<p>"Lower Ivies = being one of the worse players in the pro-bowl in my opinion."
lol...</p>
<p>Hausdorff,
Your impassioned defense of Columbia is mostly well received. No one is knocking Columbia (at least I"m not) as it is a terrific academic institution. </p>
<p>Having now given you your props, I and others are asking that you and others in the NE realize that there is a wide and wonderful world out beyond the Hudson river. It is called the United States and there are a lot of very smart people and very good schools out there as well. If you've visited any of the 8 non-Ivies mentioned here (Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, USC, Wake Forest), then you should know that, but I'm guessing that you have not visited any of them. And, like many people in NYC and the Northeast, actually know very little about them. I encourage you and others to withhold your judgment (and your scorn) and give these schools a little closer look (and hopefully a little more respect). They all offer a terrific undergraduate experience that, for many students, would be better and preferable to anything they could experience in NYC or elsewhere in the Ivy League.</p>
<p>P.S. With regard to the "lower Ivies" this is both a compliment to HYP (which I do think stand alone with Stanford as the premier colleges in America) and also likely an unfortunate description of the other five great colleges in the Ivy League. If you can suggest another useful short-hand phrase for this group of schools, that might be helpful.</p>
<p>Stealing from TheThoughtProcess "non-HYP Ivies"</p>
<p>ok, I'll use that going forward</p>
<p>sorry if I offended with the other expression</p>
<p>Hausdorff (re post 48) UC Santa Barbara's faculty has won more Nobel prizes in the past 10 years than Columbia's has. Anyone here ready for a "new Ivy" on the beach in California? Surf's up, Dude!</p>
<p>Kluge.</p>
<p>Names and dates won please. Thanks. I am jsut not sure about this so I thought I would inquire...not trying to be an a@@$% hole.</p>
<p>Um to Kluge.</p>
<p>Faculty Affiliation at Columbia Nobel Prize
Orhan Pamuk Committee on Global Thought Literature, 2006
Edmund S. Phelps Dept. of Economics Economics, 2006
Robert H. Grubbs Dept. of Chemistry Chemistry, 2005
Richard Axel Center for Neurobiology & Behavior Physiology/Medicine, 2004
Joseph Stiglitz Dept. of Economics Economics, 2001
Horst L. Stormer Dept. of Physics Physics, 1998
Eric Kandel Center for Neurobiology & Behavior Physiology/Medicine, 2000
Robert Mundell Dept. of Economics Economics, 1999
William S. Vickrey Dept. of Economics Economics, 1996</p>
<p>Columbia has won 9 Nobel prizes in 10 years, 2nd most in the world overall, and tied with UChicago for the most in Economics. UC Santa Barbara has >9 in the past 10 years??? SHow me.</p>
<p>Check out the nobelprize.org site, which lists faculty awarded, years, and university affiliation. Under Columbia, Grubbs (2006) isn't listed, nor is the Orhan Pamuk Committee on Global Thought Lit (2006). Maybe they forgot to list those 2?? Oh, wait. Grubbs is listed, but under Cal Tech; maybe he moved to Columbia later.</p>
<p>UC Santa Barbara is listed as having 4 faculty awarded since 1998 (1 in 1998; 2 in 2000; 1 in 2004). There's also a separate listing for the UC Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara (1 in 2004).</p>
<p>Truazn, 1996 was more than ten years ago, so Vickrey doesn't count. :) . But I'll give you this one - UCSB has only had 6 Laureates since 1998: Finn E. Kydland 2004 (Econ) David J. Gross 2004 (Physics) Frank Wilczek 2004 (Physics) Alan J. Heeger 2000 (Chem) Herbert Kroemer 2000 (Physics) and Walter Kohn 1998 (Chem). Columbia was trailing in 2004, but has pulled ahead with a strong couple of years. (Pamuk reportedly came to Columbia as a visiting professor after he won the prize in 2006, and is planning to return for at least one more year.)</p>
<p><edit> Maybe I threw in the towel too soon. Grubbs is indeed at Cal Tech - he only got his PhD at Columbia. So over 10 years, UCSB 6, Columbia 6 + a temporary visiting prof. Hmm.</edit></p>
<p><re-edit> Oops. Looks like Wilczek is in the same category as Grubbs - did his work in Santa Barbara, but is currently at MIT. Point: Columbia.</re-edit></p>
<p>Frank Wilczek is listed under MIT for 2004/Physics, not UC Santa Barbara. Still . . . that temporary visiting professor at Columbia can't really count for Columbia, can it??</p>
<p>Sorry, Kluge. We cross-posted.</p>
<p>This is quite a lot of debate about Nobel Prizes considering that it is unclear why the number of Nobels matters when discussing anything other than a university's combined strength in Economics, Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine (not Literature, since Nobels are generally for writers, not scholars). Sort of an arbitrary characteristic, isn't it? And in some ways it doesn't even measure that, as even at a university with many winners, only a tiny fraction of even the faculty in those fields will have won one. And besides, most Nobel winners don't teach undergrads. As an example, I searched Columbia's online course listings for every single one of its recent Nobel winners, and not a single one showed up teaching a course in Columbia College in 2006-2007.</p>
<p>It's useful for rating grad schools, maybe, for which, indeed, the UCs are some of the top.</p>
<p>It's useful for determining who has the very best scholars in a very few areas. But, having a single Nobel prize winner in a department (or even two or three) doesn't tell you that much about the overall strength of the department. And it's only useful to a grad student if that student's thesis adviser is going to be one of the Nobel winners. As an example, Yale has a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry on its faculty (Sidney Altman). The most recent NRC rankings put its graduate chemistry program at 12th in the nation. UC Berkeley has no current active Nobel laureates in Chemistry (its only winner since 1961, Yuan Lee, is emeritus). Those same NRC rankings put its department 1st. Looking at numbers of Nobel laureates is a very imprecise way to look at anything beyond how many Nobel laureates a university has.</p>
<p>I don't think that there is any other place in the world where people would actually debate this.</p>
<p>Oh, and Nobel Prize winner does not necessarily mean good teacher. Or teaching at all.</p>
<p>Finn Kydland taught Econ 101 at UCSB the spring after he won the Nobel Prize. He got decent student reviews as a teacher. But I think he's the exception to the rule.</p>
<p>NObel Prize Winner! He's gonna help me get a great first job!</p>
<p>I put down "Took class with Jared Diamond, winner of Pulitzer Prize" on every resume and CV I submit. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, and Nobel Prize winner does not necessarily mean good teacher. Or teaching at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Besides, the point is anyone who thinks that UC Santa Barbara is > than Columbia based on Nobel Prize winners on the faculty should probably put down the surf board and get in from the sun.</p>
<p>I think that what gets lost in this site so so so so so so often is that schools should be about what the person wants. I know people who made choices for undergrad that would make many people on this site simply faint from shock.</p>
<p>But they are happy, successful, whole people who defined themselves with something other than their school name.</p>
<p>If you are looking for a suitable academic oriented campus comparable to a Dartmouth or Yale, why would you only limit your choices to a Division I school. It seems as though you are blindsided in your college search. Have you ever visited Harvard or Columbia? I trust that you haven't, because if you had you would realize that those campuses are not notorious for their athletics or social lifes. In fact I don't feel that the other Division I schools you compared the Princetons to are in any way comparable as far as campus feel is concerned. Duke, Wake Forest, UVA, and Notre Dame are all known not only for their high level of academia but also for their athletic powerhouses. However any top new england school one will find that besides the few exceptions such as Boston College basketball, athletics affecting the campus life or feel of the campus are minute to say the least. So if you're looking to find a school of comparable nature to an ivey then why not consider a small college in New England with the same level of academic achievement.</p>