Princeton connection means easier Annals acceptance. This isn’t hard to figure out. It’s clubby like just Econ.Disappointing to know that math is as clubby as econ. I thought they were the ones that championed Arvix and open referee comments online.
Some mathematical fields (set theory and recursion theory, for example) are almost automatically banned from the Annals.
Princeton connection means easier Annals acceptance. This isn’t hard to figure out. It’s clubby like just Econ.Disappointing to know that math is as clubby as econ. I thought they were the ones that championed Arvix and open referee comments online.
Actually it's not true. You can browse all articles in Annals Math in the last 3 years and there's hardly an article authored by a Princetonian.
Princeton connection means easier Annals acceptance. This isn’t hard to figure out. It’s clubby like just Econ.Disappointing to know that math is as clubby as econ. I thought they were the ones that championed Arvix and open referee comments online.
Actually it's not true. You can browse all articles in Annals Math in the last 3 years and there's hardly an article authored by a Princetonian.
I clicked on "forthcoming articles" because I was lazy. Immediately I see Stephen Miller, Allan Sly, Jakub Witaszek (IAS), Qian Wang, Jitomirskaya (Sinai student).
And then I clicked on the most recent issue (194 no 3). Not hard to spot Alweis and Lovett (IAS), though admittedly a better mix here.
194/2 gives Daniel Tataru (IAS), Sung-Jin Oh, Josh Greene, Cole Hugelmeyer, and Jinyoung Park (IAS, but not a good example because I think the article preceded the appointment).
"hardly an article authored by a Princetonian"? please.
And then I clicked on the most recent issue (194 no 3). Not hard to spot Alweis and Lovett (IAS), though admittedly a better mix here.
194/2 gives Daniel Tataru (IAS), Sung-Jin Oh, Josh Greene, Cole Hugelmeyer, and Jinyoung Park (IAS, but not a good example because I think the article preceded the appointment).
"hardly an article authored by a Princetonian"? please.
What connection does Tataru have to IAS? He was a visitor there in the 90s, but is there anything more recent? If we count all former students and visitors, then a sizable fraction of all (US-based) top mathematicians are connected to Princeton, so it's no wonder that many Annals papers are written by them. I don't claim there's no Princeton bias, but I don't think it a large one.
About MB, I don't find his work on higher composition laws terribly exciting either (though I could say the same about the subject of many other Annals papers), but that's not the only thing he did. Did his Fields citation even mention his early work on composition laws?
What connection does Tataru have to IAS? He was a visitor there in the 90s, but is there anything more recent? If we count all former students and visitors, then a sizable fraction of all (US-based) top mathematicians are connected to Princeton, so it's no wonder that many Annals papers are written by them. I don't claim there's no Princeton bias, but I don't think it a large one.
I think the "bias" is basically: if you were a princeton grad student or IAS visitor, you work/worked on the kinds of problems the bigwigs there like. And when you're an editor and you're trying to decide which submitted papers to publish in your limited space, after culling obviously substandard ones, taste plays a large role. So maybe you don't get an explicit boost for being a e.g. Klainerman student, but he's in a better position to appreciate and understand your work compared to some other random Annals-level analysis paper.
What connection does Tataru have to IAS? He was a visitor there in the 90s, but is there anything more recent? If we count all former students and visitors, then a sizable fraction of all (US-based) top mathematicians are connected to Princeton, so it's no wonder that many Annals papers are written by them. I don't claim there's no Princeton bias, but I don't think it a large one.I think the "bias" is basically: if you were a princeton grad student or IAS visitor, you work/worked on the kinds of problems the bigwigs there like. And when you're an editor and you're trying to decide which submitted papers to publish in your limited space, after culling obviously substandard ones, taste plays a large role. So maybe you don't get an explicit boost for being a e.g. Klainerman student, but he's in a better position to appreciate and understand your work compared to some other random Annals-level analysis paper.
Yes, the particular tastes of the editorial board definitely have an influence and since the Annals board is entirely from Princeton/IAS, you do get some Princeton bias.
Princeton connection means easier Annals acceptance. This isn’t hard to figure out. It’s clubby like just Econ.Disappointing to know that math is as clubby as econ. I thought they were the ones that championed Arvix and open referee comments online.
Some mathematical fields (set theory and recursion theory, for example) are almost automatically banned from the Annals.
Not true.
Princeton connection means easier Annals acceptance. This isn’t hard to figure out. It’s clubby like just Econ.
Disappointing to know that math is as clubby as econ. I thought they were the ones that championed Arvix and open referee comments online.
Some mathematical fields (set theory and recursion theory, for example) are almost automatically banned from the Annals.
As far as I know, only 4 set theory papers were published in the Annals in the 21st century (and only one in recursion theory).
About MB, I don't find his work on higher composition laws terribly exciting either (though I could say the same about the subject of many other Annals papers), but that's not the only thing he did. Did his Fields citation even mention his early work on composition laws?
Among the 21st Century Fields Medalists, only Lafforgue, Voevodsky, Perelman, Ngo, and Scholze are unquestionably deserving. The rest are just fillers.
About MB, I don't find his work on higher composition laws terribly exciting either (though I could say the same about the subject of many other Annals papers), but that's not the only thing he did. Did his Fields citation even mention his early work on composition laws?Among the 21st Century Fields Medalists, only Lafforgue, Voevodsky, Perelman, Ngo, and Scholze are unquestionably deserving. The rest are just fillers.
What about Tao?
About MB, I don't find his work on higher composition laws terribly exciting either (though I could say the same about the subject of many other Annals papers), but that's not the only thing he did. Did his Fields citation even mention his early work on composition laws?Among the 21st Century Fields Medalists, only Lafforgue, Voevodsky, Perelman, Ngo, and Scholze are unquestionably deserving. The rest are just fillers.
List at least one mathematician clearly more deserving than one of the 21st century winners (who'd have qualified at time of the award), and give your reasoning as to why.
About MB, I don't find his work on higher composition laws terribly exciting either (though I could say the same about the subject of many other Annals papers), but that's not the only thing he did. Did his Fields citation even mention his early work on composition laws?Among the 21st Century Fields Medalists, only Lafforgue, Voevodsky, Perelman, Ngo, and Scholze are unquestionably deserving. The rest are just fillers.
List at least one mathematician clearly more deserving than one of the 21st century winners (who'd have qualified at time of the award), and give your reasoning as to why.
Jacob Lurie
About MB, I don't find his work on higher composition laws terribly exciting either (though I could say the same about the subject of many other Annals papers), but that's not the only thing he did. Did his Fields citation even mention his early work on composition laws?
Among the 21st Century Fields Medalists, only Lafforgue, Voevodsky, Perelman, Ngo, and Scholze are unquestionably deserving. The rest are just fillers.
List at least one mathematician clearly more deserving than one of the 21st century winners (who'd have qualified at time of the award), and give your reasoning as to why.
Jacob Lurie
Why? And who would he have been more deserving than?
XJMR is a community website that relies on advertising to keep it running. We'll love you forever if you unblock.