3 ms·

You’ve godda understand, most of us don’t pay attention to medals. The Fields Medal is prestigious, and prestige breeds misconceptions. I’ve been vaguely intere

You’ve godda understand, most of us don’t pay attention to medals. The Fields Medal is prestigious, and prestige breeds misconceptions. I’ve been vaguely interested in mathematics for decades and never knew the Fields Medal was anything but a recognition of the greatest mathematical achievement. Thanks for the anecdote about Wiles. I had no idea mathematics didn’t have some way of properly recognizing achievements from the ancients over 40. So much for respect for one’s elders.

rob74 4y ago
Did you read the parent comment? Wiles received two other prestigious prizes in addition to the "special IMU silver plaque" from the Fields committee, so I don't think you can say his achievement wasn't properly recognized.
keerthiko 4y ago
the very same comment you are replying to mentions the Abel prize and the Wolf prize for recognizing general mathematics achievements, which if you look at the recipients over the last 2 decades, are almost all over 40 (usually white men who typically get tenured as mathematics professors and have the time and resources to focus on research). I appreciate OP for explaining that the field recognized this pattern and made a step to try to encourage future mathematicians to have something to aspire to.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  Actually, it's a bit of the reverse. The Fields medal was established in 1936, Wolf in 1978, and Abel in 2003. And Wolf and Abel filled gaps that Fields left because of its restrictions. Further, the first woman to get the Fields, Maryam Mirzakhani, was only awarded in 2014 (Abel, Wolf are worse). I don't think you can look at any of these awards and address the gender inequity in mathematics, either.
  - bonoboTP 4y ago
    Give it based on the math, not based on gender.
  - bena 4y ago
    It kind of tracks that Abel and Wolf would trail behind Fields in that regard. As someone noted, since Fields is for the under-40 crowd, it'll be able to draw upon female mathematicians coming up into the field. Abel and Wolf would need to draw on the larger population. And thanks to all the biases, I'd imagine the number of women get smaller as the age gets higher. That should correct itself in time.

rob74 4y ago

Did you read the parent comment? Wiles received two other prestigious prizes in addition to the "special IMU silver plaque" from the Fields committee, so I don't think you can say his achievement wasn't properly recognized.

keerthiko 4y ago

the very same comment you are replying to mentions the Abel prize and the Wolf prize for recognizing general mathematics achievements, which if you look at the recipients over the last 2 decades, are almost all over 40 (usually white men who typically get tenured as mathematics professors and have the time and resources to focus on research). I appreciate OP for explaining that the field recognized this pattern and made a step to try to encourage future mathematicians to have something to aspire to.

throwaway5752 4y ago
Actually, it's a bit of the reverse. The Fields medal was established in 1936, Wolf in 1978, and Abel in 2003. And Wolf and Abel filled gaps that Fields left because of its restrictions. Further, the first woman to get the Fields, Maryam Mirzakhani, was only awarded in 2014 (Abel, Wolf are worse). I don't think you can look at any of these awards and address the gender inequity in mathematics, either.
- bonoboTP 4y ago
  Give it based on the math, not based on gender.
- bena 4y ago
  It kind of tracks that Abel and Wolf would trail behind Fields in that regard. As someone noted, since Fields is for the under-40 crowd, it'll be able to draw upon female mathematicians coming up into the field. Abel and Wolf would need to draw on the larger population. And thanks to all the biases, I'd imagine the number of women get smaller as the age gets higher. That should correct itself in time.