Top 5 Nobel laureates rankings by university affiliation

[vonlost]

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

<p>Not likely; it’s probably no better than irrelevant. You’d probably be better off choosing undergrad schools where undergrad textbook authors teach.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>Boosters of schools that have a strong Nobel Laureate history will argue that it matters to the undergrad; boosters of schools without a strong Nobel Laureate history will argue it doesn’t…the truth is somewhere in between.</p>

<p>

You’d probably be better off choosing undergrad schools where undergrad textbook authors teach.

My second semester organic chemistry professor at Berkeley was a co-author of the textbook used…Worse class ever.</p>

[artloversplus]

<p>Most schools that have Nobel Laureates are better or elite schools. But it does not automatically translate some one’s success by attending that. Its just add some prestige factor. You just have to pick the school you’d fit, not based on how many Nobel Laureates a school had, but lots of ppl do.</p>

<p>btw, I had the author who wrote the Taxation Text book as the professor, was the best class I have ever had and made me major in taxation in graduate school, but most students in my class did not like him. His test was from such a left field that to understand the question was the biggest challenge. Almost everyone got a D in the first quiz. His office hour was in the classroom, one hour before and one hour after… The school gave him that.</p>

[vonlost]

<p>“My second semester organic chemistry professor at Berkeley was a co-author of the textbook used…Worse class ever.”</p>

<p>Orgo does that to people! ;)</p>

[keihanna]

<p>Quote:
Most schools that have Nobel Laureates are better or elite schools. … Its just add some prestige factor.</p>

<p>Don’t we argue about “Prestige Factor” over here again and again?(HYPSM etc)</p>

<p>Without HCCBM (UG included)
We would have had 164 less Nobel Laureates.</p>

<p>Top 10 Graduate Only

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

<ol>
<li>Yale 18</li>
<li>JHU 15</li>
<li>Cornell 13</li>
<li>Princeton 13</li>
<li>NYU 8 </li>
<li>Stanford 8</li>
</ol>

[bluebayou]

<p>

In fact, Nobel Laureates are more likely to be less competent teachers

</p>

<p>I trust that you can source your opinion? :)</p>

<p>btw: google Glenn Seaborg.</p>

[chuams]

<p>the accurate list should be:</p>

<p>Top 10 Graduate Only

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

<ol>
<li>Yale 18</li>
<li>Caltech 17</li>
<li>JHU 15</li>
<li>Cornell 13</li>
<li>Princeton 13</li>
<li>NYU 8 </li>
<li>Stanford 8</li>
</ol>

[vonlost]

<p>

Well it shows the quality of each school UG education as well.

I trust that you can source your opinion? ;)</p>

[sefago]

<p>

Orgo does that to people!

</p>

<p>I still dont understand why people dont like orgo. It was my favorite class in college lol. </p>

<p>Dont forget the LACs- they have produced a significant number of nobel laureates. Amherst has around 5 and the best thing about them is that they rarely claim post-docs and whatnot as NL holders.</p>

[manhattaniter]

<p>UC Berkeley has approximately 5X the number of students as Stanford. So per capita wise, Stanford has produced more Nobel Laureates than Berkeley. Also, keep in mind that Stanford was a regional backwater for most of its history and didn’t emerge as a world class university until the Cold War Era. What Stanford has done in the last 50 or so years is nothing short of phenomenal.</p>

<p>And Stanford currently has 16 Nobels on its faculty to Berkeley’s 8, despite the fact that Berkeley’s faculty size is much, much larger.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

And Stanford currently has 16 Nobels on its faculty to Berkeley’s 8, despite the fact that Berkeley’s faculty size is much, much larger.

Some fact checking:</p>

<ol>
<li>Berkeley does not have a medical school.</li>
<li>Stanford “tenure line faculty” = 1,910 ([Faculty:</a> Stanford University Facts](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html]Faculty:”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html))</li>
<li>Berkeley faculty = 1582 full time + 500 part time = 2,082 ([Facts</a> at a glance - UC Berkeley](<a href=“By the numbers - University of California, Berkeley”>By the numbers - University of California, Berkeley))</li>
</ol>

[manhattaniter]

<p>I guess that Duke and Penn aren’t good schools because they don’t have a lot of Nobels. Forget about Brown and Dartmouth too.</p>

<p>LOLOLOL.</p>

[manhattaniter]

<p>

@UCBChemEGrad

Quote:
And Stanford currently has 16 Nobels on its faculty to Berkeley’s 8, despite the fact that Berkeley’s faculty size is much, much larger. </p>

<p>Some fact checking:</p>

<ol>
<li>Berkeley does not have a medical school.

</li>
</ol>

<p>ROTLMAO. You Berkeley people love to cherry pick. When you’re talking about the NRC rankings and what-not, you’re always saying that UCSF is Berkeley’s “de facto” med school. But when it doesn’t suit your purposes, you disown it?? Gimme a break already.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ I guess you don’t like " 'em apples"… :)</p>

[manhattaniter]

<p>How do you like 'em? 16 to 8, baby!! :D</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ And how many of those teach in the medical school? ;)</p>

<p>Bah! I looked it up myself: (<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>Steven Chu is a prof at Berkeley and was head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab before becoming Energy secretary. </p>

<p>Two are senior fellows of the Hoover Institution. One is at the medical school. Three are at the linear accelerator lab.</p>

[manhattaniter]

<p>I dunno. But at least we have one…hehe!!</p>

[manhattaniter]

<p>A REAL one, not just “de facto”!</p>

[manhattaniter]

<p>

@keihanna

Well it shows the quality of each school UG education as well.

</p>

<p>So much for the top LACs (Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, Pomona) which, by the way, all have higher per capita PhD production than Berkeley, Columbia, etc.</p>

[manhattaniter]

<p>

@keihanna

Stanford, Yale, Princeton acquire them from other schools.
(money, Prestige etc?)

</p>

<p>Yep. Stanford, Yale and Princeton have much more money and prestige than Berkeley. Don’t be jealous. Enjoy watching the richer schools steal your star faculty. It’s already started:</p>

<p>

When my son was trying to decide on a college a few years ago, his choices ultimately narrowed down to two: a fancy Ivy League institution or the University of California at Berkeley. After some soul-searching, he ended up opting for the Ivy League, and my wife and I certainly didn’t object.

</p>

<p>

But still, without intending any particular political agenda, and without adducing on UCB’s behalf any hierarchy of injustice or worthiness, I still would like to acknowledge the tragedy of what’s about to happen. It’s not the only tragedy, nor even necessarily the worst tragedy, but it’s a very great tragedy. The damage to the university is likely to be irreversible. It will be less able to compete with other institutions in the hiring of distinguished faculty. Funding for complex research will be less accessible. Tuition fees will inevitably rise, as they’ve already risen, putting the place out of reach for the underprivileged. Staff will be let go. Programs will be zeroed out. No doubt Berkeley will remain an estimable institution, and a significant player in the intellectual and economic life of the state. But its days as one of the very greatest universities in the country are clearly numbered.

</p>

<p>[UCB</a> RIP - Erik Tarloff - National - The Atlantic](<a href=“UCB RIP - The Atlantic”>UCB RIP - The Atlantic)</p>