<p>Ok, ok, I hyperbolized the grad students part, but the overall message is still correct. Sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary - and LadyLou threw out a lot of exaggerations about Princeton classes being taught by grad student TAs, so I felt it necessary to counter.</p>
<p>Not to forget that Harvard has the largest no of Nobel Laureates.
In fact Cambridge's 16 Nobel laureates look pretty small in front of Harvard's 26. Even MIT's has had 17 Nobel laureates, Oxford 9.</p>
<p>Nice to see you back, Abhi my friend :)
I am afraid, however, that you seem a bit confused. In fact, Cambridge has won more Nobel laureates than any other university, I think the number is 81, look it up on wiki.</p>
<p>I don't think Wikipedia is credible enough, dear friend.
I would go with what the Official</a> Web Site of the Nobel Foundation says.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is totally correct. You are looking at the nobel laureates who were affiliated with a certain university at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. So, if you, my dear friend, were to go to Harvard and later to the Bangladesh state university and won a Nobel Prize, the site you cited would not indicate Harvard, but Bangladesh state university - you see :)</p>
<p>There are probably several things that might bother you about Oxbridge, but it's certainly not the number of Nobel Laureates. From Wikipedia:
[quote]
Historically, the university has produced a significant proportion of Britain’s prominent scientists, writers and politicians. Officially, affiliates of Cambridge University have won a total of 81 Nobel Prizes [12], more than any other university in the world[13] and more than any country in the world except the United Kingdom and the United States. Seventy of these Nobel Laureates also attended Cambridge as undergraduate or graduate students. In addition, there are at least five Nobel Laureates who taught or researched for at least one academic year at Cambridge that have not been recognized by the official total.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find quoting wikipedia to be quiet funny.
That's a generous way for calculating no of noble laureates. "affiliates" is a vague word. The most credible source is Noble foundation according to which Harvard rules.</p>
<p>Abhi, you are really misinformed. It is generally known that Cambridge alumni have won most Nobel Laureates. If you don't accept Wikipedia, then I'll give you the official Cambridge site: <a href="http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html</a>.
It is usual to count the # of Nobel Laureates by affiliates. Anything else would be absurd. BTW, Harvard has won forty-three NL: <a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/faculty/fac6.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/faculty/fac6.html</a></p>
<p>BTW, affiliates mean alumni in general: people who have studied at Cambridge, that is.</p>
<p>From Wikipedia itself(i still maintain that Wikipedia shouldn't be quoted ):
[quote]
For the purpose of this ranking, "affiliation" is defined by the broadest possible terms to avoid any discussion on the parameters of an affiliation. Therefore, an affiliate is a Nobel laureate who can be classified as attendee, graduate, researcher or faculty at or of the respective institution. Laureates who qualify for several categories are only counted once.
[/quote]
Even if you studied at some community college for 2 years and then did all of your research and graduate work at Cambridge, that community college could claim a Nobel laureate.</p>
<p>I seriously don't think that we should take what Cambridge says about itself seriously. It would be more sensible to go with what Noble foundation says.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I seriously don't think that we should take what Cambridge says about itself seriously. It would be more sensible to go with what Noble foundation says.
[/quote]
Rofl. I think we can trust me, really :). You'll see on their site that almost everybody on their list was an undergraduate or graduate student.</p>
<p>Really, the number of Nobel Laureates is counted using affiliates: it's the most sensible way. It's the way it is generally done. Anything else is absurd: if some guy enjoyed education at Cambridge and went on to teach at some unknown university and wins the Nobel Prize, then it is sensible to mention his Cambridge education, isn't it.</p>
<p>Anyway, think what you want, nobody will care anyway.
[quote]
Even if you studied at some community college for 2 years and then did all of your research and graduate work at Cambridge, that community college could claim a Nobel laureate.
[/quote]
No, it would be the community college <em>and</em> Cambridge. Point made. As I said, however, most people on Cambridge's list actually studied there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rofl. I think we can trust me, really . You'll see on their site that almost everybody on their list was an undergraduate or graduate student.
[/quote]
Sorry, I can't see that. University of Chicago claims 79 Noble laureates but no one takes that seriously.
[quote]
Really, the number of Nobel Laureates is counted using affiliates: it's the most sensible way. It's the way it is generally done. Anything else is absurd: if some guy enjoyed education at Cambridge and went on to teach at some unknown university and wins the Nobel Prize, then it is sensible to mention his Cambridge education, isn't it.
[/quote]
Few Points
1. Noble prize is given for research with the exception for literature. I think that unknown university should get credit for helping the laureate with his research.
2. If you are going with what wikipedia says then it's of no use for us. We are more concerned with the number of Noble Laureates who would teach us. A Noble laureate who attended Cambridge for a year and then went to University of Antarctica would be of no use to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We are more concerned with the number of Noble Laureates who would teach us
[/quote]
Not really. We are concerned with the number of Noble Laureates an institution has produced, since this is an indication of quality.</p>
<p>Anyway, I have made my point. You've made yours. I think that's enough.</p>
<p>I think the count of Noble Laureates is overrated.</p>
<p>BTW Abhi, I have found this page quite useful:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_laureates_by_university_affiliation%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_laureates_by_university_affiliation</a></p>
<p>It's from Wikipedia, but I don't think they're lying (why do you distrust Wiki anyway). What I think is good about it is that it shows whether these "affiliates" were actually students or just served as faculty, etc.
You'll notice that at Cambridge, they all got their degree from it.</p>
<p>Look carefully, friend. The data for Cambridge hasn't been classified yet. Take Andrew Fire for example; he was only a research fellow at Cambridge, yet he is included in the count. So is the case with Paul Greengard and many other laureates.</p>
<p>Gerard Debreu, Sydney Brenner, Joseph E. Stiglitz are included in the count but their page on wiki doesn't states anything about their affiliation with Cambridge. All of these three didn't went to Cambridge for their UG, PG, and even Phd.</p>
<p>Majority of these people don't even teach at Cambridge.</p>
<p>I don't know much about other laureates but these counts are heavily inflated.</p>
<p>Ok, you may be right there. I didn't check all of them. Anyway, the counts are similarly inflated for the other universities, you will surely agree. Secondly, do you really think it is wise to count the number of Nobel Laureates using the time of the announcement? I mean, you must admit that this doesn't really show anything. Maybe affiliation isn't so good either, but I guess it's the "best" way.</p>
<p>"Secondly, do you really think it is wise to count the number of Nobel Laureates using the time of the announcement?"</p>
<p>Yes, because it's an indication of quality of post-doctoral research- in which oxbridges fares quiet well. It also tells which institution has the highest number of Noble laureates, currently.</p>
<p>Nonetheless choosing a college based on the number of Noble laureates isn't a good idea, at least at undergrad level; And Noble laureates aren't necessarily a good teachers.</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about Noble laureates, but Nobel laureate counts aren't too important at the undergraduate level, I agree. Save a few exceptions (Wolfgang Ketterle teaches undergrads physics at MIT, for example), undergrads won't be too concerned with the Nobel-winning faculty, and Nobel-quality research is not an indicator of teaching skill. (Actually, most of the truly brilliant researchers I have met -- and I have met some! -- would be horrendous teachers.)</p>
<p>The coolest thing about MIT is that a lot of TA's there are Noble laurates.</p>
<p>Sorry to bring up this old thread again, but I just wanted to point out: I just found out that I was accepted to Princeton.
Ah, I find it so hard to turn down colleges. I love them just for accepting me. Well, I already made my decision; sorry Princeton!</p>