<p>The amount of Nobel Lauriates ( spelling?) that are associated with a University does not increase the quality of the undergraduate education. Its illogical to say that " our university is better because we have X amount of Noble prize winners"</p>
<p>This is, infact, a logical fallacy; irrelevant appeals.</p>
<p>So, please stop posting that the University of Chicago deserves to be higher that X U because it has 70+ Nobel Lauriates assocaited with it.</p>
<p>Partly true, but it is still a distinguishing feature of a school. And if these faculty are teaching undergraduates, then why doesn't that increase the quality of education? I'd love to be taught by someone who won the Nobel prize. Who could be more qualified? Unless of course, this is someone who is so concerned with research and graduate students that they have little time for undergrads (which is likely the case).</p>
<p>Uchicago is overrated. Its professors are nerdy social rejects who are too busy with their own lives to help out the students and the school itself only offers good LACish majors.</p>
<p>As cool as it is to say "my prof won a Nobel prize," the Nobel is a research prize, not a teaching prize. These people are often
a. not teaching undergrads at all or
b. not very good teachers, even though they are brilliant researchers or
c. would be good teachers, but don't have the time because of their intense, high-pressure research.</p>
<p>Sure, it's a big deal, and congrats to Chicago... but faculty reserach awards do not necessarily translate directly into superior undergraduate experience. There are lots of great things about Chicago, and I think they would do themselves a favor to focus their recruitment literature on some of their stronger selling points.</p>
<p>I disagree with Sternman's statement, though -- some of Chicago's best departments are Physics and Economics -- not simply "good LACish majors" like polisci and classics.</p>