<p>I thought it was 2nd or 3rd, Uchicago being the first, and Cambridge being the second.
But then, I saw this wikipedia page
List</a> of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>It says we have 97 over 88 (Cambridge) over 85 (Uchicago)</p>
<p>Is this the right stat?</p>
<ul>
<li>Oh well this says by affiliation but does that mean I can go around ppl and say Columbia has the most nobel laureates?</li>
</ul>
<p>ragna</p>
<p>if we use the same standards then yes columbia has the most nobel laureates affiliated than any other institution.</p>
<p>why does the number differ? uchicago and cambirdge use ‘all affiliates,’ including someone that might have just been a visiting scholar for a year. that number gives uchicago 85. but if we did that number for columbia, it would be 97.</p>
<p>if you go to columbia’s site, the school uses affiliates that have been at the school for over a year. that gives them 78. if uchicago or cambridge were to use the same standard they would have fewer nobel laureates than columbia.</p>
<p>then there is the question of who has the most nobel laureates at the time of the award. i believe harvard has the most here, cambridge second, and columbia is a bit further down.</p>
<p>then there is the question who has had the most nobel laureates graduate from their university. cambridge is first, harvard second, columbia third.</p>
<p>uchicago is a great school, but there is no measure in which uchicago has more laureates than other schools. even the measure that uchicago itself uses.</p>
<p>but the names that continue to reappear in all versions of the nobel list are columbia, cambridge and harvard.</p>
<p>The numerical count for Columbia University appears to be fictional and not based upon any official records or any official reference that could be relied upon for evidence. </p>
<p>By Columbia University’s own admission on their own official websites, they only have 72 total number of Nobel Prize winners of which only 38 were produced. The criterions given failed to comport to any recognized standard, including those followed by Columbia University. When you hear of unofficial numbers, get suspicious.</p>
<p>Cambridge University, on the other hand, has an official record of 88 total number of Nobel Prize winner affiliates (most in the world) of which 79 were produced (most in the world). The University of Chicago has an official total of 85 Nobel Prize winner affiliates (2nd in the world) of which a paltry 24 were produced. </p>
<p>Apparently, Columbia University and Chicago University seem to suffer from relative anonymity as compared to internationally famous institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, London, Gottingen, and Heidelberg, and from nationally recognized institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT. Columbia and Chicago’s almost complete lack of famous alumni in every field, let alone complete lack of world leaders are the primary reasons for their relative anonymity. And until this changes, both Columbia and Chicago will continue to suffer from this form of misfortune.</p>
<p>^^ There goes the British dual inferiority/superiority complex again. The only reason that Cambridge has as many Nobels as it does is because Europe has practically no good universities, so pretty much all European scholars flood to Cambridge/Oxford. I wouldn’t say it’s a success of Cambridge as much as it’s a failure of European universities in general. In comparison, the Nobel counts of Chicago/Columbia are much more impressive since these institutions have to fight with Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech for the best.</p>
<p>Oh, and it does appear that Columbia has the most Nobel Prizes. However, it’s notable that Harvard is very conservative in its counting, and if Harvard actually counted like Columbia/Chicago does, it would beat everyone by a sizable margin.</p>
<p>damn, i never thought it would be so difficult to become famous! apparently barack obama and vikram pandit, in my humble opinion some of the world’s most famous people in politics and finance, count for nothing…oh, and we have james franco!</p>
<p>Just to be clear, for everyone reading this thread: dude1000 is spewing absolute ********. Everyone listed on Columbia’s site won a Nobel Prize; you can search their names on the Nobel Prize site if you’re that paranoid/insecure.</p>
<p>[Columbia's</a> Nobel Laureates | Columbia University in the City of New York](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/content/nobel-laureates.html]Columbia’s”>Columbia's Nobel Laureates | Columbia University in the City of New York)
[Nobelprize.org:</a> search](<a href=“http://search.nobelprize.org/search/nobel/?&i=en]Nobelprize.org:”>http://search.nobelprize.org/search/nobel/?&i=en)</p>
<p>Gottingen, and Heidelberg are ‘internationally recognised’ while Harvard and Yale are ‘nationally recognised’, MEGALOL. </p>
<p>Have to mention, however, that it’s true that U Chicago suffers from relative anonymity; it’s very well known in academic circles, but the same not goes for average Joe. I assume this is a result of the name itself: ‘University of Chicago’ is everything but appealing. The same goes to Penn. If the name would be, say, Eric Cartman University, a way more people would know about it. Not that it’s a terrible problem for Chicago, nevertheless it’s true.</p>
<p>Not only is the # Nobels a completely useless metric because of how narrow and rare it is, but it’s not even a legitimate measure because the award itself wasn’t always so legitimate. When the Nobel was first established, its prestige was predicated largely on whom its awards went to, and so whether or not there were others who were more deserving of a Nobel, if they didn’t go to one of the established, prestigious universities, they weren’t likely to get it. If the committee gave it to non-prestigious universities, it would have undermined the prestige of the award itself.</p>
<p>In the early 1900s in the US, Columbia was definitely considered to be at the very tippy top - probably second only to Harvard. It’s natural that Cambridge (which has long been strong in the sciences, more so than Oxford), Harvard, and Columbia would have a particularly high advantage in Nobels.</p>
<p>But even looking at more recent Nobels is still pointless, so there’s no point in getting into arguments over “official” counts.</p>
<p>Geek1000’ comment does not only appear fictional, it is fictional and
borderring the libelous. Considerring that Cambridge was founded 545 years earlier and Harvard 19 years earlier than Columbia, Columbia’s record of Nobel Laureates is quite phenomenal. Wikipedia’s List is clearly a best effort at accuracy. Dude was wrong in not knowing that Columbia had the “Manhattan Project”, that Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Barrack Obama attended Columbia, that Warren Buffett and Benjamin Gim attended Columbia, and the list goes on of renown world leaders in government, science, business, the arts, letters, and other fields. Oh yes, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Jay and Alexander Hamilton went to Columbia. So dude, you are truly just a dude and a dud at that!</p>
<p>‘Considerring that Cambridge was founded 545 years earlier and Harvard 19 years earlier than Columbia’</p>
<p>Harvard is indeed 118 years older than Columbia, and Cambridge was founded in 1209, but that’s hardly a factor when it comes to Nobel prizes, as the first one was awarded in 1901…sure, the age of the university can be an important factor as older universities had more time to gather wealth and establish an educational system that produces geniuses, but it is not everything. (Just as endowments; there are many US schools with enormous endowments (Notre Dame and Virginia come to mind) that perform quite poorly when it comes to international rankings). The ‘List of oldest universities in continuous operation’ (univs founded between the stone age and 1500) where Oxford and Cambridge comes as 2nd and 3rd respectively, features more than three dozen universities, yet only the mentioned two belongs to the list of super-elite institutions. In the US, while it is generally true that a large part of the old colonial colleges form the ivy League (save Cornell), the second oldest university is the College of William and Mary, which is an excellent institution, but hardly on pair with the ones as Brown or Penn. </p>
<p>That is not correct. Columbia generally is considered to have the most Nobel affiliates of any institution in the
world. Yes there are different ranking, but each school is ranked in the exact same manner for each ranking. There are rankings for graduates only, professors only, affiliates only, etc. Harvard has a high number because many researchers end their careers at Harvard and or teach one course and are then considered "Harvard affiliated winners.’ For the record, Columbia’s official number is now 102 including the College graduate Barack Obama.</p>
<p>LOL. Columbia has the most Nobel affiliates in the world, now at 102, including the current US president</p>