2004 electoral register, Mapuche, Bío-Bío River, encomenderos, Valenzuela, Allende, Pinochet.
Analysis: Chile matters because the 2004 electoral register, Mapuche names, encomenderos, Valenzuela landowners, Allende, and Pinochet tie surname persistence to a society with dramatic twentieth-century political conflict. Clark’s claim is that Frei-Allende reforms and Pinochet repression are visible in political history but not as sharp changes in surname mobility slopes. The Mapuche and elite landowner surnames also let him compare an indigenous underclass and colonial oligarchs within one national register.
12. The Law of Social Mobility and Family Dynamics
Summary: Clark returns to the equation xt + 1 = bxt + et and argues that it predicts a symmetrical path into and out of elite or underclass status. He contrasts rags-to-riches stories about Charles Dickens and Andrew Carnegie with simulated five hundred-family paths over fifty generations, then tests the pattern with Prerogative Court of Canterbury probates from 1680-1858, rich and poor rare surnames from 1858-87, PCC elite cohorts from 1710-1858, Oxford and Cambridge rare surnames from 1530-2012, 1800-1829 university surnames, the Pepys family, parish registers, and the idea that elite families usually come from a “cadet elite” rather than from the mean in one leap. Source anchors: xt + 1, Charles Dickens, Andrew Carnegie, PCC probates, 1680-1858, Pepys, cadet elite.
Analysis: This chapter changes how the reader should interpret exceptional families. Charles Dickens, Andrew Carnegie, Pepys, PCC probates, and the 1680-1858 data show that sudden rags-to-riches stories are not the usual group path. The cadet-elite idea explains why families observed at the top usually had above-average ancestors for many generations, and why the same persistence rate governs both ascent and decline.
13. Protestants, Jews, Gypsies, Muslims, and Copts: Exceptions to the Law of Mobility?
Summary: Clark examines groups whose persistence seems to violate ordinary regression and explains them through endogamy, selective affiliation, selective migration, or differential fertility. He discusses Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, literacy and religion, Jewish populations, Ashkenazi Jews, Botticini and Eckstein, Khazar claims, Copts in Egypt, Muslims, the jizya, Indian Muslims, Gypsies and Travellers in England, Loveridge and Barclay surnames, Romany names, Smith intermarriage, U.S. immigration policy, Hindu Indian names such as Banerjee and Ganguly, black African immigrant names, Iranian and Vietnamese refugees, Copts and Maronites, Cynthia Feliciano’s migration-selectivity index, Hmong names such as Her, Lor, and Vang, Mayan names, Latino and Mexican migration, Cajun and New France names, and Norwegian migrants before 1914. Source anchors: Irish Protestants, Ashkenazi Jews, Copts, Gypsies, Loveridge, Feliciano, Hmong.
Analysis: The chapter matters because Irish Protestants, Ashkenazi Jews, Copts, Gypsies, Loveridge, Feliciano, and Hmong show how group persistence can arise without abandoning Clark’s general law. Endogamy preserves status differences among Copts, Jews, and Gypsies/Travellers, while migration selectivity creates elite or underclass surname groups in the United States. The chapter turns apparent exceptions into Informal Institutions and selection mechanisms that create new starting points for slow regression.
14. Mobility Anomalies
Summary: Clark identifies anomalies that remain harder to explain, especially the persistence of Norman-derived surnames in English political and military elites. He uses parliamentary records since 1295, Edward I, county knights, borough burgesses, daily pay of forty-eight pence for knights and twenty-four pence for burgesses, artisan surnames in Parliament, locative surnames, Norman surnames, the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1918, Westminster MPs, English muster rolls from 1369-1453, the Hundred Years’ War, earls, barons, bishops, knights, esquires, men-at-arms, archers, crossbowmen, hobelars, and the medievalsoldier.org database. Source anchors: Norman surnames, Parliament, Edward I, Reform Acts, muster rolls, Hundred Years' War, archers.
Analysis: The chapter is important because Norman surnames, Parliament, Reform Acts, muster rolls, the Hundred Years’ War, and archers do not fit neatly into the rest of Clark’s account. Parliamentary overrepresentation survives constitutional change, and Norman names appear not only among earls and knights but even among archers. Clark uses this as an honest anomaly: political and military status may have preserved a specific Norman association with rule and violence beyond what the general surname law predicts.
15. Is Mobility Too Low? Mobility versus Inequality
Summary: Clark addresses the moral reaction to persistence rates near 0.75 by discussing the American Dream, the Declaration of Independence, James Heckman’s “Promoting Social Mobility,” Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, adoption studies, the Colorado Adoption Project, IQ correlations at age sixteen, Korean adoptees in the United States, Bruce Sacerdote, alcohol consumption, college selectivity, Sweden sibling correlations, identical twins, the 1832 Georgia Cherokee land lottery studied by Hoyt Bleakley and Joe Ferrie, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians casino in North Carolina, school enrollment, literacy, and the limited effects of wealth transfers. Source anchors: American Dream, James Heckman, Charles Murray, Korean adoptees, Georgia lottery, Eastern Cherokee, IQ correlations.
Analysis: The chapter matters because it asks whether slow mobility means injustice, wasted talent, or policy failure. James Heckman, Charles Murray, Korean adoptees, IQ correlations, the Georgia lottery, and Eastern Cherokee casino evidence let Clark evaluate social-policy optimism against adoption and windfall cases. His answer is uncomfortable: family environment matters in some ways, but cash transfers, parental income, and education policies appear weaker than the hopes attached to them.
16. Escaping Downward Social Mobility
Summary: Clark ends with elite parental anxiety and mate choice, beginning from Manhattan private schools, the Dalton School, kindergarten IQ tests, the ERB exam, $38,710 annual fees, SAT tutors, college-essay advisors, lacrosse and field hockey as admissions tools, Bryan Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, Charles Murray on assortative mating, Jewish intermarriage rising from 13 percent before 1970 to 45 percent in 1991-2001, U.S. exogamous marriage rising from 7 percent to 15 percent between 1980 and 2008, Japanese grandparent-aunt-uncle education studies, rare-surname wealth correlations among parents, siblings, cousins, and second cousins, the Darwin family, Coptic names Girgis, Boutros, and Shenouda, and provocative comparisons such as Chen over Churchill or Okafor over Olson. Source anchors: Dalton School, ERB, $38,710, Bryan Caplan, Jewish intermarriage, second cousins, Girgis.
Analysis: The final chapter matters because Dalton School, ERB, $38,710 fees, Bryan Caplan, Jewish intermarriage, second cousins, and Girgis translate the book’s statistical claims into family strategy. Clark argues that tutoring and elite-school spending cannot stop regression if they only polish observed phenotype, while mate choice can preserve status when it captures underlying lineage. The chapter ties Elite Formation to Informal Institutions because elite reproduction shifts from schools and tests toward marriage markets, cousin networks, and ancestral information.
Appendix 1: Measuring Social Mobility
Summary: Appendix 1 explains conventional mobility measurement through transition matrices, cardinal status measures, fathers and sons, intergenerational correlations, the slope b in father-son earnings, constant variance, b squared as predictable variance, and the difference between one-parent and two-parent measures. It introduces normalized status, first-order Markov or AR(1) processes, correlations between grandparents and grandchildren as b squared, great-grandparents and great-grandchildren as b cubed, a wealth example in which families start at twelve times and one-twelfth the mean, and the model yt = xt + ut paired with xt = bxt - 1 + et. Source anchors: transition matrix, father-son earnings, b squared, AR(1), grandparents, twelve times, yt equals xt.
Analysis: The appendix matters because transition matrix, father-son earnings, b squared, AR(1), grandparents, and yt equals xt give the technical vocabulary used throughout the book. It shows why conventional estimates can make grandparent effects appear independent even when the underlying process is first-order Markov. The appendix also explains why Clark thinks surname evidence is needed: single indicators cannot observe the underlying x directly.
Appendix 2: Deriving Mobility Rates from Surname Frequencies
Summary: Appendix 2 explains how Clark derives persistence rates from relative surname representation in elite or underclass groups. It defines relative representation z as the share of a surname in an elite group divided by its share in the general population, assumes surname groups have the same variance as the general population but shifted means, uses examples such as physicians, wealth holders, university graduates, authors, members of Parliament, England, Sweden, China, Oxford and Cambridge, and a 0.73 persistence estimate for rare surnames from 1830-2012, and tests cutoffs of 0.1 percent, 0.7 percent, 2 percent, and 5 percent. It also explains why upward mobility is symmetrical with downward mobility under xt + 1 = bxt + et. Source anchors: relative representation, shifted means, physicians, Oxford and Cambridge, 0.73, 5 percent, upward mobility.
Analysis: The appendix matters because relative representation, shifted means, physicians, Oxford and Cambridge, 0.73, and 5 percent are the bridge between raw surname counts and mobility coefficients. It defends the assumption that elite surname groups are not variance-compressed castes but ordinary distributions shifted upward or downward. The upward-mobility section also supports chapter 12’s claim that later elites should have climbed at the same slow rate at which their descendants decline.
Appendix 3: Discovering the Status of Your Surname Lineage
Summary: Appendix 3 turns the method into a guide for readers with rare surnames, while noting that common surnames such as Clark have limited diagnostic value. It points to surname frequency, geography, and status sources for England, the United States, Australia, and Sweden; distinguishes common names that converge on the mean from rarer names that may rise, fall, and rise again; and uses Clark/Clarke, Pepys, surname maps, professional registers, probate records, university records, and online surname databases as examples. The appendix says rare surnames can spend periods at high status, regress toward the mean, fall to low status, and then converge again, while Pepys is the striking case of a small lineage spending hundreds of years at high status. Source anchors: Clark surname, rare surnames, England, United States, Sweden, Pepys, probate records, university records.
Analysis: The appendix matters because Clark surname, rare surnames, Pepys, probate records, and university records make the book’s method reproducible for readers rather than leaving it as a black box. It also reinforces a central limitation: common surnames are usually too averaged to reveal much, while rare surnames preserve more signal. The practical exercise closes the book by making lineage history a measurable object, which is exactly the social fact Clark has been using against conventional mobility estimates.