<p>But say, Duke has done better at Putnam then MIT. Does that mean Duke has better math students? No, it doesn't. </p>
<p>Sakky is definitely winning this one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is 31 vs 17
31 Harvard Alumni won Nobel Prize in Natural Sciences
17 MIT Alumni won Nobel in Natural Sciences
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK, fine. since I had some time today, I decided to use the link that you gave me, reprinted here:</p>
<p>I went through all of Harvard's Nobel winners in the 'graduate' category. I eliminated all of the Nobel Prize winners in Peace, Literature, and Economics, as these obviously have nothing to do with natural science.</p>
<p>I also personally think it's highly unfair to count Nobel'ers whose Harvard affiliation is from Harvard Medical School. That's just punishing MIT for not having a medical school. Note, I include people who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine, just not those who only student affiliation with Harvard is the Harvard MD. After all, nobody is disputing that Harvard Medical School is a great medical school, so if you want to go to Harvard Medical School instead of MIT, nobody will fault you. But that's not what the point of contention is. The point of contention is whether studying Harvard really is better than studying at MIT in a non-med-school capacity. </p>
<p>So that leaves, for Harvard:</p>
<p>Varmus, van Vleck, Wilson, Stein, Purcell, Mottelson, Minot, Lee, Knowles, Karle, Hoffman, Herschbach, Gilbert, Glasgow, Enders, Cram, Curl, Bridgman, Anderson, Anfinsen. That's a total of ** 20 **</p>
<p>Why are some others not on this list:</p>
<p>Richard Roberts - misclassified. He did his postdoc at Harvard, but his undergrad and grad were done at the University of Sheffield.</p>
<p>Robert Curl - also misclassified. His undergrad was at Rice, his PhD at Berkeley. His postdoc was at Harvard, but that doesn't really count as 'graduating' from Harvard. </p>
<p>Murray, Murphy, Robbins, Thomas, Weller - all got only MD's from Harvard Medical School, with no other degree affiliation with Harvard. </p>
<p>Then I did the same for MIT, and I get - Shockley, Woodward, Feynman, Mulliken, Gell-man, Schrieffer, Richter, Pedersen, Altman, Corey, Kendall, Phillips, Laughlin, Hartwell, Wieman, Cornell, Horvitz - total of ** 17 **</p>
<p>Now, if you think I've screwed up the analysis, you can do it yourself. The links are given. Go through all of the data and tell me how many Harvard alumni Nobel science winners there are vs. how many MIT winners. </p>
<p>So really, it's a case of 20 vs. 17, or if you absolutely insist on including the Harvard MD's, 25 vs. 17. I don't think this is a large difference at all. In particular, I don't think it is a large difference when you consider the fact that Harvard alumni had been picking up quite a few Nobels in the first half of the 1900's, whereas MIT alumni didn't start getting any until the 1950's. That's because MIT was still a young and weak school in the early 1900's. Keep in mind that MIT was founded only in 1861, and it generally takes a few generations for any school to mature. Similarly, Stanford, another young school, didn't start winning Nobels until the 1960's or so. </p>
<p>Hence the fact that Harvard had a signiificant head start on MIT, yet has only won 3 more science Nobel's is insignificant to me. </p>
<p>
[quote]
of times Harvard Math team won Putnam Math competition = 25</p>
<h1>of times MIT math team won Putnam Math Competition =5</h1>
<p>(as of 2005)
It is 25 vs 5 and I don't think it is comparable...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, we all agree that Harvard is very good at Putnam. So if you want to go to win the Putnam, maybe you should choose Harvard over MIT.</p>
<p>However, I would like to hear your answer as to why the MIT math department is ranked higher than Harvard's? Why is that?</p>
<p>you have too much time on your hands</p>
<p>Sakky,
MIT's math department is not ranked higher... they are pretty much equal... I have seen rankings put one school one spot higher than the other and vice versa... but certainly no consensus that one is better than the other...
And certainly, small differences in rankings are INSIGNIFICANT.
So unless you can show convincing evidence across different, independent rankings that MIT ranks higher than Harvard in math in a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT way, then I think you must agree that they are effectively EQUAL.</p>
<p>Sakky just dominated his opponent. </p>
<p>Citations, indeed. Impressive.</p>
<p>Amazing how my simple question turned out like this. (I the OP).</p>
<p>Just amazing.......</p>
<p>I think I will do Engineering Sciences (Bachelor of Science) with Biomed Tract. Of course, I will take someclass at MIT after freshmen year to spice my life up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky,
MIT's math department is not ranked higher... they are pretty much equal... I have seen rankings put one school one spot higher than the other and vice versa... but certainly no consensus that one is better than the other...
And certainly, small differences in rankings are INSIGNIFICANT.
So unless you can show convincing evidence across different, independent rankings that MIT ranks higher than Harvard in math in a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT way, then I think you must agree that they are effectively EQUAL.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that has been my precise point through this whole point. Go through this whole thread. You will see that I have been disputing mdx49's claim that Harvard math is clealy better than MIT math. He claims that Harvard is clearly better. I have been claiming that they are effectively the same. </p>
<p>Maybe you should be on my side to help me with mdx49.</p>
<p>I see that I have neglected 3 Harvard Nobels - Horvitz, Ted Richards, and Sumner. Allright, fine, so that's a total of 23. Still, 23 vs. 17 isn't exactly a compelling difference to me. I checked the rest of my work and it looks OK. </p>
<p>This is especially so when, like I said before, Harvard had been winning plenty of Nobels before MIT even really got started. For example, consider some of the years won of some of the Harvard winners:</p>
<p>Bridgemen - 1946
Enders - 1954
Minot - 1932
Purcell - 1952
Theodore Richards - 1914
Sumner - 1946</p>
<p>Yet no MIT alumni won any Nobels until 1956 (Shockley). And, like I said, MIT alumni didn't really start picking up Nobels until the mid 60's or later. But that makes perfect sense when you consider that MIT never really became a truly elite school until the post-war period. </p>
<p>The point is, before the MIT alums had even really started putting a serious team on the field, Harvard had already run up a 6-0 lead. Yet since that time, MIT has been able to match Harvard measure-for-measure. I certainly agree that Harvard was a far better science school than MIT in the early 1900's. But that's not relevant now. The relevant question is, who is better now? From what the evidence says, it seems to me that this is an even match.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I see that I have neglected 3 Harvard Nobels - Horvitz, Ted Richards, and Sumner. Allright, fine, so that's a total of 23. Still, 23 vs. 17 isn't exactly a compelling difference to me.
...
if you absolutely insist on including the Harvard MD's,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes you neglected 3 AND </p>
<p>You also forgot 3 additional 2005 Nobel Winners</p>
<p>Roy Jay Glauber Physics <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Glauber%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Glauber</a>
Richard Royce Schrock <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Schrock%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Schrock</a>
H. David Politzer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._David_Politzer%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._David_Politzer</a></p>
<p>And I insist on including MDs
The total now becomes 23 + 3 + 5(MD's) = 31 Nobel Winners in Natural Sciences as I said first place....</p>
<p>I think 31 vs 17 is a compelling difference</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the best way to figure it out is to ask a simple question - what is accredited? Is Applied Physics at Harvard accredited by ABET? No? Then it is not a real engineering degee. Is Aero/Astro accredited by ABET? Yes? Then it is a real engineering degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It does not have to be accredited by ABET to be an Engineering Program. ABET is an "voluntary" process and not all engineering programs have to be accredited by ABET.</p>
<p>Is there any documents that show an Engineering program must be accredited by ABET ? Show me..</p>
<p>Master of "ENGINEERING" in Applied Physics (or Applied Math) from Harvard is an Engineering degree. Why does harvard awards master of "ENGINEERING" in Applied Physics if Applied Physics is not an engineering discipline ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I insist on including MDs
The total now becomes 23 + 3 + 5(MD's) = 31 Nobel Winners in Natural Sciences as I said first place....</p>
<p>I think 31 vs 17 is a compelling difference
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So we're back to punishing MIT for not having a med-school?</p>
<p>And also, you're choosing to ignore my point that Harvard had a head-start on MIT? </p>
<p>I see from Wikipedia that the top university in terms of Nobel graduates was Cambridge University. I don't think I want to count how many Cambridge grads were science grads, but I out of the 70 that are credited, I think that probably at least 50 of them will check out to be science grads. So 50> 31. So are you now going to take the position that Cambridge is better than Harvard at science? Heck, why not - it's the same logic. I would like to see you go around arguing with the same intensity that you have shown here that Cambridge is better than Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It does not have to be accredited by ABET to be an Engineering Program. ABET is an "voluntary" process and not all engineering programs have to be accredited by ABET.</p>
<p>Is there any documents that show an Engineering program must be accredited by ABET ? Show me..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If it's a voluntary process and nobody really needs it, then why did Harvard waste time accrediting its various SB programs? Is Harvard being stupid in wasting time getting something that nobody really cares about? Go ahead and say it - you think that Harvard was stupidly wasted its time in getting some of its programs accredited.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Master of "ENGINEERING" in Applied Physics (or Applied Math) from Harvard is an Engineering degree. Why does harvard awards master of "ENGINEERING" in Applied Physics if Applied Physics is not an engineering discipline ?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The same reason that lots of degrees are misnamed. For example, Harvard actually grants Master of Arts (AM) degrees in Physics. It does not grant Master of Science degees in Physics. Does that mean that Physics is not a science, but rather an "art"? </p>
<p>The same is true for all of Harvard's science programs. If they award master's degrees (many don't), then what they will award is the Master of Arts. For example, you can get an AM in Chemistry at Harvard. Is that an "art"? Is Biology an "Art"?</p>
<p>But according to you, if a Master of Engineering from Harvard is an engineering degree, then an AM in Physics from Harvard is an "art" degree. After all, if Harvard refuses to grant Master of Science degrees in Physics, then that must mean that Physics is not a science at Harvard, right?</p>
<p>So I now have 2 tasks for you, mdx49. I want you to go around constantly posting that Cambridge is far far better than Harvard in science, because 50>31. Furthermore, I also want you to go around saying that the sciences at Harvard are apparently not sciences at all, but rather arts, because that's what the degree says it is. Please complete these tasks before you return.</p>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I read the whole thread, I'm not kiddin', and so I wanna make sure my move is alright.</p>
<p>Some background info: I'm an IB Student, in a German School, and I'm swiss, lol.</p>
<p>So, talking to my College Advisor, he told me I should try to apply to Harvard U, a year ago, and I tagged along, so now, I've decided.</p>
<p>I'll do my undegrad in BME at Harvard, and my grad at JHU, but I'm not sure if it's a smart move. </p>
<p>Anyways, I wanted to apply go the Early Admissions, even though I won't have my IB grades 'til January '09. Is that ok?</p>
<p>Need some external advising, I'm under-estimating my College Advisor, I just need another point of view.</p>