Top 5 Nobel laureates rankings by university affiliation

<p>List</a> of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>Top 5<br>
1. Columbia 97<br>
2. Chicago 85<br>
3. MIT 80
4. Harvard 74
5. Berkeley 66 </p>

<p>Graduate Only
1. Harvard 45
2. Columbia 38
3. Chicago 29
4. Berkeley 26
4. MIT 26</p>

<p>Top 10
1. Columbia 97<br>
2. Chicago 85<br>
3. MIT 80
4. Harvard 74
5. Berkeley 66<br>
6. Stanford 51<br>
7.Yale 49<br>
8.JHU 33
9.NYU 33
10.Princeton 32</p>

<p>Top 10 Graduate Only
1. Harvard 45
2. Columbia 38
3. Chicago 29
4. Berkeley 26
4. MIT 26
6. Yale 18
7. JHU 15
8. Princeton 13
9. NYU 8
9 .Stanford 8</p>

<p>Any use of this data over here?</p>

<p>Well it shows the quality of each school UG education as well.</p>

<p>From below you can say that
H,C,C,B,M are good schools to produce Nobel Laureatses.
while Yale, Princeton , Stanford are not as good as people think.</p>

<p>“Top 10 Graduate Only(including UG)”</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard 45</li>
<li>Columbia 38</li>
<li>Chicago 29</li>
<li>Berkeley 26</li>
<li>MIT 26</li>
<li>Yale 18</li>
<li>JHU 15</li>
<li>Princeton 13</li>
<li>NYU 8
9 .Stanford 8 </li>
</ol>

<p>From here you can say that Stanford, Yale, Princeton acquire them from other schools.
(money, Prestige etc?)</p>

<p>Top 10

  1. Columbia 97
  2. Chicago 85
  3. MIT 80
  4. Harvard 74
  5. Berkeley 66
  6. Stanford 51
    7.Yale 49
    8.JHU 33
    9.NYU 33
    10.Princeton 32</p>

<p>Also is it one of the reasons you go to elite Schools to learn from the Nobel Laureates?</p>

<p>you missed out caltech, with 17 graduates being Nobel laureates, and 32 prizes in total (tied with princeton)</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/984795-production-nobel-prize-winners-college-per-student.html?highlight=nobel[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/984795-production-nobel-prize-winners-college-per-student.html?highlight=nobel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>((Number of Nobel Prize Graduates, Researchers and Attendees) x 10,000)/college total enrollment</p>

<p>84.5 - Caltech
43.4 - MIT
42.1 - Princeton
33.6 - Haverford
32.8 - Swarthmore
32.4 - Univ. of Chicago
31.4 - Harvard
22.9 - Amherst
22.4 - Yale
21.9 - Columbia
16.2 - WashStl
15.6 - Oberlin
13.4 - UC Berkeley
10.6 - Hamilton
7.9 - Carnegie Mellon
7.8 - Johns Hopkins
7.6 - Stanford
6.8 - Cornell
5.3 - Rice
5.0 - Dartmouth</p>

<p>Be forewarned, universities are taking credit for people even if they just served there as visiting profs for a semester.</p>

<p>The official count does not include affiliates for less than one year
From

[List</a> of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation]List”>List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>I don’t get how Nobel Laureates teaching at an institution make the place more desirable, unless you want to mooch off the lifelong accomplishments of others.</p>

<p>Nobel Laureates aren’t necessarily better teachers than you’re run-of-the-mill professor.</p>

<p>In fact, Nobel Laureates are more likely to be less competent teachers, because in the prestige-driven world of academia, the fewer courses one has to teach, the greater one’s distinction. Moreover, many of these top researchers must have had as much time outside the classroom as possible to have accomplished what they did.</p>

<p>With regards to the possibility of working with the Laureates as an undergraduate–not every single undergraduate wants to do research or can do research. Out of thousands of undergraduates, only a handful of exceptional students will be able to undertake original research under the direct supervision of these professors.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The data you cited from your above link missed Cornell University in the initial two top 10 lists.</p>

<p>The corrected lists should read as follows:</p>

<p>Top 10

  1. Columbia 97
  2. Chicago 85
  3. MIT 80
  4. Harvard 74
  5. Berkeley 66
  6. Stanford 51
    7.Yale 49
    8. Cornell 42
    9.JHU 33
    9.NYU 33</p>

<p>Top 10 Graduate Only

  1. Harvard 45
  2. Columbia 38
  3. Chicago 29
  4. Berkeley 26
  5. MIT 26
  6. Yale 18
  7. JHU 15
    8. Cornell 13
  8. Princeton 13
  9. NYU 8</p>

<p>“The official count does not include affiliates for less than one year”
Not sure whether all universities were reported that way, since individual ones were mentioned individually in that link.</p>

<p>Even so, I will amend.
Be forewarned, universities are taking credit for people even if they just served there as visiting profs for a year. </p>

<p>This came to my attention when I noticed how many universities were claiming Hans Bethe, who was a Cornell professor for his entire time in the US.</p>

<p>[A</a> Nobel Prize for Creativity - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/10/science/sci-nobelinflate10]A”>A Nobel Prize for Creativity)</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Since when does wikipedia count as “official” anything? Wikipedia is not a citable source for research or scholarly publications.</p>

<p>^Agree. I might have edited it some seconds ago…:D</p>

<p>Can’t we get anything ‘really’ official?</p>

<p>“I don’t get how Nobel Laureates teaching at an institution make the place more desirable, unless you want to mooch off the lifelong accomplishments of others.”</p>

<p>Not nobel laureates per se, but top research departments generally. There is a “trickle down effect”, marquis profs. attract other top profs, which attracts top grad students, which translates to smart profs and smart TAs.</p>

<p>It has been my experience that, all things being equal, I prefer to be taught and graded by people who are smart than people who are not. It follows therefore that, to the extent that TAs are involved in these activities, , it’s better to have smart TAs than dumb TAs. The “strong” departments are more likely to have them.You may not want TAs altogether, but that’s a different story.</p>

<p>Being graded by an idiot is not fun.</p>

<p>

Agreed. Three main problems: </p>

<p>1) Several universities have a propensity to embellish their numbers. Of Chicago’s 85 Nobel laureates, only 30 are alumni. Many of the rest researched at Chicago for only a few months, often decades before winning the Nobel (e.g. Ada Yonath). Of Berkeley’s 66 Nobel laureates, only 25 are alumni. </p>

<p>2) Per capita needs to be a factor, but it should only include relevant fields. Dartmouth is 2.8 times as large as Caltech, but Caltech graduates 5.6 times as many physicists each year.</p>

<p>3) Lumping the prizes together fails to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of a university. Econ and physics make up 2/3 of all alumni Nobel laureates at Chicago; no alumni have won the peace prize, and only 1 has won the literature prize. Chemistry makes up nearly 1/2 of Berkeley’s alumni Nobel laureates; no alumni have won the Nobel in peace or literature.</p>

<p>

They are normally past their teaching prime. The average age of a Nobel laureate in economics is 67, for example ([citation](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1093/is_2_42/ai_54259868/]citation[/url]”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1093/is_2_42/ai_54259868/)</a>). Many (if not most) Nobel laureates are full time researchers or emeritus professors, perhaps teaching a token seminar or survey class every now and again.</p>

<p>I have a friend who was under Milton Friedman when Milton was professor at U Chicago. My friend who is 58, said, Milton was nothing special. Did my friend benefit from Milton? Yes. Was my fried successful? Some what, but nothing outstanding.</p>

<p>Having said that, to have many Nobel laureates from the school just can show the school’s acadamic strength. It does not apply to the students who is there or otherwise. Chances to be one of them (Nobel laureates) are slim to none. I have done a little bit study on the subject. What I found, in addition to Warb’s posting are:</p>

<p>1/ Most Nobel laureates went to more than one school and each one of them claims him as its loot. So, one Nobel laureate may goto Duke for UG, transfered to Harvard for Upperclassman, Do Graduate work at Chicago and postdoc at MIT and finally teach one year at Yale and so on, so every school claim him/her as thier Nobel laureates.
2/ some of the Nobel laureates are so ancient that they really do not have any influence in today’s classroom. Its just a name, for the school to brag upon, that is all.</p>

<p>How about a list that only accounts for living associations? As great and awe inspiring as Enrico Fermi and Isaac Rabi are, lets not forget that they are, in fact, dead.</p>

<p>A more realistic view would be account for the Nobel laureates that are in current faculty. But it really does not matter to UG students, because the Nobel laureates will not teach UG classes. It will be totally waste of resources for the Uni to assign Nobel laureates to UG…</p>

<p>Nevertheless, it is done, I had two classes myself.</p>

<p>(hmmm, actually I don’t remember whether they’d won it by then or only afterwards…)</p>

<p>Quote:
UCBChemEGrad </p>

<p>Berkeley
George Smoot, Berkeley physics prof, Nobel prize winner teaching undergrads in 2006 when he won the award .I searched the current schedule of classes…he’s leading a small, interdisciplinary undergrad research course in the Spring semester with 15 undergrads.</p>

<p>Caltech Nobel Site
Besides supervising his graduate students, he also teaches undergraduate physics, and has won Stanford’s Gores Award for excellence in teaching. ROBERT MERTON (b. 1944) Robert Merton shared the 1997 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic</p>

<p>MIT</p>

<p>Professor Schrock won the Nobel prize for his “for the development of the metathesis method in organic synthesis.”</p>

<p>Courtesy of the MIT News Office:</p>

<p>Schrock was cited by the Nobel committee for being the first to produce an efficient metal-compound catalyst for metathesis–a chemical process wherein two reacting structures swap places–in 1990.
Now I don’t know about you, but I think this is pretty cool. What’s even cooler is that these professors actually teach undergrads, including freshmen. This year, one of the TA’s for that class is Wolfgang Ketterle, winner of the Nobel</p>

<p>UC Santa Barbara…</p>

<p>Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman Pioneers Use Of Technology In Teaching Undergraduates
Nobel laureate Carl Wieman, distinguished professor of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says the use of an electronic feedback system and other innovations are improving learning in his undergraduate class of non-science majors. </p>

<p>U of Chicago
Robert E. Lucas Jr. (Nobel, Economics 1995) taught a course each year to undergraduates; as far as I know he still holds an appointment in the College. Roger Myerson (Nobel, Economics 2007) teaches Economics 207, Introduction to Game Theory. </p>

<p>Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
Herschbach has served as chairman of the chemistry department and of its chemical physics program. His teaching includes graduate courses in quantum mechanics, chemical kinetics, molecular spectroscopy and collision theory, as well as undergraduate courses in physical chemistry and general chemistry for freshmen.</p>