<p>
</p>
<p>You have any data to support that theory?</p>
<p>The data is that Harvard College produces more Nobel prize winners than any other school. I listed several possible explanations–and a superior education is one possibility. Which explanation do you like?</p>
<p>Considering more recent Nobel prize winners…I got the picture that lots of noise can produce more results than real substance. For me as well as many around me, Noble prize became indication of something that has nothing to do with accomplishments.<br>
But in regard to numbers, well, if you select the best out of the cream of crop that apply, then is not it indication of applicant pool, much more than UG teaching. And if you consider UG teaching, Harvard is NOT #1 in this ranking, but nobody pays atention to this ranking at all. It almost feels like everybody is considering Graduate School while applying to UG. Well, everybody is free to consider whatever…Harvard or local college, sometime this decision is NOT based on student scores, hard work and statistics, it is based on something else.</p>
<p>It’s likely that connections help a great deal in getting serious funding for one’s pet projects, and one cannot win a Nobel without having had previous research funded. Except for that silly Peace Prize, where they seem to throw a slew of famous names in a hat and pull one out randomly.</p>
<p>^That explains it…we were all wondering, but it seems not only the Peace Prize, there are others if you think about, they go to ones who produced the most negative results in connection to the subject. So, my guess is that first they decided which ones are the most outrageously negative, then they use “pull one out randomly” technique…this will be very consistant with some of them.</p>
<p>“The data is that Harvard College produces more Nobel prize winners than any other school. I listed several possible explanations–and a superior education is one possibility. Which explanation do you like?”</p>
<p>Agree, plus the data that the top-40 institutions are disproportionally more represented than the other 3,960 institutions.</p>
<p>Annasdad, what data do YOU have that educational institutution is not important?</p>
<p>It’s important for grad school. Undergrad–not as much. </p>
<p>Does Harvard have the most undergrads who won science Nobel Prizes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>–Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, “How College Affects Students, Volume 2: A Third Decade of Research.” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005, p. 641</p>
<p>Notyourbusiness,
It seems you are new to cc (welcome!) so you may not have had the pleasure of hearing AD drag out his 7 yr old pistachio and tetrazinni reference ad nauseum. Its his one trick pony. The answer to all that ails you. That said, I believe your question, if I read it correctly, was really asking what data there was that educational institution did not matter** with respect to the Nobel prize laureates.** If that is in fact your question, you might want to repost it with this asked specifically (he’ll duck my comment). However, if I were you, I’d stay away from this tiresome debate. You can click on his past posts and get an earful over and over and over…</p>
<p>Does Deresiewicz consider a limited number of nobel laureates from certain schools one of the Disadvantages of an Elite Education?</p>
<h1>127 collegealum: I was interested in whether anyone knows the answer, too. If any undergrad school produces a significant number?</h1>
<p>Hunt says Harvard college so I was thinking he meant undergraduate?</p>
<p>Wiki’s list shows school affiliation, but doesnt seem to break down affiliation by undergrad vs grad, and also lists schools they attended or did research at, but didnt get a degree, as well as then the academic positions (before the award). Impressive list. Harvard is # 8 <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation</a></p>
<p>NotYourBusiness said, “Interestingly, the article is trying to argue that undergraduate degree is not important, but looking at the numbers, it proves exactly the contrary: The likelyhood that someone which an undergraduate degree from a top scholl will win the Nobel in these two categories is much higher than that of people who went to non top schools.”</p>
<p>I guess it all depends on what you consider a top school. Places like Antioch, DePauw, Union, Gettysburg, Hunter, Hope, Rollins, Berea, U. of Dayton, Augsburg and Washington State aren’t usually considered heavy hitters. </p>
<p>There were three winners from Harvard on the combined lists out of a total of 50 winners. Not exactly overwhelming considering the fact that Harvard attracts applications from the creme de la creme of high school students.</p>
<p>@Sue22</p>
<p>For Medicine - What people would consider Top Schools</p>
<p>Brown University
Columbia University
MIT
Caltech
Harvard University
Columbia University
University of Pennsylvania
John Hopkins University
Yale University
Amherst College</p>
<p>For Medicine - What people would consider Good Schools</p>
<p>UC Berkeley
University of Washington
University of North Carolina
University of Minnesota
University of Notre Dame
University of Illinois
University of Texas</p>
<p>For medicine Other Schools</p>
<p>Antioch College
Case Institute of Technology
Hamilton College
DePauw University
Union College, Kentucky
Holy Cross
Gettysburg College
Hunter College</p>
<p>Given that there are a little more than 4000 colleges in US, my point stands that top schools are disproportionally over-represented. If school had no effect, the probability you would see 10 winners from top schools would be (40/4000)^10 = 1E-20 = 0.000000000000000001%.</p>
<p>the wiki list seems to indicate Harvard in the middle of the pack while Chicago and Columbia lead US.</p>
<p>Oh good grief, texaspg.</p>
<p>PG- Not understanding your post. texaspg is generally correct, per the list on wiki:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard isnt IMO in the"middle of the pack" but it is beat out by Chicago, Columbia, MIT, UCB</p>
<p>Because all of this ranking and caring about ranking differences of a few points is ludicrous. It’s ludicrous to suggest any meaningful differences between top universities on such fine criteria.</p>
<p>This isnt a “ranking”. Its a list of the number of people affiliated with the schools who won the Nobel prize. But I agree with you. One should not assume a 1:1 correlation between these numbers and some meaningful representation of “rank”.</p>
<p>Maybe they should make a list of where the winners are from. But a list of the number from any one state would have no meaning/implication/correlation re: the greatness of that state :)</p>
<p>NotYourBusiness-
My point, and the point of the author, is that given that one would expect the top schools to have a disproportionate share of the top students, they do not seem to have an exclusive hold on Nobels.</p>
<p>Of course if you want to compare Harvard and Yale to the community college down the street you’ll find the Ivies to be an advantage. Seems silly to me.</p>
<p>I attended External Links and my DH graduated from See Also so I guess we’re in good company! :)</p>