31–40 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is it shocking?
If you accept the idea that a penchant for math is randomly distributed among all people, then the odds of 55/56 men winning by chance are very, very, very low.
Shocking that 55/56 Fields Medals have been awarded to men. Maryam Mirzakhani has been the only female recipient. [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/us/maryam-mirzakhani-dead...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since IQ, education and wealth are all positively correlated, it's true that any group of smart highly-educated people is likely to come from privileged backgrounds, but that's not why they are being selected. A lot of those immigrants you talk about will actually be middle class people that had to work twice as hard to get hired in a foreign country.
I went to Cambridge University, UK and got a first in maths. I have friends who did to. Those of us who came from poor backgrounds had real difficulties getting a good job. We just weren't a "good fit". One of my friends with a 2.1 Cambridge maths degree was a waitress for 3 years after graduating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is it shocking?
If you accept the idea that a penchant for math is randomly distributed among all people, then the odds of 55/56 men winning by chance are very, very, very low.
Fields medals are not awarded based on "penchant for math" though. And it surely isn't exactly fault of the prize committee that there aren't very many female mathematicians to choose from.
Note: I don't know if 55/56 is "correct" from the point of the actual numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is it shocking?
If you accept the idea that a penchant for math is randomly distributed among all people, then the odds of 55/56 men winning by chance are very, very, very low.
I don't know how well done those studies are though.
EDIT: I doubt it is that big though.
I think the age limit for the Fields medal reinforces this idea that "mathematics is a young mans game." It's one of many reasons why I got discouraged into entering mathematics when I was young because of this and math competitions. When I was younger , I would visit websites such as AOP , and ask questions and then be treated in a condescending way by students who were my age or younger who would then boast about t…
(Assuming you mean AoPS) As someone who was relatively active in that scene back then, but not nearly good enough to brag about their score, I find the reason behind this to be relatively obvious. It’s not that they’re trying to put you down because of your age; rather, they’re teenagers being told that they’re the best at math in the country. It’s easy to let that get to your head.
I think the age limit for the Fields medal reinforces this idea that "mathematics is a young mans game." It's one of many reasons why I got discouraged into entering mathematics when I was young because of this and math competitions. When I was younger , I would visit websites such as AOP , and ask questions and then be treated in a condescending way by students who were my age or younger who would then boast about t…
Do you also not cook, since you won't be Ramsay? Or not swim since you won't be Phelps? You must do nothing but contemplate the void, then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It took some time to realize that having parents who are academics/engineers helps significantly in guiding you in a career such as mathematics. This is true of every good job. I'm trying to get hired at big 4 tech right now. Every person interviewing me is a rich kid. All of my competition is rich kids. Touring these big tech companies was discouraging. They're all very diverse. Rich white kids. Rich Asian kids. R…
Since IQ, education and wealth are all positively correlated, it's true that any group of smart highly-educated people is likely to come from privileged backgrounds, but that's not why they are being selected. A lot of those immigrants you talk about will actually be middle class people that had to work twice as hard to get hired in a foreign country.
I don't think that's been studied correctly.
Or, take family wealthy out of the usual equation then run the numbers.
Family money that pays for the best schools. Family money that pays for tutors. Family money that pays for health insurance. Family money that takes care of that one felony that would devistate a poor kid. Family money that seeds that first, second, third business. Get the drift?
Family money produces the Trump boys, the Bush boys, etc. All shinning examples of what a caring wealthy father can do.
(I really wish they would do one of these studies without family help littered along the development of the child/adult, and then make the bold claims about who will be successful. I know it's a dirty secret, or frowned upon, but an enabling/caring, financially steady family is probally the best indicator of success. There're very few Horatio Algier's out there anymore. And yes--my anus puckers up when ever I hear wealth, and IQ intermingled.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went to Cambridge University, UK and got a first in maths. I have friends who did to. Those of us who came from poor backgrounds had real difficulties getting a good job. We just weren't a "good fit". One of my friends with a 2.1 Cambridge maths degree was a waitress for 3 years after graduating.
Perhaps this is more of the case in the UK where class is more of a salient aspect of life than in the US?