<p>Hello Hausdoff - I havent seen you post for quite some time. Good to hear from you b/c I love the debates. </p>
<p>Since you mentioned me directly, I will respond to your comments.</p>
<p>1) No, I don't think the number of Nobel Prize winners makes a huge difference to undergrad or grad education. There are many other faculty metrics to select that are more of a quality determinant than the Nobel stat </p>
<p>1a) Just for good measure, Columbia is usually quoted having 80+ Nobel winners affiliated with the school. However, the vast majority of that 80 are NOT at the school today (it's a cumulative number over time) - most other schools do NOT calc their Nobel winners that way [certainly H Y and S do not]</p>
<p>1b) even if all 80 were at Columbia right now, that's 80 out of ~3200 faculty members. Less than 3 percent. Hmmm......</p>
<p>1c) Whether it's a "REAL" 80 Nobels or not, no one in academia would state Columbia's faculty is stronger overall than HYPSMCalTech or possibly even Chicago. Claiming the Nobel number impresses layman, but few others.</p>
<p>Not to bash Columbia at all BTW - a stat I trust much more is the Center for Measuring University Performance, which lists Columbia at #7 among all private schools, just a smidge behind Princeton and Yale. Damn good, but that's the more applicable stat.</p>
<p>Re Grad schools (which BTW is entirely unrelated to the OP)</p>
<p>IMHO, Columbia is 3rd in quality among the Ivies in professional schools (behind Harvard and Penn) and probably tied for 4th with Penn in graduate arts and sciences (after Princeton, Harvard, Yale). Outside of the Ivies, only Stanford [the only really challenger to Harvard], Chicago, MIT, Duke and maybe Michigan come close in all-around excellence.</p>