Nobel Prize winners

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Perhaps, but do you want to be someplace that has them on the permanent faculty or that had them be visitors for a year or two?</p>

<p>And wouldn't you rather have some place with a reputation for training Laureates? That's why Cambridge's run, especially before the first three quarters of the 20th century was so impressive. Lots of profs and grads.</p>

<p>Ditto for Chicago Econ. I have immense admiration for Chicago, which is why I am puzzled that they see a need to puff up their extremely impressive record with dubious links.</p>

22

<p>"do you want to be someplace that has them on the permanent faculty...And wouldn't you rather have some place with a reputation for training Laureates?"</p>

<p>Both, and that's why I go to Berkeley:)</p>

23

<p>I took undergraduate courses from two professors who later went on to win Nobel Prizes.</p>

<p>One was a great lecturer. The other stunk, big-time.</p>

<p>Neither of them knew who I was.</p>

<p>Other than that I can now say I took a course from someone who won a Nobel Prize, the fact of their "prizeship-to-be" had absolutely no impact on my undergraduate experience one way or the other. Or on my life today.</p>

<p>But go ahead, count away...</p>

24

<p>


Of course. No one relates Nobel Prize to better teaching, they relate it to better research opportunities. Even if he/she has not won when you were there, presumably he/she was still doing some pretty potent, well-recognized work. This a) is indicative of the average level of research at the school, and b) could provide a nice research opportunity for some student(s).</p>

25

<p>I suggest before you get too excited about that prospect, inquire as to how many undergrads are actually working in that guy's lab right now. Then compare that % to the number of undergraduate majors in that feld, to get an idea of your shot.</p>

<p>In my case. I didn't know any undergrads that worked in those labs, but that doesn't mean there weren't any. But these were obviously hot research areas that were highly coveted by the grad students that actually had dibs on these people's time and focus.</p>

<p>The probable relationship between undergrads and these Nobel Laureates is a factor that may vary significantly between schools.</p>

26

<p>^^^So what? One, its just cool to have nobel laureates at your school. I don't care what you say. And two, having a long history of nobel prize winners draws attention and brings in the best and brightest professors, research money, higher quality undergrads, and prestige.</p>

27

<p>


I certainly agree with you here. So yeah comparing direct numbers of Laureates may not be accurate in comparing the chances to work with one. </p>

<p>However, I still feel it's an indication of the level of research that's done at the school, and undergraduate research is becoming both more prevalent and important to college studies. Of course this is only important when comparing schools that have similar undergraduate research programs, but most universities that have Nobel Prize winning faculty do have such programs.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to say that this measure is particularly important, but I do think it can be useful (like most ranking criteria) within a certain context.</p>

28

<p>Wikipedia is not 100% accurate. Michigan for example, which is admittedly not known for Nobel Prize winners, has been affiliated with roughly 25 Nobel Prize winners. Right off the top of my mind, I can think of 17:</p>

<p>STUDENTS:
Stanley Cohen PhD, winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine
Marshall Nirenberg, Ph.D. winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine
Peyton Rous, PhD, winner of Nobel Prize in Medicine
Thomas Weller, A.B. & M.S. winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine
Jerome Karle, Ph.D. winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Richard Smalley, BS - winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Samuel Ting, BS & PhD, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics
David Politzer, BS, physicist, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics </p>

<p>FACULTY:
Joseph Brodsky, Visiting Professor of Literature, winner of Nobel Prize in Literature
Peter Debye, Visiting Professor of Chemistry, winner of Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Enrico Fermi, Visiting Professor of Physics, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics
Donal Glaser, Professor of Physics, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics
Charles Huggins, Medical School Instructor, winner of Nobel Prize in Medicine
Lawrence Klein, Professor of Economics, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics
Wolfgang Pauli, Professor of Physics, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics
Hamilton Smith, Medical Research, winner of Nobel Prize in Medicine
Martinus Veltman, Professor of Physics, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics</p>

<p>I am sure I mised half a dozen here and there.</p>

<p>Overall, it seems like Cal, Caltech, Cambridge, Chicago, Columbia, Harvard and MIT have had the most affiliation with Nobel Prize winners.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
Wikipedia might actually give caltech one too many. It says 31, but on the caltech webite it says they have 30 winners and 31 prizes (I guess someone one twice)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Linus Pauling, who got his PhD from Caltech, won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work on chemical bonds. He then won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end nuclear weapons testing.</p>

30

<p>^^Correct.</p>

<p>In addition to being a scientist of the highest order, Linus Pauling is famous for being the only person to win two UNSHARED Nobel prizes.</p>

<p>FYI: the first person to win two Nobels of any kind, shared or unshared, was not a man but a woman: Marie Curie.</p>

31

<p>There is no direct link between Nobel winners and the undergrad experience but having a Nobel winner on campus has huge spillovers. That person attracts more research money, hot young faculty, interesting visitors and grad students, all of whom might have an impact on undergrad teaching. And of course fund-raising is easier both without and within the university (school more likely to move funds to that group). This can happen with non-winners as well, but winners are a rough proxy for these superstars.</p>

<p>Moreover, the impact might be important even if the lecturer himself stinks. A culture of research makes it easier for an ambitious undergrad to have a glimpse of what constitutes serious research in the area. That is why the "density" of the undergrad program matters. I've seen A or A- students from good state schools or top LACs come to grad school with no clue about what grad work or serious research is really like. Of course those who find the right advisors early do as good a job as the grads from the top privates. For the most part though, all the students from the elite privates have a good idea of grad level research and study by the time they get to the PhD school -- at least in econ.</p>

32

<p>Wisconsin alum John Bardeen was a double winner. UW has 18 total winners, either alums or faculty.</p>

33

<p>"For the most part though, all the students from the elite privates have a good idea of grad level research and study by the time they get to the PhD school -- at least in econ."</p>

<p>Perhaps this is true of the individual students who "make the cut" and get selected into your PhD Econ department.</p>

<p>However I doubt that the masses of econ majors at many of these schools have any connection to research whatsoever. Certainly not at my alma mater. This is apparent by just looking at sheer numbers of econ majors vs. the number of profs. And remember that all these profs. have grad students to do their research. in any event.</p>

<p>None of the econ majors that I personally knew and remember from my own school did any undergrad research, so far as I can now recall.</p>

34

<p>Most undergrads at most schools have nothing to do with research. But in my view this eliminates the advantages of the top research programs for these students. The strengths of the very top programs is the chance to engage in research and see what high level work is like. If you're just treating econ as a general liberal arts degree, one decent school (even well below the top 100) is almost as good as another. This is also why small, intense programs with lots of undergrads doing research (in any field) have a real edge over big state programs where a small percentage of students are interacting with top faculty.</p>

<p>So yes, it doesn't matter for many students. But similarly, college choice doesn't matter much for many students.</p>

35

<p>cambridge, then U of Chicago, then Colombia, then harvard</p>

36

<p>The benefits of the top research programs are primarily allocated to graduate students at the institiutions I am personally familiar with.</p>

<p>The chance to engage in research for most undergraduate students is largely unavailable. It is a chance, but it is not a very good or reasonable chance. There may be some lucky few whose experience is otherwise but this is may be far from typical or expected results at the particular institutions.</p>

<p>In other words, the so-called chance may be more along the lines of the way that winning the lottery is chance. Depending on the school. Expectation of such opportunity would be a poor reason to select the particular institutions I attended, at least.</p>

<p>Which is not to say it definitely wouldn't happen. People get hit by lightning too.</p>

<p>What I was primarlily reacting to was this statement:</p>

<p>"For the most part though, all the students from the elite privates have a good idea of grad level research and study by the time they get to the PhD school -- at least in econ."</p>

<p>which it seems to me is a lot different than this statement:
"Most undergrads at most schools have nothing to do with research. "</p>

37

<p>University of Chicago has the most in USA. See Hazmat's above link.</p>

38

<p>Well Monydad, that's why some of the smaller schools are different. At Caltech and MIT, a very large fraction (often the majority) of students get involved in research with faculty in their undergrad years. The percentages are somewhat lower for other schools, but at some of the elites (and some LACs) the percentages are much better than even some of the best state schools. If this Nobel prize thread has any relevance, it's to those students most likely to want to do research and get involved with faculty as undergraduates. Otherwise, yeah, taking a class from a Nobel laureate or other bigshot is just bragging rights.</p>

39

<p>I agree that schools vary significantly in the likelihood of access to undergraduate research opportunities.</p>

<p>Students who wish to avail themselves of these opportunities, along the lines of what Not <em>quite</em>old has envisioned, would be well advised to do their homework carefully. The mere presence of Nobel prize winners on a particular campus does not completely correlate with one's likelihood of opportunity to do undergraduate research at all. The opportunites really vary by school. In a significant way.</p>

40

<p>One of the things that makes this data a bit ridiculous is that since you're just counting raw numbers, the larger schools are at an advantage. Universities with a medical school are also at an advantage, since the physiology/medicine prize typically goes to people working in a university's med school. Does this make these schools better or mean they have better faculty or more capable students? I don't think so.</p>