I agree. If you look at what a mathematician does they sit around and think. You don't have that sort of luxury if you are from a poor family and have to worry about basic survival. In many cases (not all) the people that complete major accomplishment X at young age Y is from an upper middle class to upper class family with lots of life advantages. Not everyone have these advantages early in life and may eventually get to those positions due to their talents, but it may take them longer given their life situations. There are poor but extremely talented underrepresented people out there the world may never know. We tend to celebrate talent from the elite class, not the poor. The elite are given resources they need to succeed, the poor are often overlooked. This can cause a major talent drain from truly exceptional but unknown folks in the world.
Is this a problem only in countries where you have to pay a lot to study? I did not had to pay for my higher education and the people that had a high talent and potentials achieved good results, there was no need to work to make money for studying and if you are good you got positions at University or get jobs at high paying companies.
In countries like the US it starts at birth. Families in rich areas will send their children to elite, selective high schools that cost upward $30,000+. Some of these schools have strong math and science curriculum and are considered direct feeders to elite universities, such as the ivies. These poorer kids could be high IQ'd just like the richer ones, but with less access to resources, may be very behind their richer peers. These richer kids will get into the elite schools, while the poor kids may go to lower end ones or not go to colleges at all. Rich parents can hire their children SAT tutors, ensure their children go to good STEM schools, have various college prep resources for their children, while the poor parents don't know anything about college, sent their children to lesser high schools, and have children that may be just as bright, but essentially ones that have no chance to be admitted to the places they otherwise might have gotten into. College admissions at elite colleges favor children from the elite that had the resources to prepare their children for such pedigree. There are exceptions to the rule, but many poor families face deep struggle. This is regardless of however high IQ'd their children may be.
I agree with all of this, but don't see what it has to do with age. The best 50-year-old mathematicians also heavily tend to come from privileged backgrounds. Privileged upbringing is simply one required component of what it takes to be among the best mathematicians of your generation.
I think this rule is just wrong. Some mathematicians come from privilege, some do not. Even for the ones who do, it's rare that they come from _great_ privilege for the time. They are the children of mayors, not kings -- professors and engineers, not the financial aristocracy.
Now it seems you're moving the goalposts on what counts as privilege. Do you have any quantitatively backed reason to believe Fields medallists are more likely to come from the financial aristocracy than say Abel prize winners?
I don’t have access to a biography of all the Field’s medalists. I am simply pointing out that there is a wide distribution of financial privilege in a list of famous mathematicians that I did not choose. I would argue this is unexceptional, but I point it out because I have trouble with the hypothesis that one must come from privilege to get anywhere in math. If anything I should be asking for the quantitative proof of the hypothesis.
