<p>Number of Nobel Prize winners affiliated with each school, whether as students, staff, or faculty:</p>
<p>1) UChicago - 26
2) MIT - 20
3) Harvard - 18
4) Berkeley - 17
5) Stanford - 16
6) Columbia - 14
7) Yale - 13
8) Princeton - 12
9) London School of Economics - 11
10) Cambridge / Oxford / Carnegie Mellon - 9</p>
<p>Yesssssssssssssss we beat stanford hahahahah in your face you stupid cardinals.</p>
<p>You know, MOST ranking except US news usually ranks Cal in the top 10 of ALL Universities in the world. </p>
<p>Shanghai ranks Berkeley at #2 btw</p>
<p>US news is obviously getting bribed.</p>
<p>Yeah, suck it! haha But I don’t really think US news is getting bribed. It’s just their criteria. I believe US news’ criteria revolves much more around overall undergraduate students well-being than on academic strength. And on that matter we must admit Berkeley is not as personal as other private schools. But if you are independent, you know what you want, and lucky enough not to go through deep personal problems, academics is much more important I think. In fact, at the end of the day if you look at it in terms of prestige, Berkeley is always in the top five.</p>
<p>how much of those Nobel prizes won in the past 25 years or so is more important than the overall tally/scores. When did Chicago win a Nobel for Economics?</p>
<p>^ exactly. Stanford has garnered more Nobels, either in economics or overall, in the last 25 years than Berkeley (and IIRC more than any university, in total Nobels over the last 25 years). Stanford also has more Nobels in econ currently at the university (7). </p>
<p>By the way, Lucyan, I hope you saw my reply to [your</a> post](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1368467-do-stanford-students-ever-study-all.html]your”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1368467-do-stanford-students-ever-study-all.html).</p>
<p>
It’s not Cardinals (birds)…it’s Cardinal (the color, and an unofficial tree).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why 25 years? Why not 20? 30? 5 years? 1 year? 100 years?</p>
<p>How 'bout we look at the <em>quality</em> of the ideas that won the prize?</p>
<p>Okay, look at 20. Look at 10. Look at 30. Whichever you want. I mentioned 25 because the person above me did, and because I had seen a list of Nobels by school in the last 25 years. This was in 2010 I believe, so it would have been 1985-2010. If you want to do a different analysis, feel free. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did mean Cardinal - the color - but in plural form. For example, “Stanford Cardinals suck” would be equivalent to “Stanford vivi-red-colors (which is representative of all students attending Stanford University) suck”.</p>
<p>I find it absolutely outrageous that a respected Cal alumnus such as yourself would attempt to rectify my INSULT directed at STANFORD. Have you lost all loyalty to your alma mater? What the Devil was it that had tricked you into disaffection?! Stanford is our enemy, our oppressor, our tormentor, our Al-Quaeda - it has always been so. For a Cal graduate like you to deny this very simple fact - is to deny the very existence of Cal itself. This an embarrassment to Berkeley - a disgrace to Berkeley, its students, its faculty, Eric Schmidt, and the Obama Administration. Have you no shame?! …Someone banish this traitor before my blood vessels burst of furor.</p>
<p>Lucyan:
░░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░
░░░░░█░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▀▀▄░░░░
░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░░█░░░
░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░█░░
░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░░░░█░
█░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒░█
█░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀▀▀▄▒█
░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░█░░█░
░░█░░░▀▄▀█▄▄░█▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▀▀█▀██░█░░
░░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄████░█░░░
░░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░█▀██████░█░░
░░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄█▄█▄█▄▀░░█░░
░░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░█░░</p>
<p>phantasmagoric:
…________
…,.-’"…<code>~.,
…,.-"…"-.,
…,/…":,
…,?..,
…/…,}
…/…,:^…}
…/…,:"…/
…?..…:.........../ ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:…/
…/(…"~,…"~,…,:........_/ ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} ...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./…/"…/
…,.~,......"~.,....................…}…/
…(…=-,,.......…(…;_,-"
…/.~,......-…/
…~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............=~-,
…=~-,__......,…
…=~-,,.,............................... ................................:,…..............__ .....................................=-,…,%>--==</code> ........................................<em>...........</em>,-%.......
…, </p>
<p>/thread</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,243 </p>
<p>Lucyan
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 34 </p>
<p>oook</p>
<p>They should make the undergrad requirements for the Econ major more difficult. </p>
<p>Force the students to go up to Math 54 and remove the theoretical version core classes and force the mathematical version. Also force some of the mathematical economic electives as core classes and push for more electives. </p>
<p>Major could have its own identity this way instead of being known as Haas rejects.</p>
<p>Cardinal is still plural when referring to furd students.</p>
<p>Lucyan Trolololololololo harder :)</p>
<p>@Ankur1521 I agree. They should at least force the Econ 101 series and math 53-54. I just don’t know if the people at Environmental Econ and Political Economy would appreciate that much since they would become the Haas rejects haha</p>
<p>I am glad Cal has a strong Economics Department but they should have additional classes in economics. My son who really wanted to take a class in economics found all the intro classes full. And as his father, I had hoped Robert Reich (your TV preacher) was not all you had.</p>
<p>Ankur1521, you don’t have to do that. My wife is a Cal alum and graduated with a degree in economics. she had a hard time at econ. she said the courses were extremely difficult. </p>
<p>if you want to further upgrade the standard of econ at Cal, I’d say Cal should lower its admit rate to not over 12%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As great of a university as Stanford is, they probably have one of the worst university logos i’ve ever seen (a tree, really??) It’s only marginally better than Vanderbilt’s. (an acorn, idem)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Basically…</p>