Read · 1 min
See Persiflage, Exposition is not underrated. In particular:
I don’t think this issue is really about finding a balance between research and education. It’s about individuals wanting to be rewarded professionally (tenure, salary, etc.) by writing expository articles which neither make a contribution to the corpus of mathematics nor (outside exceptional cases) to the education of the next generation of mathematicians. The language of the debate also seems to ignore the fact that the web is flooded with more expository material than would even have been conceivable thirty years ago, from Wikipedia to MathOverflow to math blogs to online course notes (this is, mostly, a good thing). Many mathematicians have a desire to explain their ideas, and it’s not clear to me that anything profitable can be gained by skewing the incentives. (If you want to argue that teaching should be taken more seriously when it comes to hiring/tenure decisions, that is another debate.) I find myself in agreement with the comment you quote from Dan L: “I also do not believe that your hypothetical “great storytellers of mathematics” really exist, in the sense that I do not believe that a person can achieve that level of mastery over a field without being a successful researcher.”
I view this post as a call to focused action. It means we should think hard about what is likely to be most useful to current and future generations. The context of level and audience are quite important.