/sci/ - Science & Math

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiMmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5hdHVyZS5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZXMvZDQxNTg2LTAxOC0wMDUxMy040gEA?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen
>The Fields Medal should return to its roots

>This idea of giving a top prize to rising stars who — by brilliance, luck and circumstance — happen to have made a major mark when relatively young is an accident of history. It is not a reflection of any special connection between maths and youth — a myth unsupported by the data2,3. As some mathematicians have long recognized4, this accident has been to mathematics’ detriment. It reinforces biases within the discipline and in the public’s attitudes about mathematicians’ work, career pathways and intellectual and social values. All 56 winners so far have been phenomenal mathematicians, but such biases have contributed to 55 of them being male, most being from the United States and Europe and most working on a collection of research topics that are arguably unrepresentative of the discipline as a whole.

>When it began in the 1930s, the Fields Medal had very different goals. It was rooted more in smoothing over international conflict than in celebrating outstanding scholars. In fact, early committees deliberately avoided trying to identify the best young mathematicians and sought to promote relatively unrecognized individuals. As I demonstrate here, they used the medal to shape their discipline’s future, not just to judge its past and present.

>I think that the Fields Medal should return to its roots. Advanced mathematics shapes our world in more ways than ever, the discipline is larger and more diverse, and its demographic issues and institutional challenges are more urgent. The Fields Medal plays a big part in defining what and who matters in mathematics.

>The committee should leverage this role by awarding medals on the basis of what mathematics can and should be, not just what happens to rise fastest and shine brightest under entrenched norms and structures.