<p>This shows how Nobel winner counts by schools can be so unfair.</p>
<p>Northwestern’s claim on this Nobel Prize is no more valid than U of C’s (and perhaps other schools as well) , because (1) “much” – but not “all” – of Meyerson’s work on mechanism design was done at Northwestern, which means that “much” – if not “most” – was done somewhere else, and (2) Meyerson left Northwestern 6 years ago!</p>
<p>All this does is show that it is unfair for ANY institution to lay claim on what is actually an award given to an individual (or individuals, as in this particular case). Particularly in fields like economics and sciences, the Nobel prize is given for a body of work – work that takes years to develop – and not just for a single experiment or published paper. And during that time, the recipient may have moved from place to place.</p>
<p>I do agree with you that Nobel winner counts by schools are “unfair.” I also think they are “totally bogus.”</p>
<p>
[quote]
because (1) “much” – but not “all” – of Meyerson’s work on mechanism design was done at Northwestern, which means that “much” – if not “most” – was done somewhere else, and (2) Meyerson left Northwestern 6 years ago!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, much doesn't mean "all". But "much at Northwestern" means "not much somewhere else". He was at NU for TWENTY-FIVE years! He started at NU right after he got his PhD. So that leaves you <em>nowhere else</em> unless much of that work was done as his PhD thesis which is very unlikely. Yes, he left NU 6 years ago and so? It's not like he left 30 years ago! Nobel awards often come years after the winning research was published and I bet his winning-research was published well before he left NU. I don't think people publish a paper and get Nobel the next year or even few years after! It takes time for people to see the influence of the work. Oh, I guess Peace prize is an exception. LOL!</p>