Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Trump Webinar Series
    Mental Health Forum
    Using Big Data to Improve Social Mobility
Sign In
The Review

Do You Know How Lucky You Are?

By Robert H. Frank April 17, 2016
Do You Know How Lucky You Are? 1
Craig Hopson for The Chronicle Review

Bryan Cranston was a middle-aged supporting actor when the producer Vince Gilligan proposed casting him in the leading role of his TV series Breaking Bad. Studio executives were reluctant to invest so heavily in an actor who had never been cast in a major dramatic lead role. So they offered the Walter White character to John Cusack. When Cusack turned them down, they tapped Matthew Broderick, who also declined. Gilligan again argued that Cranston would be right for the part, and executives finally relented.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Bryan Cranston was a middle-aged supporting actor when the producer Vince Gilligan proposed casting him in the leading role of his TV series Breaking Bad. Studio executives were reluctant to invest so heavily in an actor who had never been cast in a major dramatic lead role. So they offered the Walter White character to John Cusack. When Cusack turned them down, they tapped Matthew Broderick, who also declined. Gilligan again argued that Cranston would be right for the part, and executives finally relented.


Breaking Bad went on to become one of the most successful TV drama series of all time, in no small part because of Cranston’s riveting portrayal of the ailing high-school chemistry teacher turned meth kingpin. Cranston earned four Emmy Awards during the show’s five seasons and is now one of the most sought-after actors in the profession. He’s a gifted performer, to be sure, but there are thousands of other gifted performers who continue to labor out of the limelight. It seems safe to say that Cranston would not have become a superstar if either Cusack or Broderick had taken the Walter White role.


Career trajectories in acting offer some of the clearest illustrations of the positive-feedback process known as the Matthew effect, after the verse in the book of Matthew that reads, “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Positive-feedback processes make career trajectories highly path dependent. Small random differences at any point can easily ramify into enormous differences in final outcomes.


But the Matthew effect applies with a vengeance in academe, where even the first letter of a professor’s last name can spawn significant achievement differences. One study, for example, found that assistant professors in the 10 top-ranked economics departments were more likely to get tenure the earlier the first letter of their last name fell in the alphabet. The study’s authors attributed that effect to the custom in economics of listing authors’ names alphabetically on co-authored papers, noting that they found no similar effect for professors in psychology, which does not list authors alphabetically.


It’s easy to see how economists named Adams or Baker might fail to notice whatever small edge they may have enjoyed by virtue of their surnames. But in cases like my own, luck’s contribution was simply too conspicuous to ignore. Shortly after I finished my graduate studies and began teaching at Cornell, a young professor who’d been involved in my hiring told me that I was the seventh of the seven new professors that Cornell’s economics department had just hired, which were several more than it had hired in any previous year. Under normal circumstances, then, I wouldn’t have gotten a Cornell offer, and my only other offer was from a non-research-oriented school in the Midwest.


My getting tenure at Cornell was even less likely than having been hired here in the first place. By the end of my third year, I had only a single published paper, my Ph.D. thesis contained little of interest, and I had essentially nothing else in the pipeline. These days, assistant professors with records like that almost always get fired during their third-year review. But standards were looser then, and since I was doing well in the classroom and didn’t cost much, the department renewed my contract for another three years. Still, my prospects for being able to stay beyond that were bleak at best.


During my fourth year, Ned Gramlich, a visiting faculty member, encouraged me to write a paper for a volume he was assembling. Publishing papers in edited volumes isn’t a valuable career move for an academic economist, but since I was so far behind schedule, I readily agreed. Shortly after I’d completed a draft of my paper, Ned came to my office with a crestfallen expression, saying that the publisher had just called to report that the project had been canceled. Bad luck!


Or so it seemed. On a lark, I sent the paper to Econometrica, one of the most prestigious and selective journals in economics. Less than two months later, I received an acceptance letter with no demands for substantive revisions. Encouraged by that success, I dashed off a simple extension of the paper and submitted it to another leading journal. An acceptance letter arrived only a few weeks later, again with no demand for significant changes.


The following summer, I wrote three more papers and sent them out for review. Bang, bang, bang, I quickly received acceptance letters from the American Economic Review, the Journal of Political Economy, and The Review of Economics and Statistics, each a top-tier journal in economics with acceptance rates lower than 10 percent. And once more, there were no demands for substantive revisions.


In striking contrast, most of the scores of papers I’ve published since those early years were rejected by at least one journal, some by as many as four, and in only a few instances did I even receive an editorial decision before six months or more had elapsed. When my papers weren’t rejected outright, editors invariably demanded extensive revisions, with no promise to publish before the changes had been carefully vetted, a step that extended the review process by at least several more months.

ADVERTISEMENT


I remain proud of some of those first papers, but I firmly believe that the ones I’ve written in the years since are of generally higher quality. The only plausible conclusion is that my early run of success occurred against astronomically long odds.


So except for a wildly improbable string of chance events, I would never have enjoyed the opportunity to interact with so many intelligent and stimulating students and colleagues during the past decades. I wouldn’t have been invited to so many interesting conferences. I wouldn’t have received so many research grants. I wouldn’t have been invited to spend 10 days with the Dalai Lama in India, or to write an economics column for The New York Times. I got lucky.


The bold shadow of chance events may have made luck’s importance difficult to ignore in my case, but randomness often plays out in far more subtle ways. And in such cases, normal patterns of human cognition cause most of us to underestimate luck’s contribution to our successes. That tendency, in turn, significantly reduces our willingness to support the public investments that made those successes possible in the first place.


Although my family didn’t have much money, I graduated debt-free from an excellent state university. But with support for public education having fallen sharply in recent decades, more than 70 percent of graduates of four-year colleges now emerge with student-loan balances that average about $33,000. The parents of children higher up the income ladder have the means to compensate for budget and program cutbacks that have been occurring in the public schools. They can send their children to private schools, or pay for private music lessons, athletic coaching, and SAT prep courses. Those options are beyond reach for low-income households.

ADVERTISEMENT


Being born in a good environment is an enormously lucky thing and one of the only lucky things we can help determine for future generations. Basically, we get to decide, to some extent, how lucky our children will be. We’ve been doing a bad job of it for at least a generation, underfunding our material, educational, and social infrastructure. The luckiest among us are getting luckier even as their numbers shrink. Meanwhile, the unlucky population is growing, and its luck is getting worse.


The good news is that simply asking people to reflect on luck’s role in their lives makes them more likely to feel grateful for any successes they’ve enjoyed. And as compelling evidence demonstrates, experiencing gratitude makes people substantially more willing to contribute to the common good. In one widely cited study, for example, the Northeastern University psychologist David DeSteno and his co-authors prompted a group of laboratory subjects to feel grateful, and then gave them an opportunity to take actions that would benefit others at their own expense. Subjects in whom gratitude had been induced were significantly more willing to spend time and money helping others than were those in a control group. This pattern has been replicated in numerous other studies.


So I hope you’ll talk with your friends about their experiences with luck. In the process, you may persuade them to support a more ambitious program of public investment. But even if not, you’ll almost surely hear some interesting stories. And I’m confident you’ll discover, as I have, that with only a little prompting, even people who have never given much thought to the subject are often surprisingly willing to rethink their life stories and to recall specific examples of lucky breaks they’ve enjoyed along the way.

Robert H. Frank is a professor of management and economics at Cornell University’s Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, and the author of Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, new from Princeton University Press.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

May You Have My Luck

More News

Conti-0127
Finance
Here’s What Republicans’ Proposed College-Endowment Tax Could Look Like
Illustration of a magnifying glass highlighting the phrase "including the requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168 titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
The Fine Print
The NIH Is Requiring Grantees to Follow Trump’s Anti-Trans Executive Order
New York City police arrested dozens of Pro-Palestinian protesters on Columbia University on Wednesday evening after they took over part of a central library in New York, USA on May 7, 2025.
'A Different Playbook'
Facing New Protests and Political Pressure, Colleges Are Taking a Harder Line
President of Haverford College Wendy Raymond (L) and President of DePaul University Robert Manuel (R) testify during a hearing before the House Education and Workforce Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on May 7, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Leadership
Under Republicans’ Scrutiny, College Presidents Apologize for Their Handling of Campus Antisemitism

From The Review

Illustration showing two men and giant books, split into two sides—one blue and one red. The two men are reaching across the center color devide to shake hands.
The Review | Opinion
Left and Right Agree: Higher Ed Needs to Change
By Michael W. Clune
University of British Columbia president and vice-chancellor Santa Ono pauses while speaking during a memorandum of understanding  signing ceremony between the Tsilhqot'in National Government and UBC, in Vancouver, British Columbia, on Dec. 8, 2021.
The Review | Opinion
Santa Ono Flees for Florida
By Silke-Maria Weineck
GarciaBudgets-0430.jpg
The Review | Opinion
A Looming Crisis for Public Colleges
By Tanya I. Garcia

Upcoming Events

Plain_USF_AIWorkForce_VF.png
New Academic Programs for an AI-Driven Work Force
Cincy_Plain.png
Hands-On Career Preparation
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin