кто-нибудь из математиков может прокомментировать?

[oder_k]

Перельман: два месяца спустя 
Интервью с Людвигом Фаддеевым 

В Америке приглашение с докладом на конгресс - это сразу повод удвоить ученому зарплату. А у нас никто и не заметит. Правда, в этот раз и мы сами совершили ошибку: не послали список докладчиков, которых рекомендуем пригласить. Прежде этого было делать нельзя, во избежание давления, а сейчас правила вдруг изменились. 

http://www.polit.ru/science/2006/10/16/kongress.html

Comments

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

I suspect that even a Fields medal does not double the salary unless the recipient is very agressive in negotiating.

[sowa.livejournal.com]

Normally, a Fields medalist is already a full professor at a good place (Perelman is the only exception). Moreover, he is already recognized as an outstanding mathematician. This implies a salary at least over 100K, more likely over 120-130K. Given that almost no mathematician has a salary over 200K (apparently, only few administrators do), this leaves no room for the doubling. Rather, one can negotiate some other things, like a reduced teaching load or a position for the wife, especially if she is a sort of a mathematician herself (can teach calculus at the very least).

One can double the salary in one situation: move from Europe to the USA. Actually, there is no need to be a Fields medalist for this. And, of course, if you move from Russia to Europe or to the USA, you salary is going to be multiplied by a much bigger factor.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

I've heard about a couple people (mathematicians) who were supposedly making >200k. One of them was a Fields winner though.

[sowa.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it is possible to know such things for sure. The published data show that there are such people, very few. Even if somebody has a salary >200K, it does not mean that the salary was doubled after the Fields medal, or at any particular moment.

Anyhow, Faddeev statement has no basis in reality. Perhaps, he regrets that his salary wasn't doubled after his 2002 talk. Rather strange talk, actually - nothing really new or interesting. Some people are invited definitely on the basis of political considerations. A pessimistic estimate is that half of the talks goes to undeserving people. I myself believe that it substantially less than half. :)

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

There were some rumours, although, of course, nothing is certain.
In any case, as you said, they were probably getting a sizeable salary before, so doubling is highly doubtful.

I tend to be pessimistic about such things as politics of prizes, etc...

[sowa.livejournal.com]

I am rather pessimistic too. Actually, I believe that up to 1986 the Fields medals were always awarded to deserving people, although not to all deserving people. Faddeev personally messed up the whole thing in 1990. By 2002 the system managed to recover, almost. One outstanding candidate was not awarded a medal because his birthday was 3 week earlier than allowed by the rules formally adopted in 1994. This year is a total disaster. In addition to the Perelman farce, they awarded a medal for the ideas of that passed over in 2002 candidate to another guy, with incomparably less original contributions, but younger.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

The 40-year age limit for the highest award in mathematics is a bit silly.
Especially, considering that Fields put no such condition explicitly.

[sowa.livejournal.com]

It is not "a bit silly", it is extremely stupid and unfair. It gives a 4-years advantage to persons born in the year of a congress, compared to the persons born in the previous year. O. Schramm could not get a medal in 2002, because he was born at December 11, 1961. Being born on January 1, 1962 would allow him to get a medal.