I don't think this article is arguing that the Fields medal should imitate the Nobel prize. Rather, it argues that the Fields medal should return to its early selection criteria: mathematicians who have
1. done good work,
2. look like they will do more good work/positively impact math, and
3. would find the Fields medal's recognition and prestige useful in doing future good work (e.g. in getting them collaborators or funding)
The article argues that the <=40 cutoff is a poor proxy for points 2 and 3, and also seems to make a separate point that the habit of awarding mathematicians who are already professors at top institutions means point 3 may not be addressed well either.
An example of the kind of person this might help is Yitang Zhang, who made substantial progress on the Twin Primes conjecture in his 50s after a relatively quiet math career as an untenured lecturer beforehand. Granted, his result was big enough to get him a MacArthur and a professorship at his university, so he may not need extra recognition. But perhaps there are similar, less-lauded cases.
The article argues that the <=40 cutoff is a poor proxy for points 2 and 3, and also seems to make a separate point that the habit of awarding mathematicians who are already professors at top institutions means point 3 may not be addressed well either.
An example of the kind of person this might help is Yitang Zhang, who made substantial progress on the Twin Primes conjecture in his 50s after a relatively quiet math career as an untenured lecturer beforehand. Granted, his result was big enough to get him a MacArthur and a professorship at his university, so he may not need extra recognition. But perhaps there are similar, less-lauded cases.