Research community is seen by outsiders as "fare" and unbiased. After all, their work has been assessed by peer review for the past few centuries. However, in practice, there is as much favoritism in the research community as anywhere else. If your prof is well known, you will be enjoying this situation; sometimes fully unaware of it. Otherwise, you might end up frustrated.
I was a publication co- chair of ACM Multimedia 2012. My main job was to handle the proceedings, but I was involved in a few other tasks including conference registration. Here is one of my experiences with paper registration.
As most of you are aware, authors of accepted papers have to pay full registration fees per each paper, and make sure that at least one of the authors attends the conference to present the paper. Some authors try to save money by not attending the conference, because once the paper is in the proceedings, it is permanently in their publication record. This is called a "no-show", and some conferences threaten to blacklist authors who are involved in no-shows.
Immediately after the list of accepted papers for ACM Multimedia 2012 was published, a student from Malaysia contacted us. She had a paper accepted as a poster, but her university was unable to provide enough funding for both registration and travel. The conference was accepting travel grant applications, so we asked her to apply.
Two weeks passed, and we were approaching the registration deadline. The results of the travel grant applications were still not announced, and the student got worried. She asked whether she will be blacklisted for no-show if she registered the paper anticipating travel grant support, but later could not secure enough funding.
Since none of the big guys - old profs who were the decision-making chairs- responded, one of the younger chairs raised the matter in our mailing list. One of the top 10 responded with the textbook reply: if you don't attend, it is a no-show.
Okay, so far so good. But a few hours later, the moment of truth came. A professor who had four papers (let's call him Prof. N.) wrote to one of the top three (say prof. Z) asking for a discount for his registration. And Prof. I wrote to the mailing list, supporting this request.
We strongly objected, because there were more than 25 authors with 3 or more papers, and more than 50 with 2 or more. To make matters worse, all the other authors with 4 papers had already paid. "We will go bankrupt if we start giving concessions", argued one of the web chairs. Prof. Z retorted "a conference is only as good as its attendees, and attendance of this person is important for the conference". But I knew the real reason for the request; prof. N was slated to be one of the big guys in ACM Multimedia 2013 organizing committee, and was a good friend of Prof. Z. The argument was continuing over several emails.
We, the younger chairs, thought this a good time to raise the issue of the student from Malaysia. One of us sent an email to the mailing list, reminding that we haven't advised her, and asked which options should we offer to her. "This, in my opinion, is more important than giving a discount to an author with multiple papers, as discussed in another thread", I shot back. This angered Prof. Z, and he tried to defend himself by saying that the student is a one-time author (implying a noob) who is trying to not pay, unlike the valued prof. N. But a few others, including a program chair from the industry (thanks, R) supported the student. In the end, one of the more sensible out of the older chairs advised us to let the stiudent register first and look for alternatives later. "We have to accept the realities of financial problems, when it comes to students with less funding", he summed up.
Throughout this time, I was unofficially in touch with the student, asking her not to get discouraged. She was thankful to the younger chairs who were fighting on behalf of somebody they never met. We won this time, but it left a bad taste in everyone's mouth (for completeness, let me mention what happened to Prof. N's request; Prof. Z approved it as "an exception", but I am not exactly sure how much was discounted).
Some of the old guard might say that favoritism is everywhere in the society, and the research community is no exception. I think that is a pretty lame excuse for those who are entrusted to spend large amounts of public funding with relatively loose conditions, and evaluate their own work.
So, the message is: if you are a grad student who has a known advisor, make sure that you play fair. If you are not, make sure you play fair when you graduate, if you happen to stay in the research community.